Wondering what to expect from the right wing during Hillary Clinton’s live town hall on CNN this evening? Well, you don’t have to wonder too much.  The right has been taking swings and misses since her book roll out began, and their attacks have continuously been debunked with facts. To prepare for tonight’s town hall, we’ve put together the following list of the right wing’s swings and misses so far.

The RIGHT WING Swings and Misses

RNC: “STOP HILLARY”

The RNC plans to run a negative attack ad tonight during Hillary Clinton’s televised town hall on CNN.  While she talks directly with Americans about serious national and global issues, the right wing will be void of substance, focused on hyperbolic political attacks. Cherry picking select footage from Hillary Clinton’s Diane Sawyer interview last week, the ad attacks Clinton for being candid about her family’s finances leaving the White House when they were millions of dollars in debt.  Following the recent housing crisis, many Americans know what it is like to be financially upside down. Staying true to their principles, the Clintons have been generous with charities and noble causes as they paid off their debt and lived the American Dream.  Once again, the RNC turns to misleading on process instead of engaging on substantive truth. See the real facts, below.

RNC: “STOP HILLARY”
HILLARY CLINTON: We struggled. Dead broke. [ON-SCREEN: BROKE?]  HOWARD FINEMAN: Uh, come on. That was a disastrous comment.   TOURE: This is a tone-deaf comment.	THE RNC’S SELECTIVE MASH-UP SEVERELY MISQUOTES HILLARY CLINTON  Hillary Clinton: When we came out of the White House, we were “not only dead broke, but in debt” and struggled to “piece together the resources” to pay the mortgage. The following exchange took place on ABC: DIANE SAWYER: “It has been reported you’ve made $5 million making speeches. The president’s made more than $100 million.” HILLARY CLINTON: “Well, if you — you have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt. We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.” [ABC, 6/9/14]   CNN: “The Clintons departed the White House in debt.” “The Clintons departed the White House in debt, thanks to enormous legal fees. By the end of 2000, the Clintons carried debt totaling somewhere between $2.28 million to $10.6 million.” [CNN, 6/9/14]
FINEMAN: She didn’t struggle.  CHUCK TODD: Perhaps only hangs out with millionaires and donors?	Hillary Clinton: “We worked hard for everything we got in our lives.” In an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America, Hillary Clinton said, “Let me just clarify that I fully appreciate how hard life is for so many Americans today. It’s an issue that I have worked on and cared about my entire adult life. Bill and I were obviously blessed. We worked hard for everything we got in our lives. And we have continued to work hard.” [ABC, 6/10/14]  Since leaving the State Department, Hillary Clinton has met and spoken with students, faith leaders, and human rights activists – just to name a few. Since stepping down from the State Department, Hillary Clinton has met and shared her experiences with women’s rights activists in Malaysia, children in Arkansas, students in Pennsylvania, human rights activists in California and Washington, and faith leaders in Kentucky – just to name a handful.
HILLARY CLINTON: We’d make double the money. Get us houses. [ON-SCREEN: September 2, 1999]  ANCHOR: In Chappaqua, New York, 1.7 million dollars.   FINEMAN: Very fancy street in Washington. [ON-SCREEN: December 29, 2000]   VO: 2.85 million dollars.   HILLARY CLINTON: We struggled. Dead broke.   KEILAR: 8 million dollars. So she’s not really hurting. [ON-SCREEN: STOP HILLARY. DONATE NOW. GOP.COM]	THE RNC’S AGAIN SELECTIVELY MASHED-UP AND SEVERELY MISQUOTED CLINTON  Hillary Clinton: We had “to make double the money because there’s obviously taxes” and then we had to “pay off the debts and get us houses and take care of family members.” Hillary Clinton stated the following on ABC: “First of all, we had to pay off all our debts, which was — you know, you had to make double the money because there’s obviously taxes, and then pay off the debts and get us houses and take care of family members.” [ABC, 6/9/14]

 

AMERICA RISING: “CLINTON TRIES TO REWRITE HER RECORD ON SYRIA”

America Rising needs to get their facts straight. Today they launched an attack against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, accusing her of distancing herself from the Administration’s decision to go to Congress for authorization on Syria.  America Rising posted a partial video clip from her speech yesterday where Secretary Clinton stated that Obama’s decision was “his and his alone.” If you listen to the rest of the video, however, Secretary Clinton reinforces her respect for President Obama’s decision, as she has from the beginning.

ATTACK: Secretary Clinton distanced herself yesterday from the Administration’s decision to go before Congress on Syria. 

FACT: Secretary Clinton has made clear that, even though she advocated a plan to arm the Syrian rebels, it was “President Obama’s call” and she “respected his deliberations and decision.”

In her book Hard Choices, Secretary Clinton wrote, “[T]he risks of both action and inaction were high. Both choices would bring unintended consequences. The Presidents’ inclination was to stay the present course and not take the significant further step of arming rebels. No one likes to lose a debate, including me. But this was the President’s call and I respected his deliberations and decision. From the beginning of our partnership, he had promised me that would always get a fair hearing. And I always did. In this case, my position didn’t prevail.”  [Hard Choices, 2014]

FACT: Secretary Clinton stated that the decision to go to Congress was President Obama’s and “what troubled him was not having support by what was by then a quite contentious Congress.”

In a question and answer session with former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna, Sec. Clinton said, “Well I had supported the President’s statements around that time that there had to be consequences. And people say, why did he draw this red line, you should never draw red lines, and in fact it was because the use of chemical weapons has been outlawed and ostracized since WWI. And it’s the kind of aggressive action that cannot be allowed to go forward. So even if you aren’t willing to support certain elements of the opposition with arms, the Assad government’s use of chemical weapons, which it was not clear at first and then it became clear that they had, had to be stopped. It was a threat to the region and it would just lift off the top of the Pandora’s box. So I said at the time that I supported the President saying that there would have to be consequences, and I supported the President going to the extent of saying there would have to be military consequences. The decision he made about going to the Congress was really his and his alone. And I really think what troubled him was not having support by what was by then a quite contentious Congress. Because even though we have what is called great ‘standoff military power,’ we have aircraft carriers, we have cruise missiles, we have all kinds of means of trying to pinpoint chemical weapons storage facilities or convoys, you are never going to predict what’s going to happen.” [Sec. Clinton speech at Toronto’s Sheraton Centre, 6/16/14] 

FACT: Secretary Clinton reinforced her respect for the Administration’s decision to go to Congress on Syria, stating her thought that President Obama “knew he wanted to do something” and that “I made a statement endorsing the effort to get out, the chemical weapons.” 

In a question and answer session with former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna, Sec. Clinton said, “[The] other problem is, militarily destroying chemical weapons is a terrible risk. You don’t know everything that’s in those warehouses. You don’t know what it means to blow them up. So, I think the President knew he wanted to do something, and do something very definite. But he also believed he wanted to get the Congress behind him because of unintended consequences. And then when the Russian’s responded that they’d work with the United States, I actually was prescheduled to be at the White House, which I write about, so I made a statement endorsing the effort to get out, the chemical weapons. And, you know, enormous progress has been made, so on the one hand it was kind of an unfortunate sequence of events, but on the other, the result people were trying to get has been largely achieved.” [Sec. Clinton speech at Toronto’s Sheraton Centre, 6/16/14]

AMERICA RISING: “HILLARY CLINTON ATTACKS RADIO HOST IN DEFENSIVE, TESTY GAY MARRIAGE INTERVIEW”

“We know many Americans have matured on this issue, and our country is in a better place for it,” Adrienne Watson, spokeswoman for Correct The Record, a rapid response group preparing for a 2016 run, said in a statement. “As a Senator and as Secretary of State, Clinton’s record on LGBT rights is strong. We regret the right’s attempt to demonize her for speaking honestly about her journey, a journey so many people have taken.” 

EVOLVING SUPPORT FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY

2014

Sec. Clinton, on gay rights: “This is going to be an ongoing struggle and the United States must be on the front lines.”According to the Chicago Sun-Times coverage of Sec. Clinton’s discussion with Rahm Emanuel at the Chicago Ideas Week convention, “On the subject of gay rights, Clinton said her time abroad has taught her there’s an ‘increasing backlash’ against LGBT communities, leading her to lay out a platform for gay rights before world leaders in Geneva. ‘I began to vigorously protest with governments in many parts of the world,’ she said. Some countries just need to be ‘brought along.’ Others: ‘Are just cynical. Like what Putin’s doing in Russia with all these laws against the LGBT community. That is just a cynical political ploy. I’ve gotten into shouting matches with top Russian officials. But I realized unless there was an argument made, a platform created, we wouldn’t have as strong of a case.’ ‘We have a long way to go, I don’t want to mislead anybody,’ Clinton said. ‘This is going to be an ongoing struggle and the United States must be on the front lines.’” [Politics Early & Often, Chicago Sun-Times, 6/11/14]

2013

Hillary Clinton: “I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples.” Secretary Hillary Clinton: “LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones, and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage. That’s why I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law.” [Human Rights Campaign, 3/18/13]

• “Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over time….” “Now, having left public office, I want to share some of what I’ve learned, and what I’ve come to believe. For America to continue leading in the world, there is work we must do here at home. That means investing in our people, our economy, our national security. It also means working every day, as citizens, as communities, as a country, to live up to our highest ideals and continue our long march to a more perfect union. LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones. And they are full and equal citizens and they deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage. That’s why I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples.” [Human Rights Campaign, 3/18/13]

• “I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law.” “I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law, embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and all Americans. Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved. By my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the guiding principles of my faith. Marriage after all is a fundamental building block of our society, a great joy and yes, a great responsibility. A few years ago, Bill and I celebrated as our own daughter married the love of her life, and I wish every parent the same joy. To deny that opportunity to any of our daughters and sons solely on the basis of who they are and who they love is to deny them the chance to live up to their own God-given potential. Throughout our history, as our nation has become even more dedicated to the protection of liberty and justice for all, more open to the contributions of all our citizens, it has also become stronger, more competitive, more ready for the future. It benefits every American when we continue on that path.” [Human Rights Campaign, 3/18/13]

SECRETARY OF STATE 

Sec. Clinton sent a memo stating the State Department “will offer equal benefits and protections to same-sex partners of American diplomats.” “The State Department will offer equal benefits and protections to same-sex partners of American diplomats, according to an internal memorandum Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sent last week to an association of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers. Mrs. Clinton said the policy change addressed an inequity in the treatment of domestic partners and would help the State Department recruit diplomats, since many international employers already offered such benefits. ‘Like all families, our Foreign Service families come in different configurations; all are part of the common fabric of our post communities abroad,’ Mrs. Clinton said in the memorandum, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a member of the gay and lesbian association. ‘At bottom,’ she said, ‘the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex partners because it is the right thing to do.’ A senior State Department official confirmed the new policy, though he did not say when it would take effect. Among the benefits are diplomatic passports, use of medical facilities at overseas posts, medical and other emergency evacuation, transportation between posts, and training in security and languages.” [The New York Times, 5/24/09]

Sec. Clinton directed the State Department to “champion a comprehensive human rights agenda” that included protection of LGBT human rights. “Human rights are inalienable and belong to every person, no matter who that person is or whom that person loves. Since January 2009, Secretary Clinton has directed the Department to champion a comprehensive human rights agenda — one that includes the protection of the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The Department uses its full range of diplomatic and development tools to press for the elimination of violence and discrimination against LGBT people worldwide, particularly those forced to flee their homes or countries.” [State Dept. Fact Sheet: Promoting Human Rights of LGBT People, 12/6/11]

Sec. Clinton made the promotion of equality for gay people a core value of U.S. foreign policy. “As Hillary Clinton makes a whirlwind round of appearances in her last days as secretary of state, one groundbreaking aspect of her work deserves a moment in the spotlight: In a bold departure with tradition, Clinton made the promotion of equality for gay people a core value of U.S. foreign policy.That is a transformative change, one that advances the cause of human rights around the world — not just for gays and lesbians, but for everyone.” [Ghitis, CNN, 2/8/13]

Sec. Clinton: “There is this rising global tide of violence against the LGBT community around the world.” “‘There is this rising global tide of violence against the LGBT community around the world,’ Clinton says, ‘and we are taking the lead in confronting the dangers of the lives and the livelihood of LGBT people as they go about their daily lives.’ As she works to redefine the U.S. role on international gay and lesbian rights, part of Clinton’s job has been to make sure a cultural shift permeates all levels of the State Department and the furthest reaches of its bureaucracies, including U.S. embassies, where change can sometimes come at a slow pace.” [The Advocate, 1/10/11]

The State Department worked to “encourage countries to repeal or reform laws that criminalize LGBT status.” “The State Department works with U.S. embassies, civil society, and multilateral mechanisms, agencies, and forums to encourage countries to repeal or reform laws that criminalize LGBT status.” [The Department of State’s Accomplishments Promoting the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, 12/6/11]

The State Department “led efforts” to reinsert language on sexual orientation into a UN resolution on executions. “In December 2010, the State Department led efforts at the UN General Assembly to reinsert language on sexual orientation into a resolution on extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary executions, after the language’s removal in committee. The amendment was approved by a 93-55 margin.” [The Department of State’s Accomplishments Promoting the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, 12/6/11]

SENATE

Senator Clinton cosponsored legislation providing equal benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. In the Senate, Hillary Clinton was an original cosponsor of legislation entitling “domestic partners of Federal employees to benefits available to spouses of Federal employees.” Senator Clinton stated that “these are Americans who have made a commitment to one another and they should not be denied benefits.” [S.1252, 6/12/03]

Hillary Clinton advocated for lifting the restrictions blocking gay and lesbian couples from adopting kids. “We’re going to make sure that nothing stands in the way of loving couples – gay or straight – who want to adopt children. I have spent more than 35 years fighting for children and families and I have seen the sadness and the hope in the eyes of children who are desperate for a family to call their own. We have a fundamental obligation to make sure these children have loving homes and a chance to succeed.” [Hillary Clinton speech to the Human Rights Campaign Board Meeting, 3/3/07]

Hillary Clinton spoke out against “don’t ask, don’t tell” as a U.S. Senator. “Gay troops should be able to serve in the U.S. military without hiding their sexual identity, Sen. Hillary Clinton said here Sunday. Clinton said it’s time to drop the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, which began when her husband, Bill Clinton, was president. The policy says that gays may serve in the military if they keep their homosexuality secret but that they can be tossed out if they don’t. ‘Right now, we are discharging soldiers? At a time when we don’t have enough people to do the missions we need around the world? Because they’re gay. Not because they’ve done anything, but just because they’re gay,’ she said.” [USA Today,4/22/07]

• Hillary Clinton quoted Goldwater’s statement about gays in the military: “You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.” “In 2000, our closest ally, Great Britain, changed its policy to permit homosexuals to serve, and there has been no reported difficulty; Canada ended its ban on gays in 1992. We have a long way to go as a society before this issue is resolved. I just wish the opposition would listen to Barry Goldwater, an icon of the American Right and an outspoken supporter of gay rights, which he considered consistent with his conservative principles. On the issue of homosexuals in the military, he said, ‘You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.’” [Clinton, Hillary Rodham (2003-06-09). Living History (pp. 241-242). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.]

Hillary Clinton cosponsored the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. In the Senate, Hillary Clinton was an original cosponsor of the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which would have expanded the federal criminal hate crime code to include sexual orientation and gender identity. [S.1105, 4/12/07]]

• Hillary Clinton cosponsored an amendment to the Senate Defense Reauthorization bill to include the hate crimes act. In the Senate, Hillary Clinton cosponsored an amendment to the Senate Defense Reauthorization bill to include the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. [S.Amdt.2067, 7/11/07]

Hillary Clinton repeatedly cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to prevent employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. In the Senate, Hillary Clinton was an original cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2002 and 2003 to prevent employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Hillary Clinton has said it is “inconceivable to me that people who work hard and do a good job every day can still be fired because of who they love. It’s unfair, it’s un-American, and I will put a stop to it once and for all.” [S.1284, 7/31/01; S.1705, 10/2/03; Human Rights Campaign 2008 Presidential Questionnaire] 

FLOTUS

Hillary Clinton spoke out against “don’t ask, don’t tell” as a candidate for U.S. Senate. “Hillary Rodham Clinton told a group of gay contributors this week that the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, intended to make it easier for gay men and lesbians to serve in the military, had been a failure, her aides said yesterday. Mrs. Clinton, a candidate for the United States Senate, said that if elected she would work to overturn the policy, one of the first put in place under President Clinton… ‘Gays and lesbians already serve with distinction in our nation’s armed forces and should not face discrimination,’ Mrs. Clinton said in the statement. ‘Fitness to serve should be based on an individual’s conduct, not their sexual orientation.’” [New York Times, 12/9/99]

AMERICA RISING: “HARD CHOICES FALLS FLAT”; RNC: “HILLARY CLINTON’S LATEST MEMOIR LANDS IN BOOKSTORES WITH A THUD”

The reviews are in and Hillary Clinton’s new book, “Hard Choices,” is a success.  Critics have praised the authenticity and insight of the former Secretary of State’s new memoir.  The right wing nonetheless is trying to spin the reviews, but the facts speak for themselves.  Read a sample of the reviews, below.

Washington Post’s Dan Balz: “‘Hard Choices’ is a more interesting read, enriched not simply by her nearly million miles of international travel to 112 countries but more by her accounts of scores of conversations with world leaders as the administration grappled with one challenge after another.” According to Dan Balz in the Washington Post’s The Take, “Compared with her book ‘Living History,’ published in 2003, ‘Hard Choices’ is a more interesting read, enriched not simply by her nearly million miles of international travel to 112 countries but more by her accounts of scores of conversations with world leaders as the administration grappled with one challenge after another. Through nearly 600 pages, she comes across less a visionary and more a practical-minded problem solver.” [The Take, Washington Post, 6/7/14]

Washington Post’s Dan Balz, on Sec. Clinton in “Hard Choices”: “Through nearly 600 pages, she comes across less a visionary and more a practical-minded problem solver.” According to Dan Balz in the Washington Post’s The Take, “Compared with her book ‘Living History,’ published in 2003, ‘Hard Choices’ is a more interesting read, enriched not simply by her nearly million miles of international travel to 112 countries but more by her accounts of scores of conversations with world leaders as the administration grappled with one challenge after another. Through nearly 600 pages, she comes across less a visionary and more a practical-minded problem solver.” [The Take, Washington Post, 6/7/14]

NYT’s Amy Chozick, on “Hard Choices”: “Mrs. Clinton’s latest memoir, ‘Hard Choices,’ delivers a potent mix of feminine gusto and diplomatic capers. In doing so, she offers a sharp contrast to the argument that she needed to diminish her softer side.” According to the New York Times, “In Hillary Rodham Clinton’s first bid for president in 2008, her campaign seemed determined to make a powerful point: She was strong. She was tough. She was ready to lead. In her new book, even as she lays out her foreign policy vision, Mrs. Clinton shows a side of herself that campaign did not: human, motherly, jokey, self-deprecating. Mrs. Clinton’s latest memoir, ‘Hard Choices,’ delivers a potent mix of feminine gusto and diplomatic capers. In doing so, she offers a sharp contrast to the argument that she needed to diminish her softer side.” [New York Times, 6/6/14]

CBS News’ John Dickerson: “Secretary Clinton certainly doesn’t put herself on the couch when it comes to the attack on Benghazi. Clinton devotes two chapters to Libya.” According to CBS News’ John Dickerson’s review of Sec. Clinton’s “Hard Choices”, “Secretary Clinton certainly doesn’t put herself on the couch when it comes to the attack on Benghazi. Clinton devotes two chapters to Libya. The first is about the messy and perilous process of keeping the coalition together. Like several passages in the book–on Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan and even China–there is a good pace to developments and the back-and-forth will be interesting for anyone who’d like to know more about the competing interests of nations.” [CBS News, 6/6/14]

CBS News’ John Dickerson: “Like several passages in the book–on Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan and even China–there is a good pace to developments and the back-and-forth will be interesting for anyone who’d like to know more about the competing interests of nations.” According to CBS News’ John Dickerson’s review of Sec. Clinton’s “Hard Choices”, “Secretary Clinton certainly doesn’t put herself on the couch when it comes to the attack on Benghazi. Clinton devotes two chapters to Libya. The first is about the messy and perilous process of keeping the coalition together. Like several passages in the book–on Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan and even China–there is a good pace to developments and the back-and-forth will be interesting for anyone who’d like to know more about the competing interests of nations.” [CBS News, 6/6/14]

CBS News’ John Dickerson: “For voters who worry about a complex world, Clinton will be the candidate most equipped to show voters that they will not be taking a risk by putting the world in her hands.” According to CBS News’ John Dickerson’s review of Sec. Clinton’s “Hard Choices”, “For voters who worry about a complex world, Clinton will be the candidate most equipped to show voters that they will not be taking a risk by putting the world in her hands.” [CBS News, 6/6/14]

Washington Post’s David Ignatius: “’Hard Choices’ begins and ends in the empty voice of a campaign speech. But in between, it contains a clear and at times riveting account of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s four years as secretary of state.” According to David Ignatius’s column about “Hard Choices” that appeared in the Washington Post, “’Hard Choices’ begins and ends in the empty voice of a campaign speech. But in between, it contains a clear and at times riveting account of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s four years as secretary of state. This is a careful book, written tactically to burnish friendships and avoid making enemies. Perhaps that’s inevitable for an autobiographer who is considering running for president, but there are times when the reader feels he is being ‘spun’ rather than enlightened.” [David Ignatius, Washington Post column, 6/9/14] 

Washington Post’s David Ignatius, on “Hard Choices”: “It lays out the case that she [Sec. Clinton] was a good secretary of state and a good person.” According to David Ignatius’s column about “Hard Choices” that appeared in the Washington Post, “Judged as a political document, the book probably will serve Clinton well. It lays out the case that she was a good secretary of state and a good person; it includes a forceful defense of her role in Benghazi, along with many believable passages about her enduring love for her sometimes faithless husband Bill. There’s nothing here that seems likely to get her in trouble with anyone, which is doubtless good politics but is a bad thing to say about a memoir.” [David Ignatius, Washington Post column, 6/9/14]

Washington Post’s David Ignatius: “The best thing you can say about a secretary of state is that she gives the president good advice and keeps her mouth shut if she loses the argument, and Clinton appears (by her obviously selective account) to have passed these tests.” According to David Ignatius’s column about “Hard Choices” that appeared in the Washington Post, “The best thing you can say about a secretary of state is that she gives the president good advice and keeps her mouth shut if she loses the argument, and Clinton appears (by her obviously selective account) to have passed these tests.” [David Ignatius, Washington Post column, 6/9/14]

Washington Post’s David Ignatius, on “Hard Choices”: “The book itself should reinforce the case of those who believe Clinton is well prepared to be president.” According to David Ignatius’s column about “Hard Choices” that appeared in the Washington Post, “Clinton is maddeningly coy about whether she will run for president in 2016 (‘The answer is: I haven’t decided yet.’) The tedious opening and closing sections of the book make clear that she’s well-stocked with campaign bromides. But the book itself should reinforce the case of those who believe Clinton is well prepared to be president.” [David Ignatius, Washington Post column, 6/9/14]

NYT Book Review by Michiko Kakutani, on “Hard Choices”: “The book itself… turns out to be a subtle, finely calibrated work that provides a portrait of the former secretary of state and former first lady as a heavy-duty policy wonk.” According to the New York Times’ Book Review’s review of “Hard Choices” by Sec. Clinton, “The book itself, however, turns out to be a subtle, finely calibrated work that provides a portrait of the former secretary of state and former first lady as a heavy-duty policy wonk. Compared with her 2003 memoir, ‘Living History’ — which tended to lapse into glib, stump-speechlike pronouncements and reactive efforts to blame assorted enemies for her and her husband’s travails — ‘Hard Choices’ is a statesmanlike document intended to attest to Mrs. Clinton’s wide-ranging experience on national security and on foreign policy.” [“Hard Choices”, New York Times Book Review, 6/7/14]

NYT Book Review by Michiko Kakutani, on “Hard Choices”: “Mrs. Clinton displays a pragmatic, case-by-case modus operandi.” According to the New York Times’ Book Review’s review of “Hard Choices” by Sec. Clinton, “‘Hard Choices,’ like Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, does not evince a grand, overarching foreign policy vision, as Henry A. Kissinger’s 1994 book ‘Diplomacy’ did. Rather, Mrs. Clinton displays a pragmatic, case-by-case modus operandi. Some critics have argued that she played it safe as secretary of state, that she had no marquee achievements like a Middle East peace accord. And her new book (written with an assist from what she calls her ‘book team’) suggests that Mrs. Clinton’s main legacy lies in reorienting American foreign policy in a globalized, tech-savvy 21st century, and in helping restore the country’s image abroad in the wake of the Iraq war and the unilateralism of President George W. Bush’s administration.” [“Hard Choices”, New York Times Book Review, 6/7/14]

NYT Book Review by Michiko Kakutani, on “Hard Choices”: “One of the few things this book shares with ‘Living History’ is its emphasis on Mrs. Clinton as someone capable of growth and change.” According to the New York Times’ Book Review’s review of “Hard Choices” by Sec. Clinton, “One of the few things this book shares with ‘Living History’ is its emphasis on Mrs. Clinton as someone capable of growth and change: an individual who says she learns from past mistakes like her 2002 vote to authorize military action in Iraq. (She ‘got it wrong,’ she writes of that vote. ‘Plain and simple.’) ‘Hard Choices’ seems meant to serve several purposes at once: to document Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state; to put her dysfunctional 2008 presidential campaign in the rearview mirror; to supplant memories of her tumultuous days as first lady (Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky) with images of her negotiating with leaders on the world stage; and to lift her above the partisan mudslinging of Washington.” [“Hard Choices”, New York Times Book Review, 6/7/14] 

BBC’s Kim Ghattas, on “Hard Choices”: “You can read her new book, Hard Choices, as a proto-campaign document if you like, but it also spells out her vision for America’s role in the world.” According to Kim Ghattas, writer of “The Secretary,” in The Daily Beast, regarding Sec. Clinton, “You probably think she’ll run because she wants to be the first woman president, or because she has a clear domestic-policy agenda around the issues with which she’s been associated for decades. Certainly, both of those things are true. But I’m here to tell you, as one who covered her every day for four years when she was secretary of state, that America’s place in the world now concerns her at least as much as those other considerations and probably more. And it’s only as commander-in-chief of the United States can she have any real influence on the issue that matters to her most: America’s power and prestige. You can read her new book, ‘Hard Choices,’ as a proto-campaign document if you like, but it also spells out her vision for America’s role in the world.” [Kim Ghattas, The Daily Beast, 6/9/14]

LA Times book review: “Hillary Clinton’s ‘Hard Choices’ makes for compelling reading.” According to Robin Abcarian’s review of “Hard Choices” for the Los Angeles Times, “She hasn’t decided yet. Or if she has, she’s not telling. But if Hillary Rodham Clinton does run for president in 2016, her new book ‘Hard Choices,’ a chronicle of her four years as secretary of State, leaves no room for doubt about how she might conduct foreign policy (pragmatically), how she will defend herself against charges that she mishandled the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya (robustly) and about how much she regrets giving President George W. Bush carte blanche to wage war against Iraq (deeply and eternally).” [“Hillary Clinton’s ‘Hard Choices’ makes for compelling reading”, Jacket Copy, Los Angeles Times, 6/10/14]

LA Times book review: “’Hard Choices’ is a richly detailed and compelling chronicle of Clinton’s role in the foreign initiatives and crises that defined the first term of the Obama administration.” According to Robin Abcarian’s review of “Hard Choices” for the Los Angeles Times, “’Hard Choices’ is a richly detailed and compelling chronicle of Clinton’s role in the foreign initiatives and crises that defined the first term of the Obama administration — the pivot to Asia, the Afghanistan surge of 2009, the ‘reset’ with Russia, the Arab Spring, the ‘wicked problem’ of Syria — told from the point of view of a policy wonk.” [“Hillary Clinton’s ‘Hard Choices’ makes for compelling reading”, Jacket Copy, Los Angeles Times, 6/10/14]

Time’s Charlotte Alter, on “Hard Choices”: Who knew Hillary could be so hill-arious? According to Time’s Charlotte Alter’s review of Sec. Clinton’s “Hard Choices”, “Hillary comes off as smart, tough, and kind of… cool. …Her new book Hard Choices isn’t as dour as the title suggests or as long and boring as it looks. It’s actually really funny. It probably would sell better if it were called something like Richard Holbrook Wore Yellow Pajamas or Are You There, Angela Merkel? It’s Me, Hillary, but neither of those titles sound quite as presidential.” [Charlotte Alter, Time, 6/11/2014]

Entertainment Weekly’s Tina Jordan, on “Hard Choices”: “A rich and lively narrative of Clinton’s foreign policy successes, and failures.” According to Entertainment Weekly’s book review of “Hard Choices”, “Clinton spent four years hopscotching the globe, and the book’s structure aligns with the number of trips it can take to resolve — or attempt to resolve — a diplomatic crisis. So you can read the sections on Asia and come away with a much clearer understanding of, say, the territorial scuffling over the South China Sea and its importance to the U.S. Clinton seizes wonkish topics and shows how diplomacy actually works — the phone calls, the endless meetings in dreary conference rooms, the bargaining and back-channel negotiations…. a rich and lively narrative of Clinton’s foreign policy successes, and failures. B+.” [Tina Jordan, Entertainment Weekly, 6/11/14] 

Toronto Star: “At the beginning of her tenure as Secretary of State, Clinton saw as one of her main priorities rebuilding America’s tattered reputation after years of George Bush’s bellicose unilateralism. And she succeeded.”  “So does Hard Choices work as a calling card for the most important job in the world? I’d say so. At the beginning of her tenure as Secretary of State, Clinton saw as one of her main priorities rebuilding America’s tattered reputation after years of George Bush’s bellicose unilateralism. And she succeeded. America’s approval rating in the world has spiked. And Mrs. Clinton has become the poster girl for the deployment of what’s termed “smart power,” i.e., using all of America’s considerable societal assets — cultural, economic, technological — to achieve America’s strategic goals. Post-Iraq and -Afghanistan, America seems weary of having the Pentagon doing all the heavy lifting. And Hillary captured that mood, completely.” [Toronto Star, ‘Hard Choices by Hillary Rodham Clinton: Review,’ Robert Collison, 6/17/14]

The popular reception: 

CNN reporter: “There are roughly 380 people in line at Clinton’s first book signing in New York.” According to a tweet by CNN’s Dan Merica, “There are roughly 380 people in line at Clinton’s first book signing in New York, reports CNN’s Yon Pomrenze. Rules are tight for the event.” [Dan Merica, @danmericaCNN, 6/10/14]

Politico’s media reporter: “Three weeks ago I wrote that Hillary chose ABC b/c Diane Sawyer ‘promised to be a softer interview.’ I was dead wrong.” Politico’s Media reporter Dylan Byers tweeted, “Three weeks ago I wrote that Hillary chose ABC b/c Diane Sawyer ‘promised to be a softer interview.’ I was dead wrong.” [Dylan Byers, @DylanByers, Twitter, 6/9/14]

 NYT’s reporter, on Sec. Clinton’s first book signing for “Hard Choices”: “Lines around the block for Hillary Clinton book signing.” NYT’s Amy Chozick tweeted, “Lines around the block for Hillary Clinton book signing pic.twitter.com/tyQ05TMFDc.” [6/10/14, 9:18 a.m. EDT]

AMERICA RISING: CLINTON SAID TALIBAN FIVE “NOT A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES”

Sec. Clinton: Five Taliban prisoners “are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan.” 

INTERVIEWER: “I think an awful lot of people think that we’re less safe today than we were a week ago because these five guys are out.”

SEC. CLINTON: “These five guys are not a threat to the United States. They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them.” [NBC’s Today Show, 6/11/14 (Via Nexis)]

WSJ: “Officials Predicted Detainees in Bowe Bergdahl Swap Would Rejoin Taliban.” “Before the U.S. transferred five Afghan Taliban detainees to secure the freedom of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, American intelligence officials predicted that two of the men would return to senior positions with the militant group, according to U.S. officials. The classified assessment, a consensus of spy agencies compiled during the prisoner-swap deliberations, said two others of the five were likely to assume active roles within the Taliban, while only one of the five released detainees was considered likely to end active participation in the group’s effort to undermine the elected government of Afghanistan.” [‘Officials Predicted Detainees in Bowe Bergdahl Swap Would Rejoin Taliban,’ Wall Street Journal, 6/10/14]

RNC: “CLINTON TRIES TO SAVE HERSELF FROM THE ADMINISTRATION’S ‘SHAMEFUL’ SYRIA POLICY”

FACT: Sec. Clinton did not defend Assad and referenced the opinion of others in labeling him as a reformer. According to Politifact’s Pundifact, “So Clinton did refer to Assad as ‘a reformer.’ But she crafted the line as the opinion of ‘members of Congress of both parties,’ not her opinion. And she never defended (as [Chris]Wallace said) Assad, instead saying in that interview that he ‘exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.’ Still, Clinton’s comments were widely reported and criticized… Criticizing parts of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, Wallace said Clinton ‘defended Syria’s President Assad as a possible reformer at the start of that country’s civil war.’ Clinton’s original comments in March 2011 were not that straightforward. The statement in question was actually, ‘Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.’ Clinton was talking about the beliefs of Congress and didn’t ‘defend’ Assad, as Wallace put it, instead saying that the use of force that he deployed was more ‘than any of us would want to see.’” [PunditFact, Politifact, 6/1/14]

FACT: Sec. Clinton said Syria’s Assad was “not indispensable, and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power.” According to a Congressional Research Service report for Congress, “In the wake of the embassy incident, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made the strongest declaration yet against the Asad government. In part seeking to respond to speculation that the United States wants the Asad regime to remain in power, she stated that: ‘From our perspective, he has lost legitimacy…. If anyone, including President Assad, thinks the United States is secretly hoping that the regime will emerge from the turmoil to continue its brutality and repression, they are wrong. President Assad is not indispensable, and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power.’” [“Unrest in Syria and U.S. Sanctions Against the Asad Regime,” Congressional Research Service, state.gov, 8/9/11] 

RNC: THE “MUCH-TOUTED” PIVOT POLICY, HAS BEEN “BUNGLED” AND FRICTIONS WITH CHINA ARE “DESTINED TO BE COMMONPLACE” 

FACT: Sec. Clinton understood that “America’s future is linked to the future of the Asia-Pacific region.” According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks entitled Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and Priorities, “We start from a simple premise: America’s future is linked to the future of the Asia-Pacific region; and the future of this region depends on America. The United States has a strong interest in continuing its tradition of economic and strategic leadership, and Asia has a strong interest in the United States remaining a dynamic economic partner and a stabilizing military influence.” [Remarks on Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and Priorities, 1/12/10]

FACT: Sec. Clinton improved and expanded U.S. relations in the region by holding the “first ever U.S.-ASEAN summit.” According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks entitled Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and Priorities, “For these reasons and more, we began last January to lay the foundation for a revitalized Asia-Pacific relationship. My first trip as Secretary of State was to Asia – in fact, this will be my fourth to the region in the last eleven months. President Obama participated in the APEC Summit in Singapore as well as visiting China, Japan, and South Korea; we supported the creation of a regular G-20 leaders summit with strong Asian participation reflecting the new global balance of financial and political power; we held the first ever U.S.-ASEAN summit; we signed the Guam International Agreement that helps sustain a strong U.S. military presence in the region; and we signed the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. And it was no accident that the first state visit hosted by President and Mrs. Obama was for an Asian leader, Indian Prime Minister Singh.” [Remarks on Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and Priorities, 1/12/10]

FACT: Under Sec. Clinton, the U.S. “climbed out of the hole we found ourselves in at the beginning of the administration and reasserted America’s presence in the region.” In her book Hard Choices, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote, “When we started in 2009, many in the region doubted our commitment and our staying power. Some in China sought to take advantage of that perception. Our pivot strategy was designed to dispel those doubts. During one long discussion with Dai, he exclaimed, ‘Why don’t you ‘pivot’ out of here?’ I had logged more miles and sat through more awkwardly translated diplomatic speeches than I imagined possible. But it paid off. We had climbed out of the hole we found ourselves in at the beginning of the administration and reasserted America’s presence in the region.” [Hard Choices, pg. 79, 2014]

FACT: Sec. Clinton improved relations with China and, along with President Obama “laid the groundwork for a solid, wide-ranging relationship with their rival.” “For Clinton, the Chen Guangcheng affair and its resolution epitomized what she and Obama had set out to achieve at the start of the administration. They had methodically laid the groundwork for a solid, wide-ranging relationship with their rival, the kind that should be able to sustain the blow of a crisis— and it did. The S& ED [annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue] concluded as planned and Beijing pursued its relationship with Washington almost as before, except for a few expected strident comments.” [The Secretary, Kim Ghattas, 2013]

RNC: “CLINTON REWRITES HER INITIAL ‘AMBIVALENCE’ AND HESITATION TO THE UPRISINGS IN EGYPT” 

FACT: Sec. Clinton called on the Egyptian government “to implement political, economic, and social reforms” in response to the Egyptian people. In remarks after meeting with Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh at the State Department, Secretary Clinton said, “Before I talk about our meeting today, I want to say a word about the protests taking place in Cairo and other Egyptian cities. As we monitor this situation carefully, we call on all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from violence. We support the universal rights of the Egyptian people, including the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. And we urge the Egyptian authorities not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications, including on social media sites. We believe strongly that the Egyptian Government has an important opportunity at this moment in time to implement political, economic, and social reforms to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people. The United States is committed to working with Egypt and with the Egyptian people to advance such goals.” [DipNote blog, state.gov, 1/26/11]

FACT: Sec. Clinton told the Human Rights Council that the U.S. stood ready to assist Egypt, “however appropriate, especially through economic assistance that helps promote reform and create greater opportunity.” According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks at the Human Rights Council, “That is why, as we watch what is happening in Egypt, we hope that there will be a broad array of opposition voices and representatives to ensure that the reform process is inclusive. We want to see concrete steps taken, including enacting constitutional reforms and releasing political detainees and lifting the state of emergency. The United States stands ready to assist, however appropriate, especially through economic assistance that helps promote reform and create greater opportunity.” [Remarks at the Human Rights Council, state.gov, 2/28/11] 

RNC: CLINTON’S OWN STATE DEPARTMENT “WORKED HARD AGAINST” IRAN SANCTIONS LEGISLATION

FACT: Secretary Clinton built and maintained a coalition to enact the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history. Secretary Clinton helped impose the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history by getting Russia and China on board. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted that, “Clinton surely pulled out every stop to get Russia and particularly China…on board.” And as Howard Dean told CNN, “Hillary Clinton cranked up the sanctions for the first time under President Obama that actually made the Iranians come to the table.” 

FACT: Sec. Clinton worked with Senate and House sponsors to push Iran sanctions bills into conference. According to HRC: State Secrets by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, “In June [Secretary Clinton] invited [House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman] Howard Berman and [Senate Banking Committee chairman] Chris Dodd up to a conference room on the seventh floor of the State Department to discuss a pending bill intended to punish Iran by sanctioning foreign companies that did business in the petroleum and banking sectors there. The basic concept was to force other countries to pull out of Iran and thus cripple its economy, which might persuade the Iranians to negotiate an end to their pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for the removal of sanctions… Each man had passed a version of a bill called the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions and Divestment Act, or CISADA, through his respective chamber with little or no opposition. Berman and Dodd had written slightly different bills, and they had had to convene a conference committee of House and Senate members to sort out their differences and send the bill to the president for his signature or veto. But in reality, the work of the conference committee was now being done by Hillary, Berman, and Dodd on the seventh floor because the White House had serious concerns about the consequences of the congressional approach; and with Democrats in control of both chambers and the presidency, Berman and Dodd wanted to find a path that would avoid an ugly showdown between the White House and Congress.” [HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton, pg. 186] 

RNC: “IN THE HER [SIC] MEMOIR, CLINTON DEPICTS HERSELF AS A “CLEAR-EYED,” “HARSH” SKEPTIC OF RUSSIA”

FACT: Secretary Clinton was clear-eyed when it came to President Putin and understood the opportunity presented to achieve critical goals during Medvedev’s tenure. In 2010, the Carnegie Endowment issued a report on U.S.-Russia relations. It said, “Having fallen to a historic low after the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, U.S.-Russiacooperation is again on the rise, thanks to last year’s ‘reset’ of the relationship.” The report goes on to say, “The improved tone in U.S.-Russia relations is itself an important accomplishment of the reset.” During her tenure, Secretary Clinton worked successfully to secure Russia’s cooperation in anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan, reaching a historic “lethal transit” agreement, allowing U.S. military planes to transport lethal materials over Russia to Afghanistan.

FACT: Secretary Clinton built and maintained a coalition (that included Russia) to enact the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history. Secretary Clinton helped impose the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history by getting Russia and China on board. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted that, “Clinton surely pulled out every stop to get Russia and particularly China…on board.” And as Howard Dean recently told CNN, “Hillary Clinton cranked up the sanctions for the first time under President Obama that actually made the Iranians come to the table.”

FACT: While Secretary Clinton made progress with Russia, including the New START treaty and cooperation on Iran and Afghanistan, she refused to defend Russia’s policies when they clashed with our own. When Russia and China used their veto to block U.N. action against Syria, she said, “It’s quite distressing to see two permanent members of the Security Council using their veto when people are being murdered, women, children, brave young men. Houses are being destroyed. It is just despicable. And I ask, whose side are they on?” [ABC News, 2/24/12] 

RNC: “CLINTON STILL MAINTAINS THAT THE YOUTUBE VIDEO WAS ‘INDEED A FACTOR’ IN THE BENGHAZI ATTACK”

FACT: Hard Choices: “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were.” “‘There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,’ she writes. ‘It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.’” [Politico, 5/30/14]

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.” [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,1/15/14, page 41]

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: “The IC’s [intelligence community’s] preliminary conclusion was that there had been a protest outside of the mission prior to the attack, making this assessment based on open source news reports and on other information available to intelligence agencies.” [Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 12/30/12, page 28] 

FACT: On September 12, 2012, Clinton said the “assault” was committed by “heavily armed militants.” In remarks following the attacks in Benghazi, Secretary Clinton stated: “Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed… We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault.” [Secretary Clinton remarks, 9/12/12]

DAVID VITTER: “CLINTON STATE DEPT. BROKE LAW, LIED ABOUT BOKO HARAM TERROR THREAT”

FACT: The State Department took action against Boko Haram. Under Secretary Clinton’s leadership, the State Department took action against the group by designating three of Boko Haram’s top leaders as foreign terrorists. [Reuters 6/21/12]

FACT: Sec. Clinton spoke out against Boko Haram. Secretary Clinton has spoken out against their mission, tweeting on Sunday, “Access to education is a basic right & an unconscionable reason to target innocent girls. We must stand up to terrorism.” Using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, Hillary Clinton and her tweet have been credited with raising awareness about the kidnappings. [Politico, 5/7/14]

FACT: Concerns were raised about designating Boko Haram a terrorist group. Concerns were raised at the time by many – including Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, the International Crisis Group, and more than twenty experts on Nigeria and the region – that designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization could “raise its profile” and “help in its recruitment.” [Reuters, 6/21/12; BBC, 5/7/14; The Hill, 5/11/14]

FACT: Experts were concerned designation would prevent efforts.  Experts at the time were concerned that designation as a terrorist organization would have prevented coordination with Nigerian Security forces collaborating on fighting extremists.

FACT: Bush’s ambassador to Nigeria didn’t think criticism of Sec. Clinton’s actions were fair. Even former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell, who was appointed by George W. Bush, came out in support of that decision, stating Sunday that it was the right thing to do at the time. Asked if the criticism against Secretary Clinton was fair, Campbell stated, “No I don’t think that’s fair, and along with a good many other Nigerian experts, at the time, we all opposed designation.” [Fox News, 5/11/14]