In a new video to promote her upcoming book, Hillary Clinton discusses the difficult decisions faced by both individuals and countries, while avoiding her own difficult decision about whether to run for president in 2016.
“I really feel that everybody has hard choices in their lives. And some have a lot more than others, to be honest,” the former secretary of State says. “And I saw the same thing with nations and leaders. Countries have hard choices.”
“The more I thought about it, I thought, really, choice is at the core of what kinds of people we want to be and what kind of countries we want to have,” she adds.
The video, released on the Facebook page of her publisher, Simon & Schuster, is the latest phase of the carefully stage-managed rollout of Hard Choices, her new memoir.
The first excerpt came on Mother’s Day in Vogue magazine, while the publisher released a second excerpt Tuesday to fans who had signed up to receive online updates. The hype-building has been successful, selling out the 1 million copies of the book’s first printing before it even becomes formally available. The book will focus on her time as secretary of State.
Clinton, showing that she’s in touch with the way the political winds are blowing in today’s Democratic Party, goes on to refer to the “cancer of inequality,” saying we need to “restore prosperity here at home.” “That doesn’t happen by accident or by wishing for it, or engaging in ideological or rhetorical battles,” she says. “It happens because people come together and make a series of choices, including some hard choices.”
Clinton’s book hits stores June 10. A book-tour schedule is already taking shape, with stops planned so far in Arlington, Va.; Austin, Texas; and San Francisco, along with two stops in Canada.
In the video, she goes on to say that the book will include “behind-the-scenes insights” from her time as secretary of State, including her relationship with President Obama.
The one choice she doesn’t mention is her own. She expect to announce a decision on a presidential bid sometime after the 2014 midterm elections.
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”