Florida Democrat Gwen Graham’s political future is up in the air following the Florida Supreme Court’s redistricting decision and news that the race is now a “toss up.” The Tampa Bay Times’ Adam Smith wrote, “Seven months after taking office, Graham now faces a strong likelihood that will be her final term representing that district.”

Graham must be worried because she accepted $5,000 from the embarrassing talk show host Jerry Springer. She will need all the money she can get to win a competitive campaign.

Hillary Clinton and her team went to great lengths to tell reporters, donors, and voters that things would be different this time. Clinton’s big spending ways from 2007 and 2008 were long gone, replaced with an almost comically cheap campaign manager and spending strategy.

And then her first FEC filing was reported. Clinton spent an astonishing $18.7 million in less than three months.

Who donated? How was it spent? Those questions and more are answered below:

Clinton claimed her campaign was saving costs by sending her campaign chairman on a bus instead of riding the train between DC and New York. Well it turns out that was for show. Clinton spent about $8,700 on Amtrak and only $346 on Bolt Bus and $315 on Best Bus. Zero for all other major bus companies.

For a list of all the registered lobbyists bundling for Hillary Clinton, see here.

Hillary Clinton attacked HSBC for “criminal behavior.” By her own definition, criminals from HSBC donated $3,450 and HSBC Bank $583.

Well-known Florida jerk John Morgan and his law firm donated an astonishing $247,716 to Clinton.

Clinton has spent $900,000 on polling (a solid $300k per month average) and owes another $550,000 in additional polling debt.

Clinton spent more than $275,000 on David Brock’s “Correct The Record,” an organization designed to complain about unfavorable press coverage.

Remember the Scooby Van? Neither does Clinton. She spent $179,268 on private jets through Executive Fliteways.

Clinton donated $280,000 to her own campaign… or about one speech’s worth of cash.

A new nationwide poll released yesterday by USA Today & Suffolk University reveals Hillary Clinton’s support is continuing to sag.

Matched up against many Republicans, Clinton fails to reach 50% support:

Tuesday’s USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll shows a much closer race, with Clinton leading the former Florida governor by only 4 points, 46% to 42%. Clinton is struggling, and she is polling under 50% not only against Bush, but also against Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

David Paleologos, the director of Suffolk University’s Political Research Center in Boston, has a few theories on Clinton’s decline in the polls:

There may be good reasons for the Clinton campaign’s unwillingness to be more accessible to national interviews. Perhaps the lingering questions about/investigations of Benghazi, the deletion of emails, or the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of funding from foreign governments while she was secretary of State would shift the conversation away from the voter engagement currently taking place. Or perhaps the campaign is saving its (and her) energy for the big show with the assumption that Clinton will sail through the Democratic primary process.

Whatever the reason, the general election race is getting dangerously close for her. And last week, the tweets and video from “Ropegate” didn’t help matters. During a July Fourth parade in New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign decided to use a rope to corral national reporters and photographers so that Clinton could engage with real voters.

The strategy backfired, however, when unflattering video and photos of national press being herded along the parade route exploded on social media. That one event ignited widespread reports reminding voters that she has not been willing to engage the national media with the same passion as she uses in courting voters.

It’s likely that these, among her other entanglements, are hurting Clinton among voters. The degree to which her numbers continue to fall will largely be based on if her team is able to come up with some justification for her involvement in these scandals.

A year ago almost to the day, Hillary Clinton said that any nuclear deal with Iran should allow for “so little enrichment or no enrichment … for a long period of time” because she believed “any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East.”

“This is a – this is the real nub of it, because if you cannot be persuaded that the Iranians cannot break out and race toward a nuclear weapon, then you cannot have a deal. I believe strongly that it’s really important for there to be so little enrichment or no enrichment, at least for a long period of time, because I do think that any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East.”

However, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action just announced yesterday, Iran is allowed uranium enrichment up to 3.67% for the next 15 years. In addition, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states have already said they will “match” Iran’s enrichment capabilities.

Clinton’s endorsement of a deal that doesn’t meet her previous expectations is yet another example of the failed Clinton-Obama foreign policy that she undeniably now owns.

With three other Democrats vying for the same seat, it looks like Flores’ stock is falling fast. What a difference a year makes. Lucy Flores, a Democratic candidate for Nevada’s 4^th Congressional district, is struggling to find her political footing after a crushing loss in last year’s Lieutenant Governor’s race. Apparently Senator Harry Reid, who previously called Flores the “perfect” candidate, wasn’t impressed with Flores’ poor performance either.

“In a phone call that is one of his specialties, sources confirm, he called Flores, whom he once called a demographically ‘perfect’ candidate, and told her
something quite different: I’m not supporting you.

Yes, this is the same Harry Reid who said when Flores entered the race against Hutchison for lieutenant governor that she is ‘young, dynamic, Hispanic. She’s great.’

Not so great anymore, it seems.”

With three other Democrats vying for the same seat, it looks like Flores’ stock is falling fast.

The draft nuclear agreement between Iran and the United Kingdom, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, was announced today after many missed deadlines.

While Hillary Clinton has endorsed today’s deal, her official comments on the nascent deal lacked substance. However, in previous statements Clinton offered more explicit expectations for any deal with Iran.

Under today’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran is allowed uranium enrichment up to 3.67% for 15 years. Clinton, however, called for “so little enrichment or no enrichment … for a long period of time” because she believed “any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East.” Notably, Saudi Arabia and other Arab stateshave already said they will “match” Iran’s enrichment capabilities.

Another area of contention for Clinton is Iran’s breakout time. Clinton has called for a breakout time of over a year, but the “limits imposed by today’s agreement impose abreakout time of only one year.”

Evoking bipartisan concern in the United States is the ”contentious” arms embargo. According to The New York Times, restrictions on missiles would end in eight years and a “similar ban on the purchase and sale of conventional weapons would be removed in five years,” but, especially concerning, is that both could be lifted earlier. Democrats are said to be “worrying” over the arms embargo, and several in the Senate indicated they could withhold their support of a deal that lifted the embargo. Clinton has so far been silent on how the US should approach the arms embargo in the nuclear agreement.

Finally, Clinton called for a deal that “imposes an intrusive inspection program with no sites off limits.” Although Clintonclaimed that today’s deal included “the access for inspections and the transparency that was absolutely necessary,” The Wall Street Journal reports it is “unlikely” that the IAEA will “have access anytime and anywhere to Iran’s nuclear sites.” In addition, a New York Times
report notes it is also “unclear whether the inspectors would be able to interview the scientists and engineers” who were key to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ “effort … to design a weapon that Iran could manufacture in short order.”

But unfortunately for Clinton, despite whatever rhetoric she ultimately comes up with to justify her support for the agreement, her previous qualifications for an agreement with Iran were not fully met with today’s deal. Indeed, Clinton will “own the agreement” that is being frowned upon by many in her own party, as Clinton is said to have “worked in harmony” on Iran with Obama during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Over the weekend, the ABC6’s Inside Story panel looked at the awkward relationship between Pennsylvania Democrats and Joe Sestak. The consensus was that Democrats don’t believe Sestak can win and that the party is settling with him as their candidate because no one else has stepped forward.

Sestak had a hard time finding good news in general this weekend. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ran the headline “Pa. Dems’ disarray could boost GOP in 2016,” and the clip of Sestak running over children at a July 4th Parade reached nearly half a million views.

During a speech this morning on her so-called economic “vision” for America, Hillary Clinton criticized “individuals and institutions” she sees as bad actors in the financial world.

One of those she mentioned was HSBC. Clinton said, “There can be no justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior.”

HSBC is the controversial British bank recently accused of helping “hide millions of dollars for drug traffickers, arms dealers and celebrities as it assisted wealthy people around the world dodge taxes.”

In 2011, Bill Clinton was paid $200,000 for a speech to HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. in Key Largo, FL.

In 2007, the Clintons sold between $15,001 and $50,000 in HSBC Holdings PLC.

And HSBC has donated between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign made a special point to attack startups like Uber and Airbnb over the weekend in a preview of Clinton’s sure-to-be stale economic speech this morning. Perhaps sensing some pushback from “everyday Americans” that use these services, the Clinton campaign tried to walk back her criticism in Playbook:

–CLARIFICATION from yesterday’s Playbook: Uber is an example of Clinton’s views on the sharing economy. Don’t look for her to mention the firm by name.

So if Clinton herself isn’t going to go after Uber, why were her campaign aides doing so with every outlet willing to write about her speech? See below:

CNN:

Clinton, aides said, will attack the “sharing economy” — represented by companies like the ride-sharing appUber — which create jobs but don’t offer benefits and protections.

Washington Post:

In her speech, aides said Clinton will argue that tectonic forces in the global economy are conspiring against middle-class families — such as automation and technology, which are eliminating middle-skill jobs that once provided solid incomes, as well as the new “sharing economy,” epitomized by Uber, which has created efficiency but also jobs lacking benefits and protections. But she will say that the government should enact policies to shape how these forces affect Americans.

Politico:

Clinton’s aide said she will discuss some of the structural forces conspiring against sustainable wage growth, such as globalization, automation, and even consumer-friendly “sharing economy” firms like Uber and Airbnb that are creating new relationships between management and labor (and which now employ many Obama administration alumni). But she will argue that policy choices have contributed to the problem, and that she can fix it.

Huffington Post:

Clinton’s speech will take on the shortcomings of automation and the sharing economy (think: Uber, Airbnb), making the case that these trends, while valuable, need to come with better policies for workers.

Good try Team Clinton, but it’s a lot harder to cozy up to a wildly popular service after you publicly trash it.