Correct The Record Thursday September 4, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
Correct The Record Thursday September 4, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:
Tweets:
Correct The Record @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton elevated energy as a driver of foreign policy #HRC365 http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-fueling-americas-energy-future/ … [9/4/14, 11:01 a.m. EDT]
Correct The Record @CorrectRecord: .@SSNAlerts reports @HillaryClinton is "the heavy favorite" among Florida voters: http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-leads-floridians-jeb-bush-and-marco-rubio-in-florida/ … [9/3/14, 4:02 p.m. EDT]
Correct The Record @CorrectRecord: HRC "has consistently shown her support and dedication to the issues that matter most to Jewish Americans." http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/hillary_clinton_israel_and_the_jews … [9/3/14, 2:42 p.m. EDT]
Headlines:
MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton’s hard choices on energy”
“It has been more than six years since Hillary Clinton has been required to weigh in on domestic political issues, first ensconced in the State Department and then in private citizenship. But as she steps back onto the political stage, the potential 2016 presidential candidate will have to make some ‘hard choices’ on a handful of thorny issues that divide her own party.”
Politico Magazine: “The New Icon of the Left”
Glenn Thrush: “Do you think Hillary Clinton is a true progressive?” / Mayor Bill De Blasio: “Oh, absolutely. … Clearly, throughout the 2016 election cycle there will be a call for what we often call populism. But what I really think is [there will be] sort of a sharp truth-telling about the reality of the economy and the need for more profound answers, and I think she’ll be able to speak to that.”
Capital New York: “De Blasio defends Clinton liberalism, despite DLC unease”
“Mayor Bill de Blasio defended Bill Clinton's record on confronting economic inequality, and said Hillary Clinton is ‘absolutely’ a true progressive…”
“Rory Kennedy knows exactly who she wants to see in the White House next. When asked by HuffPost Live's Marc Lamont Hill about who she's eyeing for 2016, Kennedy was direct: ‘Hillary! I am so ready for Hillary, 100 percent.’”
New York Times: Style: “Elephant in the Room”
“The inflatable 10-foot-tall elephant, designed by the artist Tristin Lowe, is part of a collaboration between Made Fashion Week and the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation to raise awareness about the Clintons’ latest cause: ivory trafficking and the killing of African elephants.”
New York Times: “Characters Inspired by You-Know-Who”
[Subtitle:] “‘Madam Secretary,’ ‘State of Affairs’ and Other Series Channel Hillary Rodham Clinton”
Washington Times: “Hillary Clinton’s energy speech seen as possible run-up to White House bid”
“Hillary Rodham Clinton’s planned Thursday speech at a clean-energy summit in Las Vegas — a high-profile appearance before a crowd of influential environmentalists and powerful Sen. Harry Reid — is being seen by political watchers as a possible run-up to a White House bid.”
New York Times column: Gail Collins: “The Down Side of Reclining”
“It is possible that Hillary Clinton would not know the seat in front of her had reclined, since she is famous for being able to fall asleep at will.”
Articles:
MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton’s hard choices on energy”
By Alex Seitz-Wald
September 4, 2014, 7:21 a.m. EDT
It has been more than six years since Hillary Clinton has been required to weigh in on domestic political issues, first ensconced in the State Department and then in private citizenship. But as she steps back onto the political stage, the potential 2016 presidential candidate will have to make some “hard choices” on a handful of thorny issues that divide her own party.
“One salutary effect of Republican radicalism is to unify Democrats,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a moderate Democratic think tank that helped feed Bill Clinton’s White House with new policy ideas. “Having said that, there are some important fault lines that will become apparent as we move into the next presidential election cycle.”
One of those is on energy issues, and we may get a glimpse into Clinton’s thinking Thursday when she keynotes a clean energy summit in Las Vegas hosted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – though don’t expect too much news.
The National Clean Energy Summit has become a go-to destination for Democratic politicos, donors, and industry figures interested in clean energy, attracting the likes of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and many others.
This year, Reid will introduce Clinton, and White House councilor John Podesta, a longtime Clinton ally, will host the discussion. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and others will also be on hand.
Neera Tanden, the president of the progressive Center for American Progress think tank, which is co-sponsoring the event, told msnbc Clinton’s attendance is in keeping with the former secretary of state’s long record of support for clean energy.
“She’s going to talk about how this remains a potential area of economic growth and it’s increasingly one where we have global competition,” said Tanden, who was the policy director of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, citing China’s aggressive moves into solar energy. “She’s still looking at these things through an international lens.”
Democrats are in broad agreement on the majority of issues that deal with energy, the environment, and climate, said Tanden, and there were few meaningful differences between Clinton and then-Sen. Barack Obama on these issues during the 2008 primary. Of course, that doesn’t mean the candidates didn’t attack each other, but fights over the 2005 Energy Bill and a Gas Tax Holiday seem superficial today.
One area of agreement is on climate. As secretary of state, Clinton pushed hard for international climate treaties. But domestically, since most of Obama’s actions to curb emissions have been through executive authority, rather than legislative action, he’s going to need a successor to keep those policies alive.
“If Hillary Clinton is the next candidate, it’s going to be important that she continue the legacy that Obama has begun here by sustaining and strengthening what he started,” Michael Mann, a prominent climate policy researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, told msnbc. So far, Clinton has voiced support for Obama’s work, especially his carbon regulations.
But there are at least two outstanding issues which could prove problematic for any wannabe Democratic nominee. The first is the Keystone XL pipeline, which continues to split Democrats both in Reid’s caucus and in the broader public.
Clinton’s State Department oversaw the review process for the pipeline, but the 650 pages of her new memoir “Hard Choices” do not mention the project once. And she’s mostly dodged questions from reporters on the ground, saying it would improper for her to interfere with the ongoing review process. The environmental review process Clinton’ State Department started face criticism from the left as it was seen as being overly friendly to industry, leading to another review.
The pipeline is a catch 22 for Democrats: Approve it and face the ire of the left, cancel it and face the ire of the right. Many are hoping President Obama will take the hit on his way out to spare the next nominee, so perhaps Clinton won’t have to weigh in at all.
Either way, Tanden agreed it’s highly unlikely that Clinton will decide to make news on the pipeline Thursday.
The other energy issue that looks like it could split Democrats in 2016 is what do about the massive American oil and gas boom of recent years, brought about by the use of “fracking” techniques.
People in Marshall’s camp see this as an economic windfall for the U.S., in terms of jobs, investment, and energy independence. Environmentalists, on the other hand, are expressing growing concern about environmental damage, including everything from drinking water contamination leaks to man-made earthquakes.
A potential nominee will face pressure to crack down on fracking and federal regulations for the industry, which is now regulated by states.
Both sides are members in good standing of the Democratic coalition, and have legitimate claims, so it may require some Clintonian traingulation. “Anybody who wants to be the Democratic nominee will have to strike a balance between the needs of the economy and concerns about the environmental impact of energy production,” Marshall told msnbc. “It’s a fault line, so you’ve got to walk a line.
Politico Magazine: “The New Icon of the Left”
By Glenn Thrush
September/ October 2014
If there’s an issue Democrats hope will bind them together in the coming post-Obama era, it’s economic inequality. And no politician has reaped political benefit from, or experienced the frustrations of, attempting to attack the wealth gap more than New York’s liberal new mayor, Bill de Blasio. In 2013, the former Brooklyn councilman and Bill Clinton operative rode a tax-the-rich backlash built up after 20 years of governance by two unapologetic defenders of Wall Street, Republican Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, a multibillionaire Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-God-knows-what. The 53-year-old de Blasio ran a near-flawless campaign (his telegenic, biracial family was appealing in a multihued and overwhelmingly Democratic city—as was his opposition to the controversial “stop-and-frisk” policing tactic), but the ideological fuel for his bid was a bold pledge to fund a new universal pre-kindergarten program by imposing new taxes on rich New Yorkers. (The tax part was later scrapped after a fight with centrist New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.) It was a victory half-won, but de Blasio today sees himself at the front of a cresting national wave of progressive populism and offers a pointed message to fellow Democrats who resist: Go all-in on economic equality, or squander a historic opportunity to redefine American politics. The mayor recently discussed his ideas on inequality—and his belief that it will shape the campaigns of all prospective 2016 presidential candidates, especially Hillary Clinton—with Politico Magazine senior staff writer Glenn Thrush.
Glenn Thrush: Your election was viewed as a watershed for progressives, and the issue of economic inequality was at the center of that. Do you think it really signaled the revival of that as a major issue nationally?
Mayor Bill de Blasio: The dialogue around inequality is deepening, whether it’s wages and benefits, cost of living, affordable housing. … I think Elizabeth Warren has obviously tapped into that. So, look, the biggest city in the country moves in a progressive direction. The campaign is about the issue of inequality. Of course, that is a bellwether, but I think it is part of a much bigger set of developments nationally that point to where this debate is going.
GT: Isn’t it hard to translate these issues from the context of a place like New York to middle- and working-class whites in the Midwest, as the book What’s the Matter with Kansas? [historian Thomas Frank’s chronicle of the rise of right-wing populism] suggests? With all due respect, the “tale of two cities” was a great campaign slogan, but we’ve heard that sort of stuff before and it hasn’t created a nationwide movement.
BDB: There’s a lot of examples around the country of Democrats [embracing the issue]. … What’s the Matter with Kansas? is a very pertinent prism. It suggested to me that Democrats and progressives had not done a good enough job articulating a vision that was compelling and following through on that vision. … [It was] a period of lull, when the Democratic Party kind of lost its connection to that economic message and started to move away from it.
GT: President Clinton’s introduction of you [at de Blasio’s January 2014 inauguration] was striking, considering this was the man who was the avatar of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council movement, speaking forcefully about inequality.
BDB: I found it, you know, humanly gratifying and an important endorsement of what we were trying to do, obviously. But yes, I found it striking because of this: I think it was an example of how the times demanded a different response than might have been true 20 or 30 years earlier. …
In 1992, he was already talking about the decline of the middle class. In 1992, he was talking about the impact of technology in a changing economy. But there were some very powerful cross-pressures, in terms of social issues and all, that are different now. And we were closer to a time of prosperity and a sense of the permanence of American prosperity than we are today. I think what he reflected onJanuary 1st was a deep understanding of the fact … that something much bigger has happened now, where the economic issues are going to be much more central and the solutions have to be bigger and bolder—because of the decline in the middle class, which was starting in the late ’80s, early ’90s, has now galloped forward and has to be arrested and reversed.
GT: Your career is so intertwined with the Clintons, but to some extent you’re talking about redefining the Clinton lexicon for the Democratic Party from the 1990s into something new.
BDB: Well, I think that’s natural, though. The Clintons would be the first to say that—folks who have been leaders now over a quarter-century—that, by definition, a lot happens in a quarter-century, and you have to respond to changing dynamics.
If you look carefully, what he was saying, I thought, was very powerful and ahead of his time on the decline of the middle class and the change of the economy in the late ’80s, early ’90s; what she was saying on things like early childhood education and health care reform … Look, I was never comfortable with the DLC [the now-defunct, centrist Democratic Leadership Council allied with the Clintons]. I think the DLC’s time came and went. … Some of it was strategically understandable. [But] the Democratic activist base certainly voted with their feet and the DLC is no longer a pertinent part of the discussion.
GT: Do you think Hillary Clinton is a true progressive?
BDB: Oh, absolutely. … Clearly, throughout the 2016 election cycle there will be a call for what we often call populism. But what I really think is [there will be] sort of a sharp truth-telling about the reality of the economy and the need for more profound answers, and I think she’ll be able to speak to that.
GT: In your election—and in President Obama’s reelection campaign—you both essentially ran on tax increases for the wealthy. Do you think other Democrats will do the same?
BDB: Of course, absolutely. … I think that makes all the sense in the world to most Americans. And I think you will see more and more leaders talk about that fairness. I think you’re going to see it obviously on the inversion issue in terms of corporate taxes. This concentration of wealth is now so extreme, it’s clearly on people’s minds. It’s not a back-seat issue anymore.
GT: What did you think of Thomas Piketty’s book [Capital in the Twenty-First Century]? What do you think of Piketty’s idea of a wealth tax?
BDB: I think Piketty’s on the right track, because what we should have ideally is an international approach. … A global wealth tax would be one of the ways to actually get at long-term solutions. I’m the first to say that’s an incredibly theoretical construct—right? But there were people 150 years ago in Europe talking about a European Union, and everyone thought it was crazy.
GT: Back home, how can the left capture the kind of fervor that the Tea Party ignited? What you’re describing is more of a patchwork of ideas rather than a movement with a name, right?
BDB: I don’t think we should overestimate the Tea Party. I’m not going to take away that they had an impact. [But] I think they’re thoroughly in decline right now.
The whole Obama legacy is much bigger and farther-reaching than the Tea Party. … If you boil down Obama to health care alone, which, of course, in the [2008] primaries, was even more sharply Hillary’s issue—well, he wanted to act on health care, and he did act on health care. He was asking the wealthy to pay some more, and he acted on that. … That won the day in 2008 and 2012. It was not as thorough-going as it might have been. There’s clearly more levels of evolution.
Capital New York: “De Blasio defends Clinton liberalism, despite DLC unease”
By Reid Pillifant
September 4, 20141, 10:37 a.m. EDT
Mayor Bill de Blasio defended Bill Clinton's record on confronting economic inequality, and said Hillary Clinton is "absolutely" a true progressive, in an interview with POLITICO Magazine released today in conjunction with its POLITICO 50 list.
De Blasio was named the "New Icon of the Left" by the magazine, which ranked him 29th on a 50-person list of "thinkers and doers who really matter in this age of gridlock and dysfunction."
De Blasio was ranked under the banner "The New New Left" alongside Zephyr Teachout and Tim Wu, who are challenging Governor Andrew Cuomo and his running mate, Kathy Hochul, in next week's Democratic primary.
De Blasio endorsed Hochul yesterday, touting her as a "progressive," despite a relatively conservative voting record in Congress that included an A-rating from the National Rifle Association.
In the interview with POLITICO's Glenn Thrush, de Blasio defended Bill Clinton's legacy, saying he "was very powerful and ahead of his time on the decline of the middle class and the change of the economy in the late ’80s, early ’90s."
But de Blasio also conceded he was "never comfortable" with the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist Democratic group that was allied with the Clintons.
De Blasio predicted the 2016 presidential election will be "sort of a sharp truth-telling about the reality of the economy and the need for more profound answers, and I think [Hillary Clinton will] be able to speak to that."
De Blasio ended by saying: "My point is this: Something is happening. Something is happening that is much more universal than is being given credit for. … But we still don’t see enough of a crystallization in the Democratic Party of an economic-populism kind of message."
By Ryan Buxton
September 4, 2014, 12:40 p.m. EDT
Rory Kennedy knows exactly who she wants to see in the White House next.
When asked by HuffPost Live's Marc Lamont Hill about who she's eyeing for 2016, Kennedy was direct: "Hillary! I am so ready for Hillary, 100 percent."
The interview with Kennedy touched on her new film "Last Days In Vietnam," how her father Robert F. Kennedy could have changed that tumultuous period and, of course, the politics of today.
Kennedy endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008, but she admits Obama has had his share of roadblocks since his election. Many of those obstacles, however, can be attributed to efforts by the far right of the Republican Party to "undermine [Obama] on a personal level," Kennedy said, adding that the same would likely be true if Clinton had won in 2008 instead.
"It's mostly about strategy, [but] I think there's definitely some strands of racism that underline it, and probably, for Hillary, sexism. But I think ultimately, they really don't want a member of the Democratic Party and what the Democratic Party represents to be successful," she said.
Kennedy added that Obama has taken the heat for a problems that ultimately stem from the GOP.
"The president is the face of the lack of momentum moving forward, but I think if you look behind that in terms of why that is, I think a lot of the responsibility needs to go to the Republican Party," Kennedy said.
New York Times: Style: “Elephant in the Room”
By John Koblin
September 3, 2014
[Subtitle:] The Clintons Raise Awareness for Their Latest Cause at Fashion Week
Over the next week, as the fashion world heads to Milk Studios in West Chelsea to see one of Made Fashion Week’s 15 runway shows, it will be greeted by a guest: a giant pink elephant.
The inflatable 10-foot-tall elephant, designed by the artist Tristin Lowe, is part of a collaboration between Made Fashion Week and the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation to raise awareness about the Clintons’ latest cause: ivory trafficking and the killing of African elephants.
“We have about 15,000 people flowing through the doors this week,” said Keith Baptista, a managing partner at Made Fashion Week.
The idea for the alliance with Made apparently started when Chelsea Clinton was chatting about the issue with Diane von Furstenberg and Oscar de la Renta at a party for the outgoing mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in early December. (“They’re two of our closest family friends,” Ms. Clinton said of the designers, adding that she and her mother had dinner with them on Tuesday night.)
Ms. von Furstenberg and Mr. de la Renta suggested that Ms. Clinton reach out to Anna Wintour, who in turn directed the Clinton Foundation to the Council of Fashion Designers of America. That’s when an introduction was made to Made.
“We feel that if we can build platforms around fashion and music and art, why can’t we also do something that has a political message?” Mr. Baptista said.
This year, Made Fashion Week will produce more than 30 runway shows and presentations (there will be shows at sites other than Milk Studios), including those by Public School, Jeremy Scott and Ohne Titel.
The Clintons wanted to target Fashion Week because of the sorts of people going to shows (“the press, the buyers, the influencers,” Mr. Baptista said) and the social media reach they have.
“Let’s say Karlie Kloss is going to Made and posts about the installation and the crisis, then her one million Instagram followers see it’s an issue,” said Ali Rubin, the deputy chief of staff for Chelsea Clinton. “We know that the people who follow her, for example, are likely the same people who are purchasing high-end goods — including, at times, ivory.”
In addition to the elephant installation, Suno, Pamela Love and Prize Pins will be designing accessories and jewelry for the initiative. (Those will be sold through the Milk store in the fall.)
“The Made community in particular can raise awareness why this is so wrong and not in our long-term interests,” Chelsea Clinton said.
New York Times: “Characters Inspired by You-Know-Who”
By Alessandra Stanley
September 3, 2014
[Subtitle:] ‘Madam Secretary,’ ‘State of Affairs’ and Other Series Channel Hillary Rodham Clinton
It could have been that photograph of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the White House Situation Room watching, hand over mouth, as cameras showed the SEAL Team Six raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound.
Or maybe it was the moment she blew up at senators questioning her handling of Benghazi. (“What difference at this point does it make?”)
For some reason, Mrs. Clinton is embedded in several new fall dramas, most obviously “Madam Secretary,” a new CBS drama with Téa Leoni playing a take-charge secretary of state. There are also imprints of Mrs. Clinton on an NBC show, “State of Affairs,” in which the president is a woman (Alfre Woodard) and her most trusted adviser (Katherine Heigl) is a bold C.I.A. analyst who daily assesses — and almost single-handedly averts — national security threats.
In both pilots, Hillaryesque heroines lobby for risky rescue operations in the Middle East and then watch via satellite as the mission unfolds. Both women defy naysayers who question their foreign policy decisions.
Five years ago, the only successful television drama about a woman in politics was “The Good Wife” on CBS, and that was about the blindsided wife of a philandering governor. A few years before, ABC tried to make a go with Geena Davis as the first female president in “Commander in Chief.” That show fizzled and was canceled.
But what is especially striking is that in an age of deep cynicism about Washington, the new portraits of women in high office are painted in rosy shades of respect and admiration. While many of their more self-serving colleagues pursue ignoble agendas, network heroines in top positions are multitasking do-gooders trying to keep the nation safe.
That may be welcome news to Mrs. Clinton, who has not yet announced whether she will run for president in 2016, and who is still floating high on suspense and raised expectations. But it’s a little dull for viewers in the mood for a juicier and more realistic drama à clef.
The White House is one of the few conspicuous glass ceilings left, so maybe television writers are reluctant to make light of so important a milestone.
Unless, of course, the Republican National Committee and other conservative groups that lobbied successfully last year to prevent NBC from going ahead with a mini-series starring Diane Lane as Mrs. Clinton had a point. The complaint then was that networks would favor Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy under the guise of providing entertainment; the committee threatened to boycott the debates held by networks that went ahead with their Hilliographies. (CNN also gave up on a planned documentary.)
Now, the joke is on those conservative scolds: These fictionalized versions are not as easily swatted down.
Mrs. Clinton is not the only muse shaping the new fall season of course. Carrie Mathison, the bipolar C.I.A. officer played by Claire Danes on “Homeland” (Showtime) has several imitators. Hope Davis plays a former K.G.B. undercover agent pressed back into service by a Putin-era spy ring on “Allegiance,” an NBC drama that also owes a lot to “The Americans” on FX.
And Shonda Rhimes, the creator of the ABC dramas “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Scandal,” may actually be more influential than Mrs. Clinton. Ms. Rhimes is an executive producer of a new ABC series that takes all the sex, power and conspiracy she packed into Washington and crams it into a law school classroom.
On the new show, Viola Davis plays Annalise Keating, a criminal defense expert who is as smart and scary as Glenn Close on “Damages” or John Houseman on “The Paper Chase.” Keating doesn’t teach constitutional law, she teaches a criminal defense course that is also the title of the series, “How to Get Away With Murder.”
There isn’t a lot of sex in the pilot of “Madam Secretary,” but there is plenty of West Wing power mongering and conspiracy. Only the heroine, Elizabeth McCord, is above the fray. And as secretary of state, she has to find a way around a hostile, hawkish and power-hungry chief of staff who seems a lot like Dick Cheney.
Elizabeth is an idealized version of Mrs. Clinton, with all the smarts and drive and none of the ambition. Unlike the real Mrs. Clinton, this secretary of state didn’t run for president; she didn’t even want to be in the cabinet. Elizabeth is a former C.I.A. analyst turned college professor with a husband, two children and a horse farm who is dragooned into public service. “You quit a profession you love for ethical reasons,” the president tells her. “That makes you the least political person I know.”
The chief of staff assigns a stylist to give Elizabeth a more pulled-together image. Elizabeth resists, until she finds a way to use the makeover to further a worthy cause.
Television used to indulge the Cinderella myth. Now it’s offering a Cincinnatus fantasy.
The pursuit of virtue seems almost perverse, given how well other series have done by focusing on the underbelly of politics. Ms. Rhimes showed the way with “Scandal”; everyone on that baroque nighttime soap has a fiendishly selfish agenda, especially the female vice president, though Olivia Pope, the Washington fixer played by Kerry Washington, is more noble than most.
Cable and Internet shows are even less inhibited. The women on the Netflix hit “House of Cards” are as corruptible and ruthless as any man, and the women on the Amazon show “Alpha House” are almost as foolish. On “Veep,” a satirical comedy on HBO about a vice president with her eye on the Oval Office, Julia Louis-Dreyfus channels all the pettiness, calculation and craven inaction that lie behind the C-Span curtain.
Political purity doesn’t require chastity. Maybe because Carrie on “Homeland” made it safe for a strong heroine to have casual sex with strangers, networks are daring to showcase heroines who engage in risqué — not to say risky — behavior by night.
It’s not promiscuity for pure pleasure, though. Not exactly. On “Homeland,” and also on “Black Box,” the recently canceled ABC medical drama about a bipolar neurosurgeon, hypersexuality is a symptom of the heroine’s condition. On “State of Affairs,” it’s a coping mechanism: Ms. Heigl plays Charleston Tucker, a high-level C.I.A. analyst whose fiancé was killed in a war zone and who assuages her grief by drinking heavily and picking up men in bars. Grief also drives Detective Jo Martinez (Alana De La Garza) on “Forever” on ABC to booze-soaked one-night stands.
Neither woman seems interested in dating or even polite morning-after chatter. Jo sneaks out of a man’s apartment and is irritated when he follows her out and asks to see her again. “If I want to find you, I will,” she says.
There are no such lapses on “Madam Secretary,” of course. That heroine is too busy balancing family responsibilities and the affairs of state to contemplate an extramarital affair. That’s a guy thing.
Washington Times: “Hillary Clinton’s energy speech seen as possible run-up to White House bid”
By Cheryl K. Chumley
September 4, 2014
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s planned Thursday speech at a clean-energy summit in Las Vegas — a high-profile appearance before a crowd of influential environmentalists and powerful Sen. Harry Reid — is being seen by political watchers as a possible run-up to a White House bid.
The former secretary of state is delivering the keynote speech at the daylong event, which puts her in a spot to show her support for environmental reforms to a large progressive-minded crowd with a lot of financial backing, Politico reported.
Her appearance also signifies that she may have resolved differences with Mr. Reid, who supported Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary instead of Mrs. Clinton. Their relationship has added importance with Nevada hosting a key early caucus in 2016, Politico reported.
“Both Hillary and Harry are consummate politicians,” former Nevada Rep. Shelley Berkley told Politico. “They understand the game, they understand the way it’s played. They are both shark enough and sophisticated enough not to pay attention to that sort of thing and look forward.”
A source who is close to Mr. Reid said the Democrat called Mrs. Clinton earlier this year and asked her to speak at the event, Politico reported.
New York Times column: Gail Collins: “The Down Side of Reclining”
By Gail Collins
September 3, 2014
I am trying to imagine how our national leaders would react if they got caught in a reclining airplane seat crisis. You know what I mean. If they were flying to some important meeting and the person in front flopped back into their personal space, crunching a laptop or bruising a knee.
Obviously, this doesn’t happen to real national leaders. Their airplanes have rooms, for heaven’s sake. But if it did.
President Obama would not yell. He would sigh a deep sigh. The atmosphere around him would grow very cold. More sighs. Time passes very slowly.
John Boehner might yell, but he would not actually expect anyone to pay any attention.
It is possible that Hillary Clinton would not know the seat in front of her had reclined, since she is famous for being able to fall asleep at will. Nancy Pelosi’s staff says she, too, is often conked out before the plane even takes off. Perhaps this is a woman thing, but, speaking as a woman, I doubt it.
Bill Clinton might simply regard the reclinee as a new listener who had entered his orbit unexpectedly, and begin recounting a very long story.
Joe Biden: “Now that you’re in my lap, would you mind taking a selfie?”
The reclining-seat debate has become a bit of an aviation crisis. We had three flight diversions in eight days recently because of it. The latest occurred this week when an elderly woman who was knitting dropped her seat back, bonking the woman sitting behind her, who had been resting her head on a tray table. You could see why the victim would be irked, but demanding that the pilot “put this plane down now” seems a bit much.
A flight from Miami to Paris wound up on the ground in Boston after a Frenchman took offense at being reclined upon. And then, of course, there was the United Airlines passenger who locked the seat in front of him into an upright position with a Knee Defender, and got a glass of soda thrown in his face. Two weeks ago, most of us had no idea something called a Knee Defender existed, and now we have intense opinions about whether or not it should be legal.
“I’d never heard of that product, but I think it’s a crazy idea,” said Representative Rick Larsen of Washington. Larsen is the lead Democrat on the House Aviation Subcommittee.
I think Washington needs to look into this. Americans want to know more about the airline recliner options, mainly because, at the moment, this is the only current affair that is not incredibly frightening or depressing. It could be the 2014 version of a feel-good public hearing. Yet no. “While he’s had his fair share of bruised knees and close quarters with his fellow passengers, Congressman LoBiondo does not believe this is an issue for Congress to tackle,” said a spokesman for Representative Frank LoBiondo, the chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee.
Well, maybe they’ll have a hearing about the theft of the naked movie star pictures.
Members of Congress do sometimes fly coach. The ones who’ve been around for a while often move into perpetual upgrade territory because they’ve been on so many airplanes they reach frequent-flier nirvana, like George Clooney in that movie. But most have their coach moments. Representative Larsen says he definitely does not yell when somebody reclines into his space. “In my job, I don’t want to be the person who makes someone else mad on an airplane,” he said. “No way.”
We all know, of course, that air travel is extremely uncomfortable. That your average economy seat is now 17 inches wide and has about 31 inches of space before the one in front. That the flights are frequently jam-packed, that the air terminals generally have the ambience of a North Korean hotel and the comfort of a mammogram.
Nobody expects a tasty snack or space in the overhead compartment. The reclining seat is the last remaining marketing symbol of travel comfort.
“‘Sit back, relax and enjoy your flight’ — I’ve been hearing that since I started doing this work,” said Sara Nelson, the president of the Association of Flight Attendants.
Maybe the airlines should just admit the truth. Instead of telling the benumbed passengers about their flotation devices, maybe the announcer could warn them, at the beginning of their flight, that reclining their chairs will probably create discomfort for the person behind them, and that they might want, at minimum, to go back gradually so the poor soul behind has a moment to adjust to the inevitable.
“We’ve not taken a position on that,” said Jean Medina, a spokeswoman for an airline trade association.
Passengers might behave better if they were encouraged to abandon hope. Instead of “Welcome Aboard,” the airlines could leave a message in the seat pockets: “Face it: You’re going to be uncomfortable and wide-awake for the next several hours.”
Unless you’re Nancy Pelosi.