Subject: News Clips 5.11.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 07:45:49 -0400
List-Id: <hrcrapid.googlegroups.com>

*H4A Press Clips*

*May 11, 2015*

 SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS

Yesterday Hillary Clinton made Mother’s Day phone calls to 5 campaign
contest winners. The women were from Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, Washington
state and Minnesota.

A Poll indicates that there is no clear Republican front-runner in the New
Hampshire presidential nominating contest, while Hillary Clinton retains an
overwhelming advantage among Democrats in the Granite State's
first-in-the-nation primary.

Vox’s Jonathan Allen released a profile on Jake Sullivan highlighting how
he advised President Obama and now Hillary Clinton on foreign policy that
Vox labels “hawkish”. The New York Times released a profile of Tony Rodham
highlighting his past and present political and business endeavors.

SUMMARY OF TODAY’S
NEWS..............................................................................................
1

TODAY’S KEY
STORIES...........................................................................................................
3

*New Hampshire Poll: Republican Field Tightens, Hillary Clinton Still Out
in Front Among Democrats* // Bloomberg // John McCormack - May 10,
2015            3

*Meet the man behind hawkish Hillary Clinton's foreign policy* // Vox //
Jonathan Allen - May 11, 2015....... 5

*Tony Rodham’s Ties Invite Scrutiny for Hillary and Bill Clinton* // NYT //
Steve Eder - May 10, 2015..... 13

HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE.................................................................................................
16

*As Middle Class Fades, So Does Use of Term on Campaign Trail* // NYT //
Amy Chozick – May 11, 2015 16

*Hillary Rodham Clinton keeping an eye on opponents* // The Boston Globe //
Annie Linskey – May 11, 2015 19

*Tom Brady and Hillary Clinton are too big to nail* // NY Post // Kyle
Smith - May 10, 2015................... 22

*Hillary Clinton Calls For Paid Family Leave On Mother's Day* //
PoliticsUSA // Jason Easley – May 10, 2015           24

*Clinton calls Iowa mom for a Mother's Day surprise* // Iowa Register //Ben
Rogers – May 10, 2015........... 25

*North Las Vegas woman gets Mother’s Day surprise from Hillary Clinton* //
National Review // Laura Myers - May 10, 2015     25

*Hillary Clinton’s Top Five Clashes Over Secrecy* // Long Island Press //
Jeff Gurth – May 10, 2015.......... 26

*Hillary Clinton email case reopened by federal judge* // Washington Times
// Stephen Dinan – May 10, 2015 30

*Hillary Clinton in Chinatown; spirituality at Stanford* // SF Chronicle //
Leah Garchik - May 10, 2015....... 32

*Can Clinton pull off a hat-trick of Democrat wins?* // BBC News // Nick
Bryant – May 11, 2015............... 33

*Hillary for New Hampshire open house grassroots event at The Met on
Saturday* // The Conway Daily Sun // Lloyd Jones - May 8, 2015 37

*Clinton’s use of ‘super PAC’ pushes limits of campaign finance law* //
Sentinel Source // Evan Halper - May 8, 2015   38

*The Clinton Foundation's Behind-the-Scenes Battle With a Charity Watchdog
Group* // NY Mag // Gabriel Sherman - May 10, 2015      39

*Under pressure, Clinton Foundation's Canadian arm reveals 21 donors* //
McClatchy // Greg Gordon - May 10, 2015     42

*For the Clintons, a big question: What to do with Bill?* // WaPo //
Phillip Rucker - May 10, 2015........... 44

*Paul: Clinton made Libya a 'jihadist wonderland'* // The Hill // Mark
Hensch - May 10, 2015................... 48

*Hillary’s Immigration* // Iowa Starting Line // Pat Rynard - May 10,
2015............................................. 49

*If Clinton wins White House, an uncertain future awaits her family's
charitable foundation* // AP // Julie Pace – May 11, 2015     50

OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE................................................................. 52

*Sanders: I'm 'most progressive' member of Congress * // The Hill // Mark
Hensch – May 10, 2015............. 52

*Why Bernie Sanders Thinks He Can Beat Hillary Clinton* // Bloomberg // Ali
Elkin – May 10, 2015........ 53

*Bernie Sanders: I can beat Hillary Clinton* // CBS News // Rebecca Kaplan
– May 10, 2015..................... 54

*Bernie Sanders pledges not to accept super PAC support* // Washington
Times // Jose A. DelReal – May 10, 2015       56

*Bernie Sanders challenges Hillary Clinton on trade deal and Iraq war* //
The Guardian // Martin Pengelly – May 10, 2015          57

*Bernie Sanders's presidential candidacy four decades in the making* //
Christian Science Monitor // Dave Gram - May 10, 2015   58

*Bernie Sanders Says He Can Beat Hillary Clinton* // Huffington Post // May
10, 2015............................. 60

*Warren-for-president push waning* // Boston Herald // Hillary Chabot – May
11, 2015............................. 61

GOP..............................................................................................................................................
62

*For GOP, too much of a good thing?* // CNN // Julian Zelizer – May 10,
2015....................................... 62

*GOP Hopefuls Talk Tough on National Security* // WSJ // Janet Hook - May
10, 2015........................... 64

*Carly Fiorina breaks with many in GOP on Obama's trade pitch* // CNN //
Eric Bradner – May 10, 2015.... 67

*Carly Fiorina fires back at critics of ‘Domaingate’* // MSNBC // Nisha
Chittal – May 10, 2015................. 67

*The Pentagon's Response to Ted Cruz Regarding Jade Helm 15* // Huffington
Post // Jason Stanford – May 10, 2015    68

*Mike Huckabee Defends Endorsement of Diabetes Product* // First Draft –NYT
// Nicholas Confessore – May 10, 2015  70

*Mike Huckabee: Nothing wrong with diabetes infomercials* // Politico //
Eliza Collins – May 10, 2015....... 71

*Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson May Play Key Roles in
Republican Race* // NYT // Albert Hunt – May 10, 2015            72

*Lindsey Graham: Hillary Clinton is beatable, but GOP is getting ‘creamed’
at the polls by non-white voters* // RawStory // Tom Boggioni – May 10,
2015           73

*Rand Paul Courts San Francisco’s Techies* // BuzzFeed // Ellen Cushing –
May 10, 2015........................ 74

*Rand Paul Talks About Appealing to Young People on Tech Issues* //
National Journal // Eric Garcia - May 10, 2015   75

*Rand Paul Plays Down Comments on Military Exercise After Mockery* // First
Draft – NYT // Jeremy Peters – May 10, 2015    77

*Hillaryclinton.Net Redirects To Carly Fiorina Campaign Website* //
Breitbart // Alex Swoyer - May 10, 2015 77

*Waiting for Jeb to jump* // Politico // Glenn Thrush – May 10,
2015.................................................... 78

*Choices, choices: Republicans ponder crowded field* // USA Today // David
Jackson – May 10, 2015......... 82

*Jeb Bush says he, Hillary Clinton would have backed Iraq invasion* // Fox
News // May 10, 2015............. 85

*Can Rubio or Bush help Republicans finally win Latino vote in 2016?* //
LAT // Mark Z. Barabak - May 10, 2015      86

*Why Carly Fiorina was fired, according to Carly Fiorina* // MSNBC // Anna
Brand - May 10, 2015........... 88

*Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson May Play Key Roles in
Republican Race* // NYT // Al Hunt - May 10, 2015      89

*Paul Tells Tech-Heavy Crowd He's Against NSA Data Collection* // AP //
Ellen Kickmeyer - May 10, 2015 91

*Ben Carson outlines flat-tax proposal* // POLITICO // Eliza Collins - May
10, 2015................................ 92

*In South Carolina, a Republican Scramble to Stand Out* // AP // Bill
Barrow and Mitch Weiss - May 10, 2015           93

OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS..........................................................................................
94

*Hillary Clinton Uses Mother's Day To Talk About Paid Family Leave* //
Jezebel // Stassa Edwardsd – May 10, 2015   95

*How Hillary Is Winning* // NYT // Frank Bruni - May 9,
2015............................................................ 95

*Clinton: Direct Evidence vs. Facts* // WSJ // Mike Carroll – May 10,
2015........................................... 98

*George Clooney gushes over Hillary Clinton and his new life with Amal* //
Woman’s Day - May 11, 2015. 98

*In Britain, an electoral earthquake shatters pre-election assumptions* //
WaPo // Dan Balz - May 10, 2015.. 100

TOP
NEWS................................................................................................................................
100

Domestic................................................................................................................................
100

*Jimmy Carter falls ill in Guyana, returns to U.S. early* // LAT // Kurtis
Lee - May 10, 2015................... 101

*Networks Fret as Ad Dollars Flow to Digital Media* // NYT // Emily Steel
and Sydney Ember - May 10, 2015            101

*Nuclear plant to clean up oil spill in Hudson River* // USA Today // Matt
Spillane - May 10, 2015.......... 103

International......................................................................................................................
104

*Saudi Arabia Says King Won’t Attend Meetings in U.S.* // NYT // Helene
Cooper - May 10, 2015......... 104

*Chasing a rainbow party* // Economist // May 10,
2015.....................................................................
107

TODAY’S KEY STORIES

New Hampshire Poll: Republican Field Tightens, Hillary Clinton Still Out in
Front Among Democrats
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-10/new-hampshire-poll-republican-field-tightens-hillary-clinton-still-out-in-front-among-democrats>
// Bloomberg // John McCormack - May 10, 2015

There's no clear Republican front-runner in the New Hampshire presidential
nominating contest, while Hillary Clinton retains an overwhelming advantage
among Democrats in the Granite State's first-in-the-nation primary.

Clinton's advantage over her potential Republican rivals has narrowed,
however, and the general election in the battleground state looks
increasingly competitive, according to a new Bloomberg Politics/Saint
Anselm New Hampshire Poll.

The poll also shows that Senator Marco Rubio is rising while support for
his fellow Floridian, former Governor Jeb Bush, has fallen off. Rubio and
Bush both were the first choice of 11 percent of likely Republican primary
voters in the poll, while Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Senator Rand
Paul of Kentucky each scored 12 percent.

Clinton is the first choice of 62 percent of likely Democratic primary
voters roughly nine months before the primary. That's her best showing
since November and suggests a recent wave of influence-peddling allegations
about her family's foundation as well as the controversy over her use of a
private e-mail server while she was secretary of state haven't tarnished
her with the party's base.

There are warning signs for Clinton in New Hampshire. Since the last poll
in February, three of the top-polling Republican candidates—Bush, Paul, and
Rubio—have moved into striking distance and are now within the poll's
margin of error of tying her in hypothetical match-ups.

The poll, conducted May 2-6 by Washington-based Purple Insights, shows Bush
and Rubio as Clinton's closest competitors in potential head-to-head
contests. Both trail her by 2 percentage points. Paul is next, 3 percentage
points behind her, followed by Walker, who trails Clinton by 6 points.

Clinton's closest New Hampshire primary competitor, Senator Bernie Sanders
of neighboring Vermont, was the first choice of 18 percent of likely
Democratic voters. Vice President Joe Biden was at 5 percent and former
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley at 3 percent. Neither Biden nor O'Malley
have said they'll run.

“Clinton’s strength in the primary remains historic," said Purple Insights'
Doug Usher. "But she’s facing the laws of political gravity among
independent voters more quickly than her campaign might have hoped.”

Clinton's numbers with independent voters were destined to fall at some
point, Usher said, as the campaign becomes more fully formed and intensely
competitive.

Among independent general-election voters in New Hampshire, Clinton is tied
or nearly tied with Bush, Paul and Rubio. She does better against Walker
with this group, leading 42 percent to 36 percent.

Rubio, who announced his candidacy April 13, more than doubled his level of
primary support since the poll's last sample, in February. Bush, who isn't
expected to formally announce until June, dropped five percentage points,
his lowest level since the poll started tracking the state's voters in
November.

Poll respondent Stephanie Korb, 57, a Republican dental assistant from
Belmont, N.H., said she is leaning toward Rubio.

“He seems like a less offensive choice than the others,” she said. “I want
to hear what the candidates want to do to turn this country around and
you're not hearing that.”

Support for Paul and Walker have remained steady since February. Paul has
formally announced his candidacy, while Walker is expected to hold off
until June or later.

Donald Trump was selected by 8 percent of likely primary voters—up 5
percentage points from February—followed by 7 percent for New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie, 6 percent for Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, 5 percent
for retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, 4 percent for former Arkansas Governor
Mike Huckabee, and 3 percent for former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.

Scoring 1 percent were former Texas Governor Rick Perry, Louisiana Governor
Bobby Jindal, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, former Senator Rick
Santorum of Pennsylvania, and Ohio Governor John Kasich, none of whom have
formally announced bids.

Walker does best when first and second choices are combined, a positive
sign for his prospects in the state. He's backed by 24 percent in that
case, followed by 21 percent for Bush and Paul and 20 percent for Rubio.

“The Republican primary remains as wide open as ever, and there are no
signs here that any candidate has a clear route to winning in New
Hampshire,” Usher said.

Part of Paul's strength is his ability to attract independent voters, a key
group especially in New Hampshire, where they can vote in partisan
primaries. He's supported by 18 percent of independents who said they were
likely to vote in the Republican primary, easily the most of anyone in the
field. That means he's going to want to see the state's Democratic primary
remain a lopsided affair, prompting independents to stick with the action
on the Republican side and continue to support him.

Bush is relatively weak among independents. While drawing support from 15
percent of Republicans, he has the backing of just 6 percent of
independents. That's a potential problem for Bush, especially if he runs
poorly in the Iowa caucuses set for the week before New Hampshire's
primary. A Quinnipiac University poll released last week showed Bush in 7th
place in Iowa, so he might need a top finish in New Hampshire to rebound.

Fred McGarry, 69, a semi-retired engineer from Deerfield, N.H., said he's
leaning toward Bush, although the moderate Republican said he wishes he had
other choices.

“I'd be happier if his last name wasn't Bush,” McGarry said. “All the
others are too far to the right for me and my guess is that some of them
will play well in the strongly red states, but not get elected nationwide.”

The poll shows gender differences developing among likely Republican
primary voters. Paul does twice as well among men as he does among women,
while Rubio does slightly better with women than men. Walker also does
slightly better among men. Bush performed equally well among both genders.

“Walker has got a lot of good credibility and his conservative vocabulary
is excellent,” said John Van Uden, 79, a retired manager for a farm
equipment company who lives in Bedford, N.H. “He knows what he's talking
about from his experience as a governor.”

And New Hampshire voters aren't convinced that the next president will be
named either Bush or Clinton. Asked to choose which of the two would be the
next president, a third of New Hampshire's likely general-election voters
said Clinton, 27 percent didn't venture a guess, 22 percent said someone
else, and 18 percent said Bush.

Among Republican primary voters, 31 percent say they think another Bush
will move into the White House in 2017, while 34 percent say someone else,
24 percent said they're not sure, and 10 percent said Clinton.

The poll included 500 general-election voters as well as over-samples to
have 400 Republican primary voters and 400 Democratic primary voters. It
has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points on
general-election questions and plus or minus 4.9 percentage points on
primary election questions.

Meet the man behind hawkish Hillary Clinton's foreign policy
<http://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8569345/hillary-clinton-hawkish-foreign-policy>
// Vox // Jonathan Allen - May 11, 2015

In late 2010, Tom Nides sat down for lunch with the throwback diplomat
Richard Holbrooke on the second floor of Kinkead's, a legendary seafood
restaurant near the State Department's headquarters in the Foggy Bottom
section of Washington.

Nides had just been nominated to succeed Jack Lew as deputy secretary of
state, and Holbrooke, who was serving as the US special representative for
Afghanistan and Pakistan, wanted to give Nides the lay of the land. Nides
thought that meant a status update on the region.

But Holbrooke, who paid attention as meticulously to the ups and downs of
the Washington elite as he did to the twists and turns of international
deal-making, intended to detail the department's power structure. As they
ate, Holbrooke explained that Nides must acquaint himself with a singular
force in Secretary Hillary Clinton's inner circle.

"Let me tell you, the only person and the one person you need to get to
know, who is loved by everyone in the institution and gets things done, is
Jake Sullivan," Holbrooke said.

The 38-year-old Sullivan catapulted through the ranks of the Democratic
foreign policy establishment, from 2008 Clinton campaign aide to top policy
hand at State to national security adviser for Vice President Joe Biden.
Now the blue-eyed, sandy-haired Minnesotan has come full circle, having
been picked earlier this month for the delicate task of running the Clinton
campaign's foreign policy, an area in which the candidate's hawkish
instincts diverge from those of war-wary progressives.

For liberals hoping Clinton will undergo a left-oriented metamorphosis on
foreign policy to match the economic and social policy transformations that
have her sounding more and more like an Elizabeth Warren acolyte,
Sullivan's selection will be a disappointment. He won't drag Clinton to the
left — or anywhere else.

"He's in line with her," said Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security
adviser to President Barack Obama. "On the spectrum of people in our
administration, he tended to favor more assertive US engagement on issues"
and "responses that would incorporate some military element." That included
early advocacy for arming Syrian rebels when he worked for Clinton at State
and the Ukrainian military when he was Biden's national security adviser.

"Reject cynicism. Reject certitude. And don't be a jerk."

Like Clinton, though, Sullivan is decidedly dedicated to the proposition
that no ideology or solution fits every situation.

"Reject cynicism. Reject certitude. And don't be a jerk," he advised the
University of Minnesota's public policy graduates in a 2013 address. "Now,
when I say 'reject certitude,' I don't mean your core principles. You can
and must be certain about those ... But in public policy, principles simply
point the way — they do not provide specific answers about what to do in
specific circumstances."

He and Clinton both subscribe to the non-philosophical school of so-called
"smart power." A concept developed by Harvard professor and former Defense
Department official Joseph Nye, smart power encompasses the use of both
hard power favored by hawks (military threat, force, and sanctions) and the
soft-power levers favored by foreign policy doves (foreign aid, forging
cultural and economic bonds, and negotiation).

"Jake was not the most experienced diplomat at the state department i could
have chosen..."

In the confines of the national political debate, hard power and soft power
are black-and-white choices. In the smart power construct, they are not at
odds; they are complementary. And while Sullivan is more given to the use
of force than many in the Obama administration, he's also shown a
willingness to engage diplomatically with some of the toughest customers in
the world.

He was one of a handful of Obama White House aides looped into the effort
to reestablish ties US ties to Cuba. Before that, Clinton dispatched him to
Oman in 2012 to begin negotiations with Iran over a possible deal to roll
back economic sanctions on Tehran in exchange for restrictions on the
country's nuclear enrichment program.

"Jake was not the most experienced diplomat at the State Department I could
have chosen, but he was discreet and had my absolute confidence," Clinton
wrote in her memoir Hard Choices. "His presence would send a powerful
message that I was personally invested in this process."

"Ugh!"

As important as sharing Clinton's worldview, Sullivan's developed a role in
her orbit as a solicitor, and distiller, of the best arguments on all sides
of a debate, and as someone who is widely trusted as an honest broker among
the sometimes warring factions of Hillaryland. Former Undersecretary of
State Bob Hormats, who spent eight years working at the National Security
Council in the 1960s and '70s, says Sullivan's approach is reminiscent of
that of Brent Scowcroft, who served Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W.
Bush as national security adviser.

"He is known to have strong views but also was good at pulling together the
views of people whose opinions he trusted"

When done well, the national security adviser's job is to collect the
wisdom, insights, and policy preferences of the president's war Cabinet and
present them with as little prejudice as possible. Sullivan's role on the
campaign, like his role at State, is similar to that. There's no learning
curve. His tendencies are her tendencies. Veteran Clinton foreign policy
aides say he would be on the short list for the national security adviser
post if she wins the presidency.

"He is known to have strong views but also was good at pulling together the
views of people whose opinions he trusted and conveying those to the
secretary so she could see different perspectives," Hormats said. "In many
ways I think his temperament and his interlocutor role are similar to those
of Brent Scowcroft, who was extremely knowledgeable and well-respected for
these traits. ... And, like Jake, he stayed out of the limelight."

When I emailed Sullivan to tell him I was working on a profile of him, he
replied in four characters:

"Ready to make commitments"

Sullivan, the second of what would become a set of five kids, was born in
Burlington, Vermont, a few weeks after Jimmy Carter's 1976 election, and
later moved to Minnesota. Until he was well into his 30s, he had only
really observed one Democrat in the presidency: Bill Clinton.

At Minneapolis Southwest High School, Sullivan was a standout on the debate
and quiz bowl teams, garnering "most likely to succeed" honors. He
graduated from Yale in 1998, went to Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship, and
then returned to Yale for law school.

That's where he first met Harold Koh, the renowned human-rights lawyer and
international law expert.

Koh, who would go on to become dean of the law school and then serve as
Clinton’s top lawyer at State, recalls Sullivan volunteering to help with
the legwork on an amicus brief for the Supreme Court in the landmark case
Lawrence v. Texas. The case looked like it could be a watershed moment for
the attainment — or rejection — of civil rights for the gay and lesbian
community. Sullivan felt it was important to push that needle forward.

Yale's role brought together Sullivan's values on a domestic policy matter
with his interest in international law. His desire to jump into the fray
showed he was "ready to make commitments" to social justice issues, Koh
said. It was also a sign that he shares Clinton's view that domestic policy
is a factor that affects America's ability to lead abroad.

In the brief, Koh and colleagues argued that the Supreme Court should weigh
the conclusions of foreign and international courts in determining whether
a Texas statute banning same-sex sodomy violated the Constitution. The 6-3
majority opinion overturning the Texas law noted, "Other nations, too, have
taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of
homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct." Sullivan
would go on to clerk for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who sided
with the majority in the Lawrence case.

Years later, when Koh and Sullivan worked together as top State advisers,
Clinton delivered a speech in Geneva in which she equated gay rights and
human rights, a formulation designed to signal that the US would judge
foreign countries' human rights records in part on how they treated members
of the LGBT community.

"I speak about this subject knowing that my own country's record on human
rights for gay people is far from perfect," Clinton said. "So we, like all
nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home."

When Sullivan left Biden's office last year, he went back to Yale to be
close to his fiancée, Maggie Goodlander, a former adviser to Senators Joe
Lieberman and John McCain, who is pursuing a law degree. In New Haven, he
and Koh co-taught a class on foreign policy and law, where Sullivan pushed
students to deliver debate-style arguments and then critiqued them to show
how they could be sharper.

Like Clinton, another Yale-trained lawyer, Sullivan simply loves assessing
the arguments, Koh said.

Winning friends and influencing Obama

Sullivan prepped Clinton for her 2008 debates with Obama and other
Democrats. He did such a good job that, after the primary, Obama's team
borrowed him from Clinton to help the future president get ready for his
face-offs with Republican nominee John McCain.

When Obama won the White House, Sullivan told friends he planned to head
home to Minnesota, where he wanted to practice law and eventually run for
office — possibly then–Rep. Michele Bachmann’s House seat. Clinton changed
that arc by offering him a newly created job as her deputy chief of staff
for policy at the State Department. He was 32 when he was sworn in.

He quickly accumulated influence within the department, becoming Clinton's
right hand in formulating policy, conducting diplomacy, writing speeches,
and, at times, dealing with the media. Colleagues say he showed a unique
ability to dive into and out of issues, and to move from the crisis of the
moment to long-term planning. And, of course, he had an uncanny knack for
knowing what Clinton would want done.

A wee-hours reader and emailer, Sullivan developed a reputation for cutting
through bureaucratic thickets to get decisions quickly on even minor items.
That helped him suck up turf and authority at State, where he was
eventually given additional duties as the head of the department's in-house
strategic think tank, the Office of Policy Planning.

Perhaps most impressive, though, is the way he earned the trust of both
Clinton and Obama’s foreign policy team at a time when the two camps were
still feeling each other out. Sullivan formed a bond with two of Obama’s
national security aides, Denis McDonough and Ben Rhodes, often channeling
the view of the White House within the State Department.

Though he gained notoriety with conservatives for being part of the email
chain on Benghazi talking points, the truth is that he was in near-constant
communication with the White House on all manner of issues for four years.

For example, when Clinton accused Pakistan of harboring Osama bin Laden in
2009, Sullivan quickly reached out to see if Obama’s aides wanted her to
walk it back. The answer: double down. The close contact on even minor
issues reduced the real and inevitable tension between Obama and Clinton
camps that had fought bitterly over the Democratic nomination and didn't
always see eye to eye on foreign policy matters.

Sullivan, unlike the vast majority of Clintonworld, had formed
relationships with Obama's team during the 2008 general election campaign.
That's one reason he became a go-to resource for the White House. The
other: he was one-stop shopping on policy, diplomacy, and communication.

"Jake did everything for Secretary Clinton," Rhodes said.

In another episode in 2009, Sullivan took up the White House's cause in
pushing for the ouster of Jared Cohen, a member of the Policy Planning
Office staff who asked Twitter founder Jack Dorsey to delay scheduled
maintenance of the company's platform because members of the Iranian Green
Movement relied on it to communicate.

Obama had just said the US wouldn’t interfere in Iran’s domestic politics,
and Cohen’s intervention, which was leaked to the New York Times, made it
look like the president wasn’t honoring that promise. From Sullivan's point
of view, which matched that of the White House and some veteran diplomats,
the story about Cohen's action could backfire on the Green Movement. The
demonstrators had signaled they would lose credibility if fellow Iranians
saw them as puppets of Washington.

Clinton had a different take on the matter, telling her top aides that
Cohen’s effort was exactly what the US should be doing.

That episode in June 2009 was one of the rare occasions when Sullivan and
Clinton diverged. He was at her elbow for nearly every stop on her
marathon, four-year tour of the world. When he wasn't literally by her
side, it was because he was representing her with foreign officials.

"When he shows up somewhere, they know he speaks for Hillary and he speaks
to Hillary," Koh said.

"The cat's meow"

Often, a Washington staffer reflects one or two traits of his or her boss —
or quickly learns to adopt them. Sullivan clearly reminds Clinton of
herself: lawyerly, organized, detail-oriented, and capable of moving from
issue to issue without losing his place. And, of course, his pragmatic
streak on policy matches hers. He also shares a few of Bill Clinton's
traits, most notably a rare likability.

"When Jake Sullivan first came to work for me, I told my husband about this
incredibly bright rising star — Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law School — and my
husband said, 'Well, if he ever learns to play the saxophone, watch out,'"
Clinton once said, adding that when she traveled as secretary of state she
talked to people all over the world who wanted to "meet a potential future
president of the United States — and of course they mean Jake."

As Nides put it, "Hillary thinks he is the cat's meow."

While Sullivan has made a big name for himself in Washington over a short
period of time, and is well-positioned to join a possible second Clinton
administration in a powerful role, he often tells friends he wants to
return home — at least for a while — and run for elective office.

That may be informed, in part, by his desire to be closer to his roots.

With one exception since 2001, Sullivan has traveled to the NCAA men's
basketball Final Four city to meet up with his siblings. They show up,
without tickets, and try to find their way into the arena, according to a
friend. Another friend said growing up in a household full of smart kids
has helped Sullivan keep an even keel in the choppy waters of Washington
politics and international diplomacy.

Teammate of rivals

It was back to Minnesota that Sullivan planned to go when Clinton left the
State Department in early 2013. He was finally going to set up that run for
office. But he ended up staying in Washington for a job that would increase
his value to Clinton as a foreign policy adviser and keep him in the middle
of an issue — a possible nuclear deal with Iran — that presents tremendous
risk to her in 2016.

Clinton had refused Obama's request to stay in her job, and the White House
didn't want to lose Sullivan, too. The biggest job available was national
security adviser to Biden.

Sullivan insisted that, once again, he had his heart set on going back home
so he could eventually come back to Washington as an elected official in
his own right.

Obama sealed the deal by telling Sullivan, among other things, that he
could be far more influential as Biden's national security adviser than as
a junior member of Congress, according to a person familiar with their
conversation. It was a line Sullivan had heard before, from Nides and
others. Obama, who served less than one term in the Senate, knew from
back-benching it on Capitol Hill.

And though he was assigned to the vice president's office, Sullivan
understood the role would give him access to the president's daily briefing
on intelligence and put him in the Situation Room for National Security
Council meetings. In those ways, it represented an ideal training ground
for becoming the president's national security adviser.

White House officials say there was never any tension surrounding
Sullivan's decision to work for Biden — a path Clinton encouraged him to
follow — because everyone knew that if she ran for president, Sullivan
would go with her. He had risen with her, and his views on US engagement
with the world fit hers much better than Obama's or Biden's. Biden, for
example, was against the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and striking
Libya.

Sullivan participated in a series of meetings with Clinton and foreign
officials in Paris and the Middle East in which the Libya coalition was
stitched together. He handed her the phone when she asked Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov, from a television greenroom in Tunisia, to abstain
from a Security Council vote on Libya.

From the vice president's office, he continued to be part of the US
negotiating team on an Iran deal that Republicans, and some Democrats, say
places too much trust in Tehran. The administration believes it is the only
path to ensuring Iran is unable to develop a nuclear weapon in short order.
After Sullivan left the administration last year — for the teaching post at
Yale rather than a run for Congress — he continued to participate in the
P5+1 talks with Iran.

"You can't be effective that way"

A few weeks after Holbrooke advised Nides to develop a relationship with
Sullivan, Holbrooke's heart burst in a meeting with his deputy Frank
Ruggiero, Clinton, and Sullivan at the State Department. In typically
animated fashion, he had been arguing against the administration's policy
on dealing with the Taliban as Obama tried to wind down the war in
Afghanistan.

In Holbrooke's view, it was worth sitting down with Taliban leaders to see
if a deal could be struck in which they would sever their relations with
al-Qaeda and live by the new constitution of Afghanistan. The White House
position was that those concessions should be pre-conditions of negotiating
with the Taliban. Holbrooke thought they should be pre-conditions for a
deal, but not for a meeting. On that matter, Sullivan was with the White
House.

As Holbrooke made his impassioned plea to Clinton, he heaved and turned
red. His aorta had torn open. Sullivan and Ruggierio came to his aid and
hustled him to a nearby elevator so he could be rushed to George Washington
University's hospital. Holbrooke died a couple of days later.

He had once told a colleague, after finding himself talking to Sullivan
when he called for Clinton, that Sullivan could someday be secretary of
state.

Less than two years after Holbrooke's death, Sullivan was assigned to reach
out to Iran about a possible nuclear deal, without apparent pre-condition.
He continued to work on the developing deal even after he left Washington.
The controversial premise on which it hinges — that the agreement can be so
sound as to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon — is politically
risky for Clinton.

She has left her options open, for the moment, saying last month that
"diplomacy deserves a chance." Her top foreign policy aide's involvement in
the negotiations may make it harder for her to distance herself from a
deal, but she has not committed to supporting one.

Like Clinton, Sullivan, for better and worse, has shown situational
flexibility in his approach to foreign policy. Often, there's no perfect
choice on the table. And what works for one problem may not work for
another.

"The minute you start treating public policy problems like arithmetic
problems, with an absolute right and an absolute wrong answer, quit," he
told the Minnesota graduating class. "You can't be effective that way. In a
world of imperfection, you will not find a flawless position, which means
that whatever position you adopt will inevitably have weaknesses or blind
spots. You should acknowledge them."

Tony Rodham’s Ties Invite Scrutiny for Hillary and Bill Clinton
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/us/politics/tony-rodhams-ties-invite-scrutiny-forhillary-and-bill-clinton.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>
// NYT // Steve Eder - May 10, 2015

The heavyset 60-year-old man who walked with a cane seemed an unlikely
speaker at the glamorous launch party for a cosmetics company held in Santa
Monica, Calif., in March.

But Tony Rodham appeared at ease among the special guests and well-heeled
investors, offering them encouragement as well as an invitation.

“If there’s anything I can ever do for any of you, let me know,” Mr. Rodham
said. “I’ll be more than happy to do it.”

A promotional video of the party that the cosmetics company later released
identified the speaker as “the youngest brother of former first lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton,” a relationship that has been Mr. Rodham’s calling
card since the days of the Clinton White House.

On and off for two decades, the affable Mr. Rodham has tried to use his
connections with his sister and his brother-in-law, former President Bill
Clinton, to further a business career that has seen more failures than
successes. The connections to the Clintons have given Mr. Rodham, a
self-described “facilitator,” a unique appeal and a range of opportunities,
like addressing Chinese investor conferences and joining an advisory board
of a company seeking permission to mine for gold in Haiti.

But his business dealings have often invited public scrutiny and
uncomfortable questions for the Clintons as Mr. Rodham has cycled through a
variety of ventures, leveraging his ties to them and sometimes directly
seeking their help.

When Mr. Clinton worked as a co-chairman of Haiti’s earthquake recovery
commission, Mr. Rodham and his partners sought a $22 million deal to
rebuild homes in the country. In court proceedings three years ago in an
unrelated lawsuit, Mr. Rodham explained how “a guy in Haiti” had “donated”
10,000 acres of land to him and described how he had leaned on Mr. Clinton
to get the rebuilding project funded amid bureaucratic delays.

“I deal through the Clinton Foundation. That gets me in touch with the
Haitian officials,” Mr. Rodham said, according to a transcript of his
testimony. “I hound my brother-in-law, because it’s his fund that we’re
going to get our money from. And he can’t do it until the Haitian
government does it.

“And he keeps telling me, ‘Oh, it’s going to happen tomorrow, tomorrow,
tomorrow, tomorrow.’ Well, tomorrow hasn’t come yet.”

Mr. Rodham’s Haiti project never did happen. The Clinton Foundation said in
a statement that it was not aware of Mr. Rodham’s Haiti project and had no
involvement in it. Mr. Clinton’s office said he had not been involved in
any of Mr. Rodham’s pursuits in Haiti.

But Mr. Rodham was able to prevail on the former president for help in
other ways.

When Mr. Rodham was short on cash in 2010, Mr. Clinton helped get him a job
for $72,000 a year raising investments in GreenTech Automotive, an electric
car company then owned by Terry McAuliffe, an old friend of Mr. Clinton’s
and now the governor of Virginia.

“I was complaining to my brother-in-law I didn’t have any money. And he
asked McAuliffe to give me a job,” Mr. Rodham said during the court
proceedings, which were the result of a lawsuit over unpaid legal bills
filed by his lawyer in a child support case.

A brother down on his luck seeking help from more successful siblings is a
familiar story, and presidents and their families have hardly been immune
from that sometimes uncomfortable situation. For the Clintons, Tony Rodham
has not been the only source of embarrassment.

Mrs. Clinton’s other brother, Hugh Rodham, stumbled through an unsuccessful
campaign for the Senate in Florida during Mr. Clinton’s first term. Roger
Clinton, the former president’s brother, served a year in federal prison on
a cocaine distribution charge. And all three were involved in lobbying Mr.
Clinton for pardons for their associates as he left office, prompting a
congressional inquiry.

“They’re all colorful,” Rahm Emanuel, a former Clinton aide who later
became mayor of Chicago, said in an interview in 2001. “They’re all living
large.”

As Mrs. Clinton began her 2016 campaign for the presidency, Hugh Rodham and
Roger Clinton had faded from public view, but Tony Rodham emerged as a
controversial figure. A government investigation in March found that
GreenTech, which sought green cards for its Chinese investors through an
American government program, had received special treatment in the handling
of its visa applications. The report described instances when Mr. McAuliffe
and Mr. Rodham contacted an official from the Department of Homeland
Security to complain about the pace of the visa process.

Mr. Rodham’s unsuccessful pursuit of housing contracts in Haiti, which has
not previously been reported, raised new questions.

As Mrs. Clinton campaigns, she speaks fondly of her brothers. At a stop in
Iowa, she recalled them working together at her father’s drapery business.
Her official campaign biography prominently mentions them.

“She loves her family more than anything,” said Nick Merrill, a spokesman
for Mrs. Clinton. “Her brothers have always been there for her, and she
will always be there for them. Each, though, have their own lives, their
own jobs, their own ups and downs.”

As the youngest of three children, Tony Rodham has lived in the shadow of
his sister. He never finished college, and he worked at a variety of jobs —
as a prison guard, private detective and at the Democratic National
Committee — until after the Clintons were in the White House, when he
became a consultant and deal broker. He was once married to Nicole Boxer,
the daughter of Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

He lives with his second wife, Megan, and two young children in a large
house on a hill in Vienna, Va., a suburb of Washington. He declined to
speak to a reporter who went to his door one afternoon in April, and he did
not respond to other messages seeking comment for this article.

But in a statement from Mr. Rodham passed on by the Clinton campaign, he
said that he wanted to protect his family’s privacy and that he would not
engage in disputing claims about him, which he said he considered to be
political attacks.

His wife said the family was excited about Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for
president.

“The kids love their Aunt Hillary,” she said. “We are supportive, and we
are excited.”

Mr. Rodham described his dire financial situation during the court
proceedings in 2012. As a result of a series of failed business deals —
including some in oil and gas, water, housing, tutoring and pharmaceuticals
— he said he had not made a mortgage payment in 10 months and was fighting
home foreclosure.

The Clintons, he said, had been generous, even paying for his son’s
schooling, but they were not going to give him more money. “Hillary and
Bill are done,” he said. “I mean, look at what they’ve done for me. They’ve
given me money all the time.”

Mr. Clinton’s willingness to assist in getting him work with Mr. McAuliffe
was helpful, Mr. Rodham said, but at $6,000 a month, it was not enough.
“It’s kind of like the job he got me a long time ago when I worked in the
prison,” he said.

Even more important, according to Mr. Rodham, was what he said was going to
be Mr. Clinton’s help on his Haiti rebuilding project. That project came
about when Sheldon Drobny, an old friend, contacted Mr. Rodham about making
a connection for a Chicago-area contractor, who wanted to become involved
in building houses in Haiti.

“We were trying to help. Period,” Mr. Drobny, a co-founder of Air America
Radio, the former liberal talk network, said in a phone interview. He
called the effort “humanitarian.”

Mr. Drobny said he had connected with Mr. Rodham because of what he
believed were his ties to the Clinton Foundation, which was playing a
central role in the rebuilding efforts. Ultimately, he said, nothing
happened “because the Haiti government was not cooperative.”

The Clinton Foundation said in its statement that aside from supporting a
housing exposition in Haiti, it had not been directly involved with any
housing projects. The foundation also said Mr. Rodham’s project had not
been among the more than 300 submitted for consideration at the expo.

Mr. Rodham projected that he could make $1 million on the Haiti deal if it
came to pass — enough money, he said in his court testimony, to take his
family to Disney World and cover his debts, including his legal bills and
his long overdue federal taxes.

Mr. Rodham eventually settled his bill with his former lawyer, Gwendolyn Jo
M. Carlberg. Ms. Carlberg said in a phone interview that, despite her
lawsuit, she did not have a negative view of Mr. Rodham. “I found a lot of
good in Tony,” she said.

He is still sought after for deals and personal appearances.

That was the case in March when Mr. Rodham attended the celebration of Wynn
Beauty & Health in Santa Monica, which included a performance from an
“American Idol” contestant. In addition to appearing in the promotional
video, Mr. Rodham posed for at least a dozen photos.

But after a reporter contacted Wynn Beauty & Health, Mr. Rodham was removed
from the video and photos of him disappeared from the company’s Facebook
page. In an email, the company said that Mr. Rodham was not involved in the
business and that he had appeared at the celebration only as a longtime
friend offering congratulations.

HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE

As Middle Class Fades, So Does Use of Term on Campaign Trail
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/us/politics/as-middle-class-fades-so-does-use-of-term-on-campaign-trail.html>
// NYT // Amy Chozick – May 11, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking last month with voters in Marshalltown,
Iowa. She has made "everyday Americans" a focus of her campaign, staying
away from the term "middle class."

Hillary Rodham Clinton calls them “everyday Americans.” Scott Walker
prefers “hardworking taxpayers.” Rand Paul says he speaks for “people who
work for the people who own businesses.” Bernie Sanders talks about
“ordinary Americans.”

The once ubiquitous term “middle class” has gone conspicuously missing from
the 2016 campaign trail, as candidates and their strategists grasp for new
terms for an unsettled economic era. The phrase, long synonymous with the
American dream, now evokes anxiety, an uncertain future and a lifestyle
that is increasingly out of reach.

The move away from “middle class” is the rhetorical result of a critical
shift: After three decades of income gains favoring the highest earners and
job growth being concentrated at the bottom of the pay scale, the middle
has for millions of families become a precarious place to be.

A social stratum that once signified a secure, aspirational lifestyle, with
a house in the suburbs, children set to attend college, retirement savings
in the bank and, maybe, an occasional trip to Disneyland now connotes fears
about falling behind, sociologists, economists and political scientists say.

That unease spilled out during conversations with voters in focus groups
convened by Democratic pollsters in recent months.

“The cultural consensus around what it mean to be ‘middle class’ — and that
has very much been part of the national identity in the United States — is
beginning to shift,’’ said Sarah Elwood, a professor at the University of
Wisconsin and an author of a paper about class identity that one Clinton
adviser had studied.

Rising costs mean many families whose incomes fall in the middle of the
national distribution can no longer afford the trappings of what was once
associated with a middle-class lifestyle. That has made the term, political
scientists say, lose its resonance.

“We have no collective language for talking about that condition,” Dr.
Elwood said.

The result is a presidential campaign in which every candidate desperately
wants to appeal to middle-class Americans — broadly defined as working-age
households with annual incomes of $35,000 to $100,000 — but does not know
how to address them. That has led to some linguistic maneuvering.

Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, has said what makes America
unique are the “millions and millions of people who aren’t rich.” Mr.
Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is seeking the Democratic
nomination, has talked about “working families” and “people working full
time.” Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican, has made “hardworking men
and women across America” the focus of his message.

“It used to be ‘middle class’ represented everyone, actually or in their
aspirations, but now it doesn’t feel as attainable,” said David Madland,
managing director of economic policy at the Center for American Progress, a
liberal think tank with close ties to the Clinton campaign. “You see
politicians and others grasping for the right word to talk about a majority
of Americans.”

Candidates realize they cannot win election without widespread appeal among
the 51 percent of Americans who, according to Gallup, identify as middle or
upper-middle class. That compares with an average of 60 percent who
identified the same way in polls conducted from 2000 through 2008.

But sociologists say such surveys obscure how Americans feel about the
characterization — and how much the middle class has shrunk. They call the
new economy an “hourglass” with a concentration of wealth at the top and
low-paying service jobs at the bottom and “a spectacular loss of
median-wage jobs in the middle,” said William Julius Wilson, a sociologist
and Harvard professor.

In surveys, more Americans still choose ‘middle class’ when asked which
category they belong to, because they do not want to identify as rich or
poor and because no new phrase exists to describe middle-income earners who
view their social class as vulnerable. Working class, once associated with
manufacturing jobs, now mostly connotes low-paying service jobs.

“People are looking for some way to say, ‘I recognize I’m a little below
the middle,’” said Dennis Gilbert, a professor of sociology at Hamilton
College who has published books on American class structure.

Before presidential campaigns tested replacement terms, academics started
to adopt phrases like the “near poor” or “the sandwich generation.’’ After
the Great Depression, “submerged middle class” became popular to describe
families who could rise if aided by the New Deal.

“What do you call people who don’t have good jobs but who aren’t poor?”
said Andrew J. Cherlin, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University
and author of “Labor’s Love Lost,” about the rise and fall of working
families.

The words may be endangered, but the idyllic image of the American middle
class that took hold after World War II and became the backbone of
everything from selling appliances to pitching presidential candidates
still looms large on the campaign trail. When candidates talk about the
middle class, they increasingly use the words as a nostalgic term, a
reminder about what the American economy has been and what it could again
become — with the right president, of course.

The 67-year-old Mrs. Clinton regularly walks down memory lane with stories
about her middle-class upbringing in the suburbs of Chicago, invoking an
era when parents who were not rich could raise a child who would become a
senator, a secretary of state and a potential president.

In addition to her signature phrase, “everyday Americans,” Mrs. Clinton
often says: “We need to make the middle class mean something again.” The
line, her campaign said, was informed by the growing school of thought that
in 2015, “middle class” makes a majority of voters more anxious than
optimistic..

“In the 1960s, ‘middle class’ felt like it fit your lifestyle,” said
Felicia Wong, the president and chief executive of the Roosevelt Institute,
a liberal think tank with ties to Mrs. Clinton’s economic team.

Even if families fall in the middle in income distribution, they cannot
afford many of the necessities, much less the luxuries, traditionally
associated with being middle class, Ms. Wong said.

Household incomes for the middle class have been stagnant, while the costs
of middle-class security — which economists define as child care, higher
education, health care, housing and retirement — increased by more than
$10,000 from 2000 to 2012, according to a Center for American Progress
report, “Middle-Class Squeeze.”

“If you’re technically in the 50th percentile in income distribution but
you can’t afford to send your kids to college or take a vacation, are you
middle class or not?” Ms. Wong said.

But skeptics say that “everyday Americans” and the other phrases candidates
use to fill the void are overly vague and upbeat and obscure a bleak
reality.

“If you had a candidate running around talking about the ‘submerged middle
class,’ voters would run the other way,” said Frank Levy, an economist and
professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The phrases can be awkward, too, or slow to catch on. Mrs. Clinton has a
mantra: “Everyday Americans need a champion.” But when she visited a high
school in Las Vegas last week to talk about immigration, she found the
students had welcomed her with a handmade sign with her campaign slogan.
They had botched the punctuation — and a bit of the meaning, though perhaps
it still resonated. “Everyday, Americans need a champion,’’ it read.

Hillary Rodham Clinton keeping an eye on opponents
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/05/10/hillary-rodham-clinton-keeping-eye-opponents/EYsSvlwNCspLHmfbpTkMJI/story.html>
// The Boston Globe // Annie Linskey – May 11, 2015

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton is leaving nothing to chance this time
around.

The Clinton presidential operation may look like a juggernaut from the
outside, but her attempts to marshal early support in the home states of
long shots are evidence that she feels the need to protect every flank, no
matter how weak the opposition appears.

In Rhode Island, office space for a local Clinton campaign headquarters was
identified early in the campaign; in Maryland, several lawmakers have
already lent their names to Clinton for fund-raisers. And in Vermont, she
moved quickly to sew up support.

These aren’t states that typically get much attention from presidential
candidates. But all three are home to underdogs who have announced, or are
considering, their own bid for the Democratic Party’s nomination. That
makes the states turf Clinton can’t ignore.

“She knows there is going to be a media onslaught against her,” said Joe
Paolino, a former Providence mayor who will be leasing her campaign office
space in Providence. “She isn’t taking anything for granted. This is not a
walk in the park for her.”

Eight years ago, Clinton also basked in the aura of inevitability only to
be out-organized and out-campaigned by Barack Obama. Clinton’s campaign has
pledged that it will avoid mistakes from that race, so this time around her
campaign is leaner. The staff is smaller. The offices are less lavish.

Tyrone Gayle, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said the organization
is making a concerted effort nationally. “Hillary Clinton is committed to
earning every vote,” said Gayle in a statement.

Two of Clinton’s challengers are new to the Democratic Party, and therefore
lack strong ties with the local party establishments. For Clinton, that
made for easy endorsement pickings in Vermont, where Democratic Burlington
Mayor Miro Weinberger revealed his support for her the same day that Bernie
Sanders, an independent and former Burlington mayor, said he would
challenge her for the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton campaign reached out to line up the endorsement before Sanders’
announcement, according to a source familiar with the conversation,
reflecting an attention to detail. Vermont’s other senator, Patrick Leahy,
is also backing Clinton.

Sanders’ camp brushed off the endorsements. “Would you rather have
politicians or the people backing you?” said Sanders’ spokesman Michael
Briggs.

Sanders has gone on to raise more than $3 million since he got in the race
on April 30; mostly from small donations, according to his campaign. And
he’s getting a close look from Iowa caucus-goers, according to a survey out
last week. His support rose to 15 percent from zero in February, according
to a poll by Quinnipiac University.

Much of it came from people in the liberal wing of the party who hoped
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren would jump into the race. She polled
at 19 percent three months ago but was dropped from the more recent survey
because she’s not running for president.

Another Democratic newcomer challenging Clinton is former Rhode Island
governor Lincoln Chafee. On April 9, he said he’d consider a presidential
bid.

Within days, current Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo, a longtime
Clinton supporter, told the Associated Press she wouldn’t back the home
state candidate, in part because it is “time to put a mom in the White
House.”

Then word leaked to the local press that Clinton was preparing to set up
operations in the state — even open an office in Providence. Debbie Rich, a
spokeswoman for Chafee, declined to comment on Clinton’s campaign
activities, other than to point out that her campaign’s office address was
publicized “right after” Chafee revealed he was considering running.

The Clinton campaign wouldn’t comment on the Rhode Island office and noted
that the only official state headquarters to launch so far are in her home
state of New York and in New Hampshire, where a Manchester operation opened
last week.

Next month, Clinton will make an appearance in Rhode Island for fund-raiser
at the home of loyalist Mark Weiner, said Paolino, who is helping to
organize the event. He predicted the state’s “entire Democratic
establishment” will be behind Clinton.

That’s not surprising, since Chafee was a Republican when he represented
the state in the US Senate and an independent when he was elected governor
in 2010.

Perhaps the bigger threat to Clinton’s nomination comes from Maryland,
where the former governor, Martin O’Malley, has long been considering a
presidential campaign. He, too, has seen Clinton incursions in his state.

Shortly after the November 2014 elections, in which O’Malley’s chosen
successor lost to a Republican, the Ready for Hillary super PAC scheduled
two fund-raisers in his home state sponsored by a raft of Maryland
politicians. The organizers wanted a strong showing of local officials
backing Clinton.

“They were bombarding us with calls,” said one Maryland lawmaker who was
asked repeatedly to participate.

Maryland’s Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip, tried to gin up support
for a Clinton “grass-roots organizing meeting” held Saturday in Bethesda,
O’Malley’s childhood town.

The former governor’s supporters say that the group backing Clinton
represents “establishment” thinking. “It just points to the fact that
O’Malley is new blood with new ideas and a ‘can-do attitude’ and the
establishment doesn’t normally endorse that,” said Terry Lierman, a former
Maryland Democratic Party chairman.

And the O’Malley camp is taking back some ground. Montgomery County
Executive Isiah Leggett, who supported a Ready for Hillary fund-raiser last
year, plans to hold a house party for O’Malley this weekend, according to a
copy of the invitation.

Clinton will be trying to vacuum up cash in the state at the same time. A
fund-raiser for her candidacy is set for next month, said former Maryland
attorney general Doug Gansler, who has signed on with her as a
“Hillstarter.”

“She’s going to have to raise a lot of money,” he predicted.

Across the Potomac River, former Virginia senator Jim Webb is also
considering a run for the White House and has been making stops in Iowa and
New Hampshire.

Should he decide to take on Clinton, he, too, will have a formidable
Clinton ally in his backyard: Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a man who
has been close to the Clintons since the 1990s.

Tom Brady and Hillary Clinton are too big to nail
<http://nypost.com/2015/05/10/tom-brady-and-hillary-clinton-are-too-big-to-nail/>
// NY Post // Kyle Smith - May 10, 2015

Where have we seen the Tom Brady scandal before?

A global celebrity appears almost certainly to be involved in a massive,
possibly years-long web of corruption that makes many past events look
suspicious. The central figure simply declines to provide evidence that
might be damning (or exculpatory). And the supervising authority shrugs and
says, “What can we do? The subject declined to cooperate.” Because said
supervising authority has deep business and personal ties to the subject
it’s supposed to be investigating.

Congratulations, Tom Brady and Hillary Clinton. They won’t punish you much,
if at all. They won’t even really come after you. You’re both too big to
nail.

You both have ardent fans who won’t believe the preponderance of evidence
already available, aren’t particularly interested in hearing more evidence
and wouldn’t change their minds even if shown a video of, say, Brady
sticking a needle into a ball in the locker room or Hillary telling the
Russians, “Just leave a bag of cash over there, and our uranium is yours.”

Modal Trigger

No matter what they do wrong, fans will never punish Tom Brady or Hillary
Clinton.

They both even have a daddy figure giving amazingly unconvincing and
legalistic denials: Patriots owner Bob Kraft said of lawyer Ted Wells’
Deflategate investigation, “To say we are disappointed in its findings,
which do not include any incontrovertible or hard evidence of deliberate
deflation of footballs at the AFC Championship Game, would be a gross
understatement.”

Hey, Bob, next time just say, “We didn’t do it.” You kind of sound like
Bill Clinton defending Hillary: “There is no doubt in my mind that we have
never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to
influence any kind of American government policy.”

Putting Brady on the bench for a couple of weeks wouldn’t do anything to
change the fact that the history of integrity of NFL games is in question.

The Patriots committed an outrageous act of cheating that should have
vacated their AFC Championship win. Withdraw their Super Bowl title? They
had no right to play in that game in the first place. Millions of dollars
legally changed hands in the expectation that the NFL was maintaining
integrity. It wasn’t.

How deep and wide is the Patriots’ cheating operation? How long was it
underinflating footballs to make them easier to grip and less likely to be
fumbled? The NFL doesn’t know and doesn’t want to find out.

It could order Brady (and his coaches, and everyone else connected with the
Patriots) to turn over texts and phone records and email records. But it
won’t, just as the Obama administration won’t force Hillary to hand over
her server and other communications equipment for inspection and won’t hire
a special prosecutor to issue subpoenas and gather facts.

How deep and wide is the Patriots’ cheating operation? How long was it
underinflating footballs…? The NFL doesn’t know and doesn’t want to find
out.

In each case, the so-called “supervisor” is simply a warm and friendly
colleague who is in business with the target.

The NFL can’t afford to have the full truth about Deflategate, and its
place in the long history of Patriots cheating, known. If there is a text
out there that conclusively damns Brady, then the league’s greatest
performer, its best team, and the most-watched broadcast in the history of
television are all rendered part of a neo-Black Sox scandal. The league
cannot afford to have its reputation so tarnished. Its interest is in doing
the absolute minimum to make it appear that it did a thorough
investigation, then put it all to bed as rapidly as possible. The TV
networks that are in business with the NFL have the same interest.

Where is the NFL’s curiosity about the fact that, since a rule change in
2006, allowed teams to manage the footballs used by their own quarterbacks,
the Patriots have had an almost uncanny ability to prevent fumbles, and
that their players fumble a lot more when wearing other uniforms? A
statistician for FiveThirtyEight.com published this week a chart (“using
both binomial and Poisson models”) that put the odds against the Patriots’
fumble rate occurring by chance at more than 10,000 to one. Those are
roughly the same odds that anything important and football-related happens
in the Patriots locker room without the knowledge of Bill Belichick.

Belichick was, of course, “cleared” by the report, which means no
wrongdoing has been found. Why would it? If two locker-room flunkies take
the fall, that would be ideal for the NFL.

Ted Wells, the lawyer who issued the report, specializes in defending
white-collar criminals. The NFL has been a client of his law firm for many
years, and he has every incentive to make his client look good. Wells’
partner Brad Karp, a co-author of the report, has long represented the NFL
in its concussion litigation, involving hundreds of lawsuits and many, many
billable hours for the Paul, Weiss Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison law firm.
These men aren’t prosecutors. They aren’t disinterested outsiders. They’re
in business with the NFL.

But, hey, let’s give the NFL a little credit. If it hired its own defense
team to pretend to investigate itself, that’s more than Hillary did.

Hillary Clinton Calls For Paid Family Leave On Mother's Day
<http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/10/hillary-clinton-calls-paid-family-leave-mother.html>
// PoliticsUSA // Jason Easley – May 10, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s Mother’s Day call for paid family leave illustrates why
she is such a formidable presidential candidate.

Former Sec. of State Clinton said, “It is outrageous that America is the
only country in the developed world that doesn’t guarantee paid leave. I
have this new granddaughter, and I want her to have every opportunity, but
I want every child in our country to have every opportunity. We know that
when women are strong families are strong. When families are strong
countries are strong. What more can we do so that it isn’t quite so hard?
The answer is that we can do a lot if we do it together.”

Hillary Clinton is redefining and taking back the word opportunity for
Republicans. In the Republican vernacular, the term opportunity is
something that is reserved for wealthy men and corporations. Clinton is
defining opportunity as equality and fairness, not just for women, but for
children and families.

Her view of opportunity is what makes Hillary Clinton the candidate who
could be 2016’s most pro-children and pro-family candidate for the White
House. President Obama has fought hard for equal pay for women and paid
family leave, but one gets the sense that it is Hillary Clinton who can
achieve these goals.

It has been decades since the country has seen a candidate for president
who so clearly knows who she is. Despite the media attacks and
hand-wringing, there is a basic comfort that millions of voters already
feel with Clinton. The contrast is best understood by watching a stampede
of faceless and shapeless Republican candidates trying to bend themselves
into what voters want.

When it comes to Hillary Clinton, it is all right there. Hillary Clinton
presents a vision for the future that looks both attainable and easy to see.

Clinton calls Iowa mom for a Mother's Day surprise
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/11/hillary-clinton-mothers-day-phone-call-iowa-kelly-drake/27104775/>
// Iowa Register //Ben Rogers – May 10, 2015

Kelly Drake received a phone call from a politician on Mother's Day that
was different than most.

Not every Iowa mother gets to chat with a presidential candidate, after all.

Drake, 51, of Ankeny, won a contest put on by Democrat Hillary Clinton's
campaign, where recipients received a phone call from the former secretary
of state wishing them well on Mother's Day. Josh Shelledy, Drake's son,
entered her in the drawing. He said he knew his mother was an avid
supporter of Clinton, and he thought there was no better gift.

Shelledy's hunch was spot-on.

"I thought it was amazing," Drake said. "I think a lot of her and she is an
amazing person, and for her to wish me happy Mother's Day is awesome."

MORE: Complete coverage of Hillary Clinton

Drake said she was impressed with the sincerity of Clinton's phone call and
the fact that she didn't talk about politics.

"I just thought she was a mother to a mother, and I thought that was
great," Drake said.

Drake said it was the best Mother's Day gift she could have received.

North Las Vegas woman gets Mother’s Day surprise from Hillary Clinton
<http://m.reviewjournal.com/trending/north-las-vegas-woman-gets-mother-s-day-surprise-hillary-Clinton>
// National Review // Laura Myers - May 10, 2015

Amy Ponce of North Las Vegas got a Mother’s Day surprise on Sunday — not
breakfast in bed or a new pair of slippers — but a call from Democratic
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who wished her “a happy day.”

“At first I thought it was a joke,” said Ponce, 37, whose 18-year-old son,
Austin, won a campaign contest for his mother. Five winners received calls,
including in Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, Washington state and Minnesota, the
campaign said.

It was a special year for Clinton, too, her first as a grandmother.

“I’ve been a mother for more than 35 years now, and I’m still not sure how
my mother did it,” Clinton said in a statement. “She didn’t always have an
easy life, but she managed to remain strong and kind and always remember
everyone who helped her.”

Amy Ponce, who is married, also has a 12-year-old daughter. She said that
until Clinton emerged on the political scene she hadn’t been politically
active.

In fact, she voted for the first time in 2008 — but for Clinton’s
Democratic rival, Barack Obama, who won millions of new voters. Perhaps it
wasn’t Clinton’s time, but now Ponce said the former first lady and
secretary of state appears to be a strong contender.

“I think we’re leaning that way,” to vote for Clinton, she said. “That
would be real neat” to have the first female president. “We definitely
would be voting Democratic.”

Asked about her previous voter apathy, Ponce said, “For me, it was probably
a lack of time. And probably a lack of being educated enough on making the
right decision.”

Ponce said the call with Clinton was short and sweet, at about 1:30 p.m.
“It was something you don’t get a chance to do everyday,” she said.

Ponce has been paying close attention to some hot- button campaign issues,
however. She’s a Patient Services Representative in a pediatrician’s
office, giving her insight into how Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act is
playing out.

“Definitely a good law, but a few flaws,” Ponce said. “I’ve heard from a
lot of people personally that it still is not quite as affordable as they
had anticipated.”

Austin Ponce appears to be the politician in the family. He said he’s
looking forward to voting for the fist time in a presidential election in
2016 and he’s hoping to volunteer for the Clinton campaign as well.

He thanked his teacher Ms. Karlye Mull for encouraging him and said he’s
taking advanced placement government classes with her this year.

“It really helps when you have a teacher who’s passionate about the
subject,” Ponce said, adding he’ll keep his family involved, too.

Hillary Clinton’s Top Five Clashes Over Secrecy
<http://www.longislandpress.com/2015/05/10/hillary-clintons-top-five-clashes-over-secrecy/>
// Long Island Press // Jeff Gurth – May 10, 2015

Hillary Clinton at Book Revue

Hillary Clinton signing copies of her book "Hard Choices" on Wednesday Aug.
6, 2014 at the Book Revue in Huntington. (Spencer Rumsey/Long Island Press)

Back in April of 2007, when she was campaigning for the Democratic
presidential nomination for the first time, then-Senator Hillary Clinton
lashed out at the secrecy of the George W. Bush administration.

She told a New Hampshire audience that if elected she would implement a
“plan to enhance accountability and transparency” and “to replace secrecy
and mystery with openness.” One part of her plan: “It’s time our government
went fully online as well.”

She lost her bid to be the Democratic presidential nominee. But 20 months
later, before then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama took that job and she became
secretary of state, she set up a private computer server registered to her
home in Chappaqua, N.Y., to handle all her official, as well as private,
emails for the next four years. Her decision — a secret until earlier this
year — impeded efforts by the press and others to review State Department
actions.

Now it is Hillary Clinton’s record of transparency that has come under
fire. At a press conference in March, she acknowledged that in retrospect
“it would’ve been better for me to use two separate phones and two email
accounts.” She has asked the State Department to release her official
emails, a process that could take months.

Few public figures have been as scrutinized as Hillary Clinton. Sometimes
her disclosures go beyond what is required, but she’s also racked up a
reputation for secrecy that at times has returned to haunt her.

Here are five examples covering the last two decades. Some are drawn from a
2007 book I did, with Don Van Natta Jr., entitled “Her Way: The Hopes and
Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton” (Little Brown & Co.). Clinton’s office
didn’t respond to a request for comment.

1) 1992: The Commodity Trades

During Bill Clinton’s first run for the White House, his campaign declined
to release all of the couple’s tax returns. Later it emerged that the
campaign had weighed requests from the press and decided not to do so,
because a few of the returns showed Hillary Clinton’s spectacular success
in commodities trading, in which she made almost $100,000 from an initial
investment of $1,000 in a matter of months, for a return of almost 10,000
percent. Hillary Clinton threatened a campaign lawyer who had access to the
material with retribution if she released the data: “You’ll never work in
Democratic politics again,” the lawyer, Loretta Lynch, says Clinton told
her.  It wasn’t until 1994, as the New York Times prepared to publish an
article detailing the trades, that the Clintons made the returns public.

2) 1993: The Health Care Task Force

As First Lady, Clinton led a presidential task force to overhaul the U.S.
health-care system. The group, which produced a 1,342-page bill that failed
to win Congressional approval, came under intense criticism from lawmakers
and interest groups for meeting behind closed doors. Several court
challenges were brought in an attempt to open the process. Ultimately the
courts provided a partial legal victory to the administration. Clinton
later wrote she didn’t mind the criticism since she was “trying to do
something important for people” but she acknowledged the failure was
partially the result of her “own missteps” in “trying to do too much, too
fast.”

3) 1994: Records from the Rose Law Firm

U.S. investigators in 1994 subpoenaed the First Lady’s billing records from
her years at the Rose Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, documents that had
been also sought by reporters. A focus of their interest was her legal work
for a failing savings and loan, but records of those billings weren’t
found. Much later, Clinton’s long-time assistant, Carolyn Huber, said she
found in the White House residence an additional box of records that
contained the billing memos. They were turned over to the independent
counsel in 1996. Clinton testified she had no knowledge of how the records
wound up where they did.

4) 2006: The Energy Task Force

Late in her first term as U.S. senator from New York, Clinton set up an
energy task force to help her work through the issue, deliver a major
speech on the subject and prepare for a possible presidential run,
participants in the task force told us for the book. They produced a
40-page report in April 2006. The whole project, including the existence of
the group, its members and its work product was a secret, designed,
participants said, to encourage frank discussions of the issue. The leader
of the task force headed an investment firm with major holdings in the
energy sector. Senators routinely get input from outsiders, and no law
requires their disclosure, but a secret task force is unusual.

5) 2015: The Family Foundation

The Clinton family foundation, now called the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea
Clinton Foundation, made disclosures that exceed the legal requirements.
Charities are not required to list donors, but as part of Clinton’s
selection as secretary of state the foundation agreed to disclose the
identity of contributors and restrict solicitations from foreign
governments. Still, the information on the foundation’s website is less
than full. Donors are identified but not the exact amount of each donation
or the date of those contributions. Instead, donations fall under ranges
and are listed cumulatively. The foundation did not announce that it
started raising money from foreign governments after Hillary Clinton left
office. But last month the Wall Street Journal pieced together some new
foreign donations after the foundation’s web site was updated. That article
was the first in a spate of news accounts raising questions about foreign
money coming into the Clinton network as she prepares a run for president.
The foundation has said the donors are carefully vetted and their money
goes to important charitable projects.

Julian Castro is ‘only’ veep prospect for top Clintonians, says source //
Washington Times // Joseph Curl - May 10, 2015

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Top members of Team Hillary are already pushing Julian Castro as her vice
presidential nominee, with one source telling me last week that right now,
there isn’t even a second choice.

“There’s only one person the top guys are looking at right now, and that’s
Julian,” said the source, who is close to top Clinton officials. “They know
the Republicans are making a big push this cycle for the Hispanic vote, so
that makes Castro an easy pick — and an obvious pick.”

The source said the Clintons still remember that Julian Castro, along with
his brother, Joaquin, were early backers of Mrs. Clinton in her 2008 run,
and the Clintons are known to pay back their friends, just as they do their
foes.

Although Mrs. Clinton is far from clinching the Democratic nomination for
president, her path is fairly uncluttered. So far, she faces a 73-year-old
senator from Vermont and a one-time governor of Maryland. But the former is
a socialist who longs for redistribution of wealth and the latter was once
mayor of Baltimore, which imploded in race riots. Neither is seen as a
serious threat.

Also in the wings is Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, but the
Clinton source said the odds of Mrs. Clinton picking another woman for the
ticket are “zero.” The source said that also likely eliminates Wendy Davis,
the liberal darling of Texas Democrats.

There are a few others that make the shortlist, according to several other
top Democrats. Sen. Mark Warner might be able to secure Virginia, as could
former Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine, both men being
former governors of the commonwealth.

Jay Nixon, the governor of Missouri, is also mentioned, but the Clinton
source laughed that idea off: “You think they’ll really put out bumper
stickers that say Clinton/Nixon? Good guy, but no chance.”

And Evan Bayh, the longtime Indiana politician who served two terms in the
Senate, also makes the shortlists of many, but he is a creature of
Washington and some Clinton insiders say Mrs. Clinton is looking for an
outsider, preferably from a state that isn’t a solid Democratic stronghold.

That desire puts a few others in play, like retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who
would allay some fears that Mrs. Clinton is weak on defense, and Secretary
of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa, home of the first
political caucuses of the 2016 campaign.

A new name is also floating around: Martin Heinrich, the 43-year-old
senator from New Mexico. For the past several cycles, the Western state has
been in play and, more important, his short time in Washington (just two
years), along with his youth (Mrs. Clinton is 67) makes him a conceivable
running mate.

Others, like Charlie Crist of Florida or Vice President Joseph R. Biden,
are nonstarters. And don’t look for Mrs. Clinton to pick a former U.S.
president — her husband. No chance.

That leaves Julian Castro at the top of the list. He, too, brings the bloom
of youth: At just 40 years old, he’s also highly accomplished — a two-term
mayor of San Antonio (Democrats are making a play for Texas in 2016) and,
most recently, President Obama’s pick to be secretary of housing and urban
development.

Interestingly, the Castro brothers — twins born to a single mother whose
own mother had come across the Mexican border as a 6-year-old orphan —
don’t speak Spanish. That means at least three Republicans in the race —
Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — will be
the Spanish speakers, but not Mr. Castro.

Mr. Castro brings a slew of desirables. He has declared that “Joaquin and I
got into Stanford [University] because of affirmative action,” even though
he said he scored just 1,210 on my SATs, “which was lower than the median
matriculating student.” Mrs. Clinton is planning to push affirmative action
as a key campaign issue.

More, the Castro brothers are a rags-to-riches story — but always with the
help of government, another key tenet of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. And
Julian Castro has pushed gay issues throughout his career, an issue dear to
Mrs. Clinton.

Julian Castro knows that his moment may soon arrive, but downplays the veep
talk.

“At the moment I’m focusing on my role as HUD secretary,” he told Buzzfeed.
“At the right time later on down the road, I anticipate getting involved.
It’s clear both parties are going to speak to the Latino community in this
cycle. What’s also clear is only the Democratic Party has embraced policies
that have improved the economic prospects for the Latino community,” he
said.

He’s not a shoo-in, of course, and much will depend on how desperate Mrs.
Clinton is a year from now. (Remember Sarah Palin?) But Mr. Castro delivers
on all the big issues Mrs. Clinton hopes to hit hard in her campaign, and
right now, he seems to be the only talk in Team Clinton Town.

Hillary Clinton email case reopened by federal judge
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/10/federal-judge-reopens-hillary-clinton-email-case/>
// Washington Times // Stephen Dinan – May 10, 2015

Joint request to turn over messages agreed upon

A federal judge has reopened an open-records case trying to pry loose some
of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails, marking the
first time a court has taken action on the email scandal.

Judge Reggie B. Walton agreed Friday to a joint request by the State
Department and Judicial Watch, which sued in 2012 to get a look at some of
Mrs. Clinton’s documents concerning a public relations push.

Both sides agreed that the revelation that Mrs. Clinton had kept her own
email server separate from the government, and exclusively used her own
email account created on that server, meant that she had shielded her
messages from valid open-records requests.

Now that she has belatedly turned some emails over, the government offered
— and Judge Walton confirmed in his ruling — that the agency should search
them all to see whether any should have been released to Judicial Watch.

“This is the first case that’s been reopened,” Tom Fitton, president of
Judicial Watch, said Friday. “It’s a significant development. It points to
the fraud by this administration and Mrs. Clinton.”

Judicial Watch has filed a series of open-records requests seeking State
Department emails and, when the administration failed to comply, has gone
to court to force them. Just last week Judicial Watch filed a new batch of
eight lawsuits trying to shake loose some of the secret emails, and said
that was just the first round.

The State Department said it doesn’t comment on open-records lawsuits.

Publicly, the department has struggled to handle the inquiries over Mrs.
Clinton’s emails.

Officials didn’t acknowledge that there were missing emails until prodded
by the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S.
diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya. After that prod, the department asked
Mrs. Clinton to turn over emails that contained government business.

She provided about 30,000 emails, but said she discarded another 32,000 she
deemed weren’t government business, and then wiped the server. She has
refused requests by the Benghazi inquiry chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, South
Carolina Republican, to turn the server over to a neutral third party.

On Friday, Mr. Gowdy released an interim report detailing his first year of
investigation, citing “obstacles and frustrations” in dealing with the
administration. He said they have talked with new witnesses who hadn’t been
interviewed by any other Benghazi probe, and had unearthed documents that
haven’t been part of other investigations.

But he said Mrs. Clinton’s emails remain a large question mark, and the
State Department still hasn’t turned over emails from her senior staff.

“The State Department has told the committee that it cannot certify that it
has turned over all documents responsive to the committee’s request
regarding the former secretary’s emails,” Mr. Gowdy said in his report.

Mr. Gowdy also hinted that Congress’s investigative powers may be limited
when it comes to trying to force a president and his team to come clean.

“The legislative branch’s constitutional toolbox seems inadequate to uphold
our task in seeking the truth,” Mr. Gowdy said, pointing to the
administration’s unwillingness to serve subpoenas on itself, neutering much
of Congress’s investigative power.

Mr. Fitton said that’s why his group’s lawsuits are so critical, saying
Congress’s hands are tied and the Justice Department hasn’t committed to
conduct an investigation of another part of the Obama administration.

“It’s going to be independent actions by JW at this point,” Mr. Fitton
said. “This is how anything is going to break loose.”

Hillary Clinton in Chinatown; spirituality at Stanford
<http://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/garchik/article/Hillary-Clinton-in-Chinatown-spirituality-at-6252053.php>
// SF Chronicle // Leah Garchik - May 10, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton was in town for fundraisers, one at the Century
Club, hosted by Susie Buell, and the other at the home of Tom and Kat
Steyer. She also found time to talk about immigration with Democratic state
Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, and urban issues with Mayor Ed Lee,
who, as Carla Marinucci wrote, suggested they meet at the Red Blossom Tea
Co.

•Tea house proprietor Alice Luong had met the mayor a couple of times, but
didn’t know until five minutes before he arrived that he’d be having tea
there. “I really thought it was just the mayor coming to visit merchants in
Chinatown, which he often does. We see him walking around.” When Clinton
arrived, “we were pretty ecstatic. ... I explained to Madam Secretary that
this is how we brew tea, and when we were doing the tasting, she asked
quite a lot of questions” about water temperature and tea varieties. “I
assume she is a tea drinker,” Luong said.

Lee’s assistant paid for the Tasting Flight consumed by the mayor and the
candidate, and “Madam Secretary’s staff” bought some teas to take away. “I
think Madam Secretary prefers a stronger, darker tea. We brewed a cup for
her to take into the car.”

As to the handle by which Luong repeatedly referred to Clinton, “I asked
the assistant what I should call her. She’s no longer a senator and she’s
so accomplished. The assistant said, 'Whatever you like.’ But we’re very
Chinese, very traditional. We address her by her post.”

•Fervent Clinton supporter Eleni Kounalakis, who’d been on Michael Krasny’s
“Forum” show that morning, talking about her book, “Madam Ambassador,”
attended the Buell event. She was surprised when Clinton greeted her with,
“Eleni, I heard you on the radio this morning!” The candidate’s either got
an amazing ability to multitask or a very efficient staff.

•The Steyer event started at 11 in the morning. By 4 p.m., he was cool and
composed, as though he’d had nothing else to do that day, giving a reading
from Ezekiel at Stanford’s Memorial Hall. And more about that below.

The Stanford event was the investiture of the Rev. Professor Jane Shaw as
dean for religious life. Shaw, who got her doctorate at UC Berkeley, was at
Oxford when she was hired as dean of Grace Cathedral, a job that brought
her back to the Bay Area. At Stanford, she will teach in the department of
religious studies as well as preside as dean, providing what Stanford
President John Hennessy said was “ethical and spiritual leadership for the
university.”

The church, built in 1903, is filled with stained glass and curved wooden
ornamentation; it feels warm, welcoming. Every aspect of the investiture
ceremonies, which included multifaith prayers and music by the St. Lawrence
String Quartet, seemed to flow from the passage read by Steyer, which
refers to the possibility of giving new life to dry bones, that is, healing
misery and renewing hope.

Shaw’s friend Anna Deavere Smith delivered a sermon referring to Baltimore,
her hometown, as a “city of dry bones. ... Everything is rubble now from
the streets of my youth.” Police, she said, have had to do the “dirtiest
work of all,” and now it is time for others to tackle poverty, despair, no
matter how uncertain they are of solutions. “If we wait for clarity, it
will never happen. 'Confidence,’ I tell students, 'is overrated. Give doubt
a try.’”

At Stanford, said Hennessy, “real smart and ethical people are working to
solve the world’s problems. ... Jane made us realize we need complex
answers to complex questions.” Then he draped around Shaw’s neck a white
silk scarf he had received from the Dalai Lama, and poof, she was thereby
invested.

In another part of the program, undergrad Elizabeth Woodson had read from a
Quaker text, proposing the goal of allowing “the stranger and the things we
find strange, let themselves do and be who they are.” So after the
ceremonies, when we went outside for drinks and cookies, including S-shaped
ones covered with dyed red sugar, although I wondered if Berkeley foodies
would stand for blue-dyed confections, I just let those cookies be what
they were, and gobbled one right down.

And as Steyer and Woodson said — I’m told this is a tradition in high
Protestant churches — here ends the reading.

Can Clinton pull off a hat-trick of Democrat wins?
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32632767> // BBC News // Nick
Bryant – May 11, 2015

Not since the era of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S Truman have the
Democrats won three presidential victories in a row.

The 2016 election presents the party with a rare opportunity to pull off a
historic hat-trick.

America's political geography gives the Democrats an enormous advantage.

So, too, does the country's changing demography, because constituencies
that favour the Democrats are growing in electoral influence.

Despite the Republicans' current strength in congressional and
gubernatorial politics - presently, the GOP holds the House of
Representatives and the Senate, along with 31 governors' mansions - the
party is weak in presidential politics.

It has lost four of the past six presidential elections. In five of those,
the Democrats have won the popular vote.

The "blue wall" is especially advantageous.

That is the name given to the 18 states, as well as the District of
Columbia, that have voted Democrat in every presidential election since
Bill Clinton's first victory in 1992.

Democratic Blue Wall:

California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawai'i (4), Illinois (20),
Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Michigan (16), Minnesota
(10), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (20), Rhode
Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12), Washington DC (3), Wisconsin (10).

What makes the blue wall such a towering edifice is the size of its
building blocks: some of the country's most populous states, like
California, New York, Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey.

To win the Electoral College, the institution that elects the president on
a state-by-state basis, the victorious candidate requires 270 votes.

Strong core support

For the past six elections, the states that make up the blue wall have
yielded 242, just 28 short of the target.

The Republicans have a wall of their own: 13 states that have voted for the
GOP's presidential candidate in the past six elections.

But those states amount for only 102 Electoral College votes between them.

To some, then, the "Red wall" looks more like a flimsy picket fence.

line

Republican Red Wall:

Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Mississippi (6), Nebraska
(5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3),
Texas (38), Utah (6), Wyoming (3).

line

The Blue Wall is by no means insurmountable.

Though it held firm at the 2000 and 2004 elections, George W Bush emerged
the victor.

Many of these blue states, like New Jersey, Massachusetts and Illinois,
have Republican governors, and the GOP has not given up hope of turning
them red.

Pennsylvania, with its 20 Electoral College votes, is particularly high on
the their target list.

But the wall does grant the Democrats an inbuilt advantage in the Electoral
College.

Just consider this statistic. Since 1992, the Republicans have achieved an
average of 211 Electoral College votes. The Democrats' average is 327.

Demographic advantage

Demographics also appear to favour the Democrats: the support they are now
receiving from minorities, Millennials (voters under 30) and women.

The Democrats have opened up a huge lead among minority voters, a growing
and increasingly important part of the electorate.

At the last presidential election, 71% of Latinos voted for Barack Obama,
up from 67% in 2008. Some 73% of Asian-Americans also voted Democrat, along
with 93% of African-Americans.

Younger voters, who tend to be more liberal-minded on issues like same-sex
marriage and immigration, are also leaning towards the Democrats.

Some two-thirds of Millennials voted for Obama in 2012.

A majority of women have also favoured the Democrats in recent presidential
elections. Fifty-five per cent of women voted for Obama in 2012, while the
figure for unmarried women was even higher at 67%, partly because the
Republican Party has become associated with restrictions on abortion.

Obviously all is not lost for the GOP, not least because the party has
demographic advantages of its own.

In 2012, 59% of white voters plumbed for Mitt Romney. Among the so-called
silent generation, those born between 1925 and 1945, the Republicans have a
lead of 47% to 43%. But America is becoming less white, and that presents
problems for the Republicans.

Their prime strategy since the civil rights era of the 1960s, after all,
has been to target white voters, regardless of their income levels.

Obama support

Next year, the GOP will be hoping that the so-called "Obama coalition" of
minorities, Millennials and women, does not become the "Hillary Coalition,"
if, as expected, she wins the Democratic presidential nomination.

Black voters will not turn out in such high numbers for Hillary, they
reckon.

The GOP also hopes to make inroads into a Latino vote deterred from backing
Republicans because of the party's tough line on immigration.

Hillary Clinton

Can Hillary Clinton follow her husband into the White House?

Party strategists believe there is truth in Ronald Reagan's famous
observation: "Latinos are Republicans. They just don't know it yet."

As for the Millennials, a string of recent polls suggest that their support
for the Democrats is waning - although a survey conducted in April by the
Harvard Institute of Politics suggested that 55% of voters under the age of
30 would prefer the White House to remain in Democratic hands.

There are Democrats who believe that the Hillary coalition could be even
more formidable than the Obama coalition.

Campaigning to become America's first female president, she will hope to
attract higher levels of support from white women, more than half of whom
voted Republican in 2012.

She might attract more male white voters than Obama.

Yet Democrats run the risk of over-confidence, a mistake made by
Republicans following the back-to-back victories of George W Bush.

In those heady days, strategists like Karl Rove spoke assuredly of an
emergent permanent Republican majority, only to see Obama score two
victories.

More recently, GOP morale has been boosted by the work of the political
journalist John Judis, who predicted at the start of the century an
"emerging Democratic majority".

In January, Judis penned a revisionist essay headlined "The Emerging
Republican Advantage," which argued that the Republican triumph at last
November's congressional mid-term elections was "the latest manifestation
of a resurgent Republican coalition".

White vote

The Republicans were even more dominant among white voters, he observed,
which was problematic for the Democrats because they still required between
36% and 40% of the white working-class vote to win the presidential
election.

But it is always a mistake to equate strength in congressional politics
with success in presidential politics.

Between 1968 and 1992, for instance, the Democrats dominated the House of
Representatives.

For that entire era, a Democrat sat in the powerful speaker's chair.

But during that era, the Democrats won just one presidential election, when
Jimmy Carter edged out Gerald Ford in 1976.

The electorate that votes in congressional elections is different in size
and make-up to that which turns out in presidential polls.

History suggests it will be hard to win three consecutive victories.

Since the war, the Republicans have only managed it once, when George
Herbert Walker Bush followed Ronald Reagan into the White House.

Could Hillary Clinton do what no Democrat has done for more than 65 years?

Hillary for New Hampshire open house grassroots event at The Met on Saturday
<http://www.conwaydailysun.com/newsx/local-news/120551-hillary-for-new-hampshire-open-house-grassroots-event-at-the-met-on-saturday>
// The Conway Daily Sun // Lloyd Jones - May 8, 2015

Hillary Clinton isn't planning to be in the Granite State this weekend, but
that hasn't stopped her supporters from scheduling a meeting to plot
campaign strategy for the Democrat front-runner to become the party's
nominee for the presidency.

Hillary for New Hampshire's supporters and volunteers is hosting a
grassroots open house on Saturday at 11:15 a.m. in the meeting room at The
Met Coffee House in North Conway Village.

"We're doing this in all 10 counties," Harrell Kirstein, spokesperson for
Hillary for New Hampshire, said by phone Thursday. "This will be the
Hillary Clinton campaign's first event in Conway."

Kirstein, who was campaign communications director for Democratic Sen.
Jeanne Shaheen's successful re-election campaign last year, said that at
the open houses, "Hillary for New Hampshire will ask volunteers to activate
and organize friends and neighbors in their community to take part in this
campaign.

"This grassroots organizing series," he said, "will be a chance for
longtime friends of Hillary's to reengage in her campaign, as well as a
welcome invitation for new supporters to get involved for the first time."

Clinton announced April 12 that she is running for president, and she
immediately became the front-runner, not only for the Democrats, but for
the Oval Office.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is also seeking the nomination from the
Democrats. He entered the race April 30, and actually made a campaign stop
in Mount Washington Valley 48 hours later, on May 2, speaking at the White
Mountain Hotel in Hale's Location.

The Republican field doubled to six prominent GOP hopefuls this week when
Carly Fiorina, the former chairman and chief executive officer of
Hewlett-Packard; Ben Carson, the director of pediatric neurosurgery at the
Johns Hopkins Children's Center and recipient of the Presidential Medal of
Freedom; and Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas and FOX news host,
all threw their hats into the ring days apart.

The trio join Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas, who announced he was running March
23), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky., announced April 7), and Sen. Marco Rubio
(R-Fla., announced April 30).

None of the GOP candidates since announcing has visited the valley,
although Paul, who was the Carroll County Republican Committee's Lincoln
Day Dinner keynote speaker on March 20, gave strong indications then he was
leaning towards a run.

"I think things are starting to get interesting," Kirstein said of the
presidential race.

Kirstein said members of the public can sign up at
hillaryclinton.com/newhampshire to receive more information on open houses
and other events happening in New Hampshire. Full details on other open
houses will be released ahead of individual events.

Clinton’s use of ‘super PAC’ pushes limits of campaign finance law
<http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/mct/clinton-s-use-of-super-pac-pushes-limits-of-campaign/article_9d367ded-4727-59d7-ac8d-608190e87c6d.html>
// Sentinel Source // Evan Halper - May 8, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign team had hoped to frame her trip
hopscotching through the mansions of some of California’s deepest-pocketed
donors this week as an exercise in modesty, highlighting the relatively low
price of a ticket to the events as a reflection of her commitment to
cultivating the grass roots.

But that narrative quickly unraveled when word got out that the candidate
was also using the California trip as an occasion to begin courting an
entirely different group.

Clinton, who has emphasized campaign finance reform in the early stage of
her latest White House bid, has apparently already decided the modest
approach alone won’t be enough. She is going after much bigger checks, much
sooner, and in a much more aggressive way than her campaign had revealed.

The candidate will be pushing the boundaries of campaign finance law
further than any Democratic presidential contender ever has by directly
asking donors to give to a friendly “super PAC” that can raise unlimited
amounts of campaign cash from donors, according to a person familiar with
her plans.

That effort started in California on Wednesday, when Clinton met in San
Francisco with potential donors of the organization, Priorities USA Action.
She had another meeting in Los Angeles on Thursday.

Clinton’s plans to raise money for Priorities USA was first reported by The
New York Times. Campaign officials aren’t commenting.

Clinton would not be the first contender in this year’s race to go after
such cash. On the Republican side, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has been
soliciting checks for as much as $1 million for his super PAC. Candidates
avoided such activity in the 2012 race, adhering to a law that says they
cannot coordinate directly with the groups. (Bush, though, has not yet
declared his candidacy and is free to work with the group until he does so.)

But the increasingly permissive approach of the Federal Election
Commission, whose members are deadlocked over the question of how
candidates can and cannot engage with super PACs, is leading the
presidential contenders to take ever bolder approaches. Clinton supporters
say she is caught up in a campaign arms race and she has no choice but to
use the tools her opponents have at their disposal.

Still, the quick shift on fundraising puts Clinton in an awkward position.

“Just three weeks ago, Hillary Clinton decried unaccountable money in
politics and even called for amending the Constitution to ban it,” said
Jeff Bechdel, communications director for America Rising, a conservative
research group. “Today, she announced she’s going to personally court
donors and raise money for her own super PAC. ... Clinton’s hypocrisy knows
no bounds.”

The California trip was supposed to be a chance for Clinton to showcase a
more modest approach to fundraising, one that squared with what she
promised would be a campaign that is humble, lean and focused on the values
of everyday Americans. Even though the events were to be held in the homes
of billionaires and mega-millionaires, donors were not to give more than
$2,700.

Those who want to give more than that can encourage others to give checks,
becoming what’s known as a campaign bundler. Clinton’s campaign calls its
bundlers “Hillstarters,” and those designated as such get perks that
include invites to receptions with the candidate. Clinton is making it much
easier to get in this circle of fundraisers than she did eight years ago,
when supporters had to raise $100,000. Now, they need only to generate
$27,000 for the campaign.

The Clinton Foundation's Behind-the-Scenes Battle With a Charity Watchdog
Group
<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/clinton-foundation-vs-a-charity-watchdog.html>
// NY Mag // Gabriel Sherman - May 10, 2015

Last Wednesday, Bill Clinton ratcheted up Clintonworld’s counter assault on
Clinton Cash, the book by conservative author Peter Schweizer that ignited
the latest media frenzy over the former First Couple’s $2 billion
foundation. “There's just no evidence," Clinton defiantly told CNN's
Christiane Amanpour, during an interview at the Foundation’s confab in
Morocco. "Even the guy that wrote the book apparently had to admit under
questioning that we didn't have a shred of evidence for this, we just sort
of thought we would throw it out there and see if it flies, and it won't
fly."

Clinton’s analysis is flawed in at least one regard. As my
colleagueJonathan Chait recently wrote, the Clintons’ web of murky
relationships and opaque finances exacts a political cost whether or not
their critics ever find a there there. The Clintons, more than anyone,
should know that negative press — true or not — can have potentially
catastrophic consequences. Remember, it was David Brock’s 1993 American
Spectatorarticle alleging that Arkansas State Troopers arranged Bill’s
trysts which sparked Paula Jones’s sexual harassment lawsuit, which led to
the Supreme Court case, which led to Monica Lewinsky lying under oath about
the affair, which led Linda Tripp to turn the tapes over to Ken Starr,
which led to impeachment.

Related Stories

The Disastrous Clinton Post-PresidencyIf This Is the Best Defense of the
Clinton Foundation, She’s in Trouble

The Clinton Foundation scandal cycle is already spinning off new
complications. A case in point: After being the subject of a spate of
negative newspaper accounts about potential conflicts of interest and
management dysfunction this winter — long before Clinton Cash — the Clinton
Foundation wound up on a "watchlist" maintained by the Charity Navigator,
the New Jersey-based nonprofit watchdog. The Navigator, dubbed the "most
prominent" nonprofit watchdog by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, is a
powerful and feared player in the nonprofit world. Founded in 2002, it
ranks more than 8,000 charities and is known for its independence. For a
while, the Clinton Foundation was happy to promote Charity Navigator’s work
(back when they were awarded its highest ranking). In September 2014, in
fact, the Navigator's then-CEO, Ken Berger, was invited to speak at the
Clinton Global Initiative. Of course that was before the Foundation was
placed on a list with scandal-plagued charities like Al Sharpton's National
Action Network and the Red Cross.

Since March, the Foundation has embarked on an aggressive behind-the-scenes
campaign to get removed from the list. Clinton Foundation officials accuse
the Navigator of unfairly targeting them, lacking credible evidence of
wrongdoing, and blowing off numerous requests for a meeting to present
their case. "They're not only punishing us for being transparent but are
not being transparent themselves," Maura Pally, the Foundation's
acting-CEO, told me by phone from Morocco last week. "Charity Navigator
doesn't disclose its donors but we do and yet that means we're suffering
the consequences."

Navigator executives counter that the Foundation has demanded they extend
the Clintons special treatment. They also allege the Foundation attempted
to strong-arm them by calling a Navigator board member. "They felt they
were of such importance that we should deviate from our normal process.
They were irritated by that," says Berger.

The feud is a microcosm of all that is exhausting about the Clintons'
endless public battles. Generally, it goes like this: bad press about their
lack of transparency sparks some real world consequence or censure, the
Clintons complain that they’re being held to an unfair standard while their
critics contend that they expect to be able to write their own rules, and
the resulting flare-up leads to more bad press.

The trouble with Navigator started on Wednesday morning, March 11.
Foundation officials became alarmed when they received an anonymous email
from the watchdog's Donor Advisory committee informing them they would be
added to the list on Friday, March 13, unless they could provide answers to
questions raised in newspaper accounts. Among the press controversies the
Navigator cited: A Wall Street Journal report that noted "at least 60
companies that lobbied the State Department during [Hillary Clinton's]
tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.”
Politico, meanwhile, revealed that the Foundation failed to report to the
State Department a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government, a
violation of the ethics agreement the Clintons had arranged with the Obama
White House. Politico also reported that the Foundation’s former CEO, Eric
Braverman, quit after a “power struggle” with “the coterie of Clinton
loyalists who have surrounded the former president for decades.”

With the publication of Clinton Cash on the horizon, Clintonworld surely
knew landing on the Navigator’s watchlist would be a public relations
debacle. By early March, Clinton campaign officials were holding regular
war room meetings to orchestrate their defense  against the book. Over the
next few days, Foundation officials desperately attempted to contact
Navigator executives to rebut their claims but, inexplicably, couldn’t get
through to anyone on the phone. On the evening of Friday, March 13, Pally
sent a detailed email rebuttal. "All of the other organizations on your
watchlist have had substantiated allegations of financial, fiscal or other
impropriety,” she wrote, according to an email the Foundation provided
toNew York. “The stories you cite about the Clinton Foundation merely point
to donations, or gossip around our operations, none of which constitute any
wrongdoing.”

It didn't work. During a tense phone conversation on the afternoon of March
17, Pally and Berger argued over the merits of the media's claims about the
Foundation. Pally said they were without substance; Berger insisted that
since the newspapers published the articles, they were relevant. "Our whole
thing is: if major media outlets say there's something here that you should
be aware of, we're not going to be judge and jury on what the media says,"
Berger later told me. "We felt there had been enough questions." As a
matter of practice, the Navigator doesn’t conduct its own investigations.
On its website, they state: “Charity Navigator…takes no position on
allegations made or issues raised by third parties, nor does Charity
Navigator seek to confirm or verify the accuracy of allegations made or the
merits of issues raised by third parties that may be referred to in the CN
Watchlist.”

The Navigator invited the Foundation to respond publicly on their website.
Instead, Pally asked Berger to meet and review confidential copies of the
Foundation's handbook, “Global Code of Conduct,” and board bylaws. Berger
declined, feeling it was another effort of back-room dealing and spin. "We
were not opposed to having a sit-down meeting. The point was, what is it
that we're going to cover? We've already been around the block. What's the
value of this?"

Last week, after I contacted the Foundation about being on the watchlist,
Pally rekindled talks with the Navigator. "I remain at a loss as to what
information we can provide to address Charity Navigator’s concerns and be
removed from the Watchlist," she wrote Tim Gamory, the Navigator's acting
CEO. (Berger left the group last month to start his own consulting
business.)

Sure enough, the watchlist designation has provided Clinton’s antagonists
with more ammunition with which to attack Hillary’s campaign. Already,
critics are citing Charity Navigator’s list as a reason to open a federal
investigation into the Clintons’ finances. For its part, the Clinton camp
sees the episode as another reason to feel aggrieved. But even some Clinton
advisers have been frustrated that they don’t appear to have learned from
past self-inflicted wounds. One source told me that last year, a senior
adviser lobbied the Foundation to appoint a Republican co-chairman to its
board, which was stacked with Clinton loyalists. The adviser submitted a
list of GOP names. “It was to shield [the Clintons] from the things they’re
reading about now,” the source said. “It didn’t happen.”

Unfortunately for Hillary’s campaign, the Navigator’s policy is that
charities that land on the list stay there for a minimum of six months.
Sandra Miniutti, the Navigator’s spokesperson, told me that, in order to
get off the list, the Clintons need to publicly address each of the
controversies raised by the media with a convincing response.

The clock is ticking.

Under pressure, Clinton Foundation's Canadian arm reveals 21 donors
<http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/mct/under-pressure-clinton-foundation-s-canadian-arm-reveals-donors/article_15e0c887-62ce-5971-a2aa-3414e76c22b3.html>
// McClatchy // Greg Gordon - May 10, 2015

WASHINGTON — Under pressure to lift the veil of secrecy over who bankrolled
his Canadian charity that's affiliated with the Clinton Foundation,
Vancouver-based mining mogul Frank Giustra late Friday released the names
of 21 of its largest donors, most with connections to the mining and
oil-drilling industries.

The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) did not list the
amounts of the various donations. It said it only disclosed the identities
of those leading contributors who provided written authorization, while
releasing a second legal opinion asserting that under Canadian law, the
rest of its 1,100 contributors should be kept confidential unless they
agree to be identified.

Those named include Giustra, a major Clinton Foundation benefactor who has
forged a globetrotting philanthropic partnership with former President Bill
Clinton, Giustra's estranged wife, Alison Lawton, and his family foundation.

The partnership's secrecy has triggered controversy because the
contributors' money ultimately benefited the U.S.-based foundation that
Clinton built into a global force to fight poverty and disease, posing
possible undisclosed conflicts of interest for his wife, Hillary Clinton,
during her tenure as secretary of state between 2009 and 2013.

Disclosures about these entanglements — and questions about whether some
are being concealed — are now dogging Hillary Clinton as she seeks the
Democratic presidential nomination.

Before she took office, the Clinton Foundation agreed to disclose all of
its donors and to limit donations from foreign governments. On its website,
the foundation lists the names of more than 300,000 donors, organizing them
by dollar ranges, and says it will update the list quarterly during her
presidential candidacy.

The Canadian affiliate said Friday it has taken no donations from foreign
governments.

While Giustra says the Canadian partnership turns over all of its revenue
to the Clinton Foundation, it operates as a separate entity. Giustra said
this week that $16 million of the money was raised at a star-studded 2008
gala on Toronto's waterfront, which was attended by some 1,200 people.

Most of the donors identified Friday fit into a tight ring of Giustra's
present and former mining industry friends, associates and financiers.

Prominent among those listed was Ian Telfer, whose company, Uranium One,
swallowed Giustra's firm, handing him windfall profits, after it won the
right to mine key uranium deposits in Kazakhstan and in the United States.
The New York Times has reported that Giustra's UrAsia Energy Inc.
consummated a deal for the Kazakhstan deposits in 2005, days after Giustra
and Bill Clinton met with the country's president, though Giustra has
contended the purchase would have gone forward anyway.

Public records reviewed by McClatchy show that Telfer's Fernwood
Foundation, which also was among those named, donated $2.45 million to the
Clinton Giustra Canadian partnership over several years.

Sergey Kurzin, a Russian-born engineer who has publicly taken credit for
arranging the meeting involving Clinton and Kazakhstan's president, also
acknowledged donating. The Toronto Globe and Mail reported in 2008 that
Kurzin pledged $1 million at the gala. Kurzin also gave $50,000 to $100,000
directly to the Clinton Foundation.

However, the biggest donors to the Canada partnership were Giustra, who has
pledged $100 million to the Clinton Foundation and donated more than $30
million directly so far, and his Radcliffe Foundation, which gave more than
$18 million between 2007 and 2013, according to public records.

Others on the list include:

—Pacific Rubiales Energy Corp., a Canadian petroleum firm in which Giustra
invested and which pursued drilling interests in Colombia.

—Gran Colombia Gold Corp., a Canadian firm with mining interests in the
South American nation.

—Endeavour Mining Corp., a Canadian-based gold mining firm, and its chief
executive officer, Neil Woodyer.

—Stephen Dattels, a British-based mining industry financier.

—GMP Securities, LP, a Canadian firm that has been instrumental in
underwriting mining ventures.

—B2Gold Corp., a Canadian gold-mining firm.

—Sam Magid, a former business Giustra business partner.

—The London-based Dragon Group of companies, which deal in silver, copper
and diamonds.

For the Clintons, a big question: What to do with Bill?
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-the-clintons-a-big-question-what-to-do-with-bill/2015/05/10/1f5b6212-f4db-11e4-bcc4-e8141e5eb0c9_story.html>
// WaPo // Phillip Rucker - May 10, 2015

MARRAKESH, Morocco — The scene that unfolded here last week as Bill Clinton
convened world leaders for a philanthropic conference was hardly what his
wife’s champion-for-everyday-Americans campaign would have ordered up.

Gathered in Marrakesh for a Clinton Global Initiative confab, foreign
oligarchs and corporate titans mingled amid palm trees, decorative pools
and dazzling tiled courtyards with the former president and his traveling
delegation of foundation donors — many of whom are also donors to Hillary
Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign.

When daughter Chelsea moderated a discussion on women’s empowerment, the
only male panelist was Morocco’s richest person, Othman Benjelloun, whose
BMCE Bank is a CGI sponsor. For the week’s biggest party, guests were
chauffeured across the city to an opulent 56-room palace that boasts a
private collection of Arabian horses, overlooks the snow-capped Atlas
Mountains and serves a fine-dining menu of “biolight” cuisine.

Ahead of that event, Bill Clinton greeted Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal.
“See you tonight, Turki,” he told his royal highness.

It was a long way from Hillary Clinton’s campaign-trail visits to Chipotle.
The luxe week in Morocco highlighted the overarching question facing the
Clintons and their coexisting circles of political advisers: What to do
with Bill?

The question applies not only to the campaign but also to his role as first
gentleman if she gets elected.

In a presidential race that could include two dozen candidates, none has a
spouse like Bill Clinton — a former president whose sprawling charitable
ventures are rife with potential conflicts of interest; an admired public
figure whose common touch propelled his rise but who now charges up to
$500,000 to give a speech; a curious ideas man whose penchant for speaking
his mind drives news cycles; and a globe-trotting icon whose recognizable
tuft of white hair draws onlookers everywhere, from his old Arkansas haunts
to the bustling souks around Marrakesh’s central square.

Bill Clinton is a political animal who logged 168,000 miles on the campaign
trail in 2014. Yet senior aides say he does not plan to do any campaign
activities for his wife in 2015, including fundraisers for her campaign or
allied super PACs. He has said privately that she should lead the campaign
on her own, aides said.

“He’s completely focused right now on the foundation,” said Tina Flournoy,
Bill Clinton’s chief of staff. “That does not mean that he does not realize
his wife is running for president. But he is not directly engaged in the
campaign. As he has said before, if his advice is asked for, he’s happy to
give it.”

But even if he’s off the campaign trail, Bill Clinton is never out of the
limelight. He will remain prominent in the public eye with a busy schedule
of appearances, including visits this week to a Harlem food festival and
next month to Little Rock for a charity ball. In mid-June, he will be in
Denver to host CGI America, a domestic-themed spinoff of his foundation
conference.

On Tuesday, he’ll be on the “Late Show with David Letterman.”

He will also speak for pay at Univision’s presentation to advertisers in
New York on Tuesday. The prominent Spanish-language television network is
owned in part by Haim Saban, a foundation and campaign donor who hosted a
fundraiser for Hillary Clinton last week at his Beverly Hills mansion.

  One strategist said Hillary Clinton, shown here with Bill Clinton and
former senator Tom Harkin, should not campaign with her husband: “It’s hard
to shine when you’re standing next to the sun.” (Charlie
Neibergall/Associated Press)

“Bill Clinton is like nuclear energy,” said David Axelrod, a strategist on
President Obama’s campaigns. “If you use it properly, it can be enormously
helpful and proactive. If you misuse it, it can be catastrophic.”

‘A supporting spouse’

Keeping the former president at a distance is one way the 2016 Clinton
campaign is trying to prove it has learned from the mistakes of 2008.
Although as her aides know well, it is impossible to truly isolate him from
her campaign.

“He is a very smart political strategist and practitioner,” said Ann Lewis,
a longtime Hillary Clinton adviser. “He has never thought that politics is
beneath him. He believes that politics is the way that we govern ourselves.”

Bill Clinton has many assets. He is universally known and unusually
popular; 73 percent of voters approved of his job performance as president
in a Washington Post-ABC News poll in March, while his personal
favorability rating stood at 65 percent in a CNN-ORC poll in March. He also
is considered one of the Democratic Party’s most talented communicators;
his 2012 convention speech was a standout moment in support of Obama’s
reelection.

“Any conversation about Bill Clinton and his impact on the campaign has to
start with the fact that Americans like him and they’ve liked him for a
long time,” said Geoff Garin, a pollster for Hillary Clinton’s 2008
campaign who now works for Priorities USA, a pro-Clinton super PAC.

But as Bill Clinton showed in 2008, he can be an undisciplined and rogue
surrogate. Some of the ugliest episodes in his wife’s campaign were his
making, including his stray remarks about Obama that angered black voters
in South Carolina and his behind-the-scenes meddling in the campaign’s
strategy.

Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), who feuded with Bill Clinton in 2008 over
what he saw as race-baiting, said in a recent interview that the former
president should be “a supporting spouse” this time around.

“He should refrain from doing anything or saying anything that would take
the attention off of her candidacy,” said Clyburn, who has not endorsed
anyone in the 2016 race. “It’s got to be about Hillary. It’s got to be
about her vision, and he’s got to be supportive of that.”

Axelrod, recalling the Clintons’ joint appearance in the fall at retiring
Sen. Tom Harkin’s steak fry in Iowa, said it would be foolish for the them
to campaign together regularly. “It’s hard to shine when you’re standing
next to the sun,” he said recently. “He’s a luminescent character, and it
is diminishing to have him out there at her side.”

Aides insisted that Bill Clinton is not calling up campaign aides,
devouring polls or mapping out strategies. The campaign has no “Bill
whisperer” tasked with managing him, although Flournoy is in regular
contact with top aides at Hillary Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters. The
former president also has long-standing relationships with campaign
chairman John D. Podesta and other advisers.

The Clintons speak to each other often, sometimes multiple times a day, but
usually about personal matters and rarely about the nity-gritty of her
race, aides said. Some days, he doesn’t know where she’s campaigning. And
on the Africa trip, he was more attuned to the British elections — glued to
the BBC — than to her campaign.

One afternoon in April, Bill Clinton looked up at a television in his
midtown Manhattan office and saw the grainy security-camera photo of his
wife and her aide, Huma Abedin, at a Chipotle in Ohio, appearing incognito
in dark sunglasses. He turned to aides and wondered, “What are she and Huma
doing? Are they robbing that place?”

Far away, but still making news

As Hillary Clinton raised money in California last week, Bill Clinton was
about as far away as he could get, visiting the family foundation’s
projects in Africa and convening the CGI meeting in Morocco.

Yet he was still making big headlines. In an interview with NBC News in
Kenya, he appeared testy while defending the foundation’s foreign
fundraising. He also said he would continue giving six-figure paid
speeches: “I’ve got to pay our bills,” he said, sounding out of touch,
considering he has reported earning $105 million in speaking fees over 12
years.

There were other awkward moments as well. As Bill Clinton wrapped up the
CGI meeting in Morocco, a top Coca-Cola executive joined him onstage to
announce a $4.5 million program to help African youths obtain job skills
and career counseling.

Then Curtis A. Ferguson, the company’s regional president, shifted to the
sales pitch. “I hope they’re thirsty,” he said, referring to the young
Africans. Then he said he wanted to “share a Coke with Bill,” pulling out a
Coke bottle inscribed with the former president’s first name in Arabic.
They posed for photos holding the bottle, smiling.

But much of the Africa trip — which stretched for 10 days and included
stops in Tanzania, Kenya, Liberia and Morocco — was aimed at showcasing the
good works of the foundation and its partners.

At a hearing-aid fitting in Kenya, Bill Clinton witnessed a young man
hearing the voice of his sister for the first time. In Tanzania, he met
farmer Wazia Chawala, a single mother with seven children, who with
foundation help has improved crop yields with modern soil, seed and
crop-rotation techniques.

Clinton also visited a drab Nairobi laboratory, where he listened to a
presentation on tracking carbon emissions and rainfall patterns so farmers
could improve their yields. When he asked the donors with him if they had
any questions, Drew Houston, the chief executive of Dropbox, asked, “What
were your biggest technical challenges?”

For Clinton and his staff, it was a proud moment of synergy — the founder
of one of the world’s largest cloud-computing companies asking a Kenyan lab
technician a question about uploading data to the cloud.

Clinton, who declined a request to be interviewed for this report, is
grappling with what the future might hold. He is continuing to raise money
for the foundation, where his daughter has assumed a greater leadership
role. Last year, the foundation raised a $250 million endowment to provide
long-term stability in his absence.

His advisers understand that the foundation’s activities could complicate a
Hillary Clinton presidency.

“In his heart and mind, I think he wants there to always be a scenario
where his foundation is doing the work that he’s deeply invested in,”
Flournoy said. “How does that look, and what does experience and time and
history mean you might have to change? We don’t know. But this is his
life’s work.”

‘What does she want me to do?’

Bill Clinton says his role would be determined by his wife. “What does she
want me to do?” he said in an interview last week with CNN’s Christiane
Amanpour. “I have no idea.”

One option is that Hillary Clinton could draft him as a special envoy
somewhere or give him a portfolio in her administration. He is continually
fascinated by science, aides said, and lately has been thinking about
creating a fairer economy. He also has talked about bringing together
corporate partners to rebuild Baltimore after last month’s riots.

A return of the Clintons to the White House would also usher in a blurring
of traditional gender roles, not to mention titles: Bill Clinton’s aides
still refer to him as “the president.”

“Even if he were assigned the responsibility of picking out china, I think
others would probably overrule him on taste,” said Skip Rutherford, a
longtime adviser and friend. “People used to kid him about picking out his
crazy ties. I can’t imagine.”

The closest historical parallel is Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. During
Franklin’s presidency, Eleanor earned personal income from paid speeches,
newspaper columns and a weekly radio show, which was sponsored by Simmons
mattresses, said Carl Anthony, a historian at the National First Ladies’
Library. He said she gave most of her income to the March of Dimes
Foundation, which her husband founded to combat polio.

“She made a lot of money on her own, but not without a congressional
investigation and media attacks on her commercializing the presidency,”
Anthony said.

Fred Wertheimer, president of the reform group Democracy 21, said the
couple should completely withdraw from the charity if Hillary Clinton wins:
“Change the name of the foundation, and make a clean break.”

Foundation supporters believe otherwise.

“It would probably be one of the greatest wastes of human talent in the
history of the world” for Bill Clinton to withdraw, said Jay Jacobs, a
major donor who traveled with him to Africa. “How do you say to these poor
farmers, to mothers whose children can’t hear, ‘Sorry, no more because
politics can’t abide by it?’ That would be morally wrong.”

Paul: Clinton made Libya a 'jihadist wonderland'
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/241555-paul-clinton-made-libya-a-jihadist-wonderland>
// The Hill // Mark Hensch - May 10, 2015

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued Sunday that former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton’s policies had created a terrorist utopia in Libya.

“Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya, I think, made it less safe,” Paul told
host John Catsimatidis on his New York radio show “The Cats Roundtable.”

“It was a big mistake for us to go in there in the first place, because a
lot of the times when we topple secular dictators, we’ve gotten chaos and
then we’ve gotten the rise of radical Islam,” he said of Clinton’s decision
in 2011 to help oust then-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

“It made it a hotbed for jihadists,” Paul added. “And, in fact, I Libya is
now a jihadist wonderland.”

Paul’s harsh criticism comes as the 2016 presidential race first heats up.

The Kentucky lawmaker is seeking the GOP nomination, while Clinton is
pursuing the Democratic bid.

Paul on Sunday additionally touted his liberty credentials as the best in
the entire 2016 field.

“I’m one of the few in the race that thinks that we need to defend the
country, but sometimes being involved in foreign war doesn’t help us,” he
said.

“And I’m one of the few who thinks we need to talk about defending the
entire Bill of Rights, not just a couple of ones cherry-picked here and
there,” Paul said.

Paul said among the GOP contenders, he stood out for his opposition to the
nation’s current intelligence policies.

“I’m probably the only Republican in the race who thinks that the
government shouldn’t be collecting all of our phone records … without a
warrant,” he said.

“I want to be a part of the leave-me-alone coalition, which basically says
if you’re not hurting anybody, the government, particularly the federal
government, ought to stay out of your life,” Paul added.

Paul’s remarks followed a federal appeals court ruling Thursday that the
bulk warrantless collection of phone records by the National Security
Agency was illegal.

The GOP senator hailed that judgment Friday as a “monumental decision for
all lovers of liberty.”

He vowed Sunday to continue his work on privacy rights while still making
progress on what he saw as the average American’s real concern.

“The top three issues are the debt, the debt and the debt,” Paul said.

Hillary’s Immigration
<http://iowastartingline.com/2015/05/09/sunday-grab-bag-gops-keystone-conundrum-hillarys-immigration-and-isis/>
// Iowa Starting Line // Pat Rynard - May 10, 2015

Progressives who decry Hillary Clinton as insufficiently liberal have
increasingly fewer examples to point to. This week while in Nevada, Clinton
staked out very progressive views on immigration, calling for a full
pathway to citizenship, supporting executive actions that are to the left
of President Obama’s stances, and signaled strong protection for DREAMers.
Immigration activists were absolutely ecstatic with her remarks. Some in
the party’s left who distrust Clinton won’t believe it, but her words and
the forcefulness in which she delivered them is a big deal.

It’s also a fascinating look into Clinton’s electoral strategy. If she
wanted to, she could play it safe on certain issues and run a centrist
campaign to win over what’s left of America’s swing voters. This is clearly
a play at building upon the same coalition of young and ethnically diverse
people that Obama used for his victories. Her immigration stance could
rejuvenate Hispanic support for Democrats, many of whom have felt burned by
Obama’s presidency, a time during which his administration has deported
more people than any one before him. All of this is very, very good news on
both the policy side of things, but also on the electoral side of the
future of the Democratic Party.

If Clinton wins White House, an uncertain future awaits her family's
charitable foundation
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1f7b174b170b44d3a7644f16fdd2555d/if-clinton-wins-family-foundation-faces-uncertain-future>
// AP // Julie Pace – May 11, 2015

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton's family foundation, already the
subject of intense scrutiny in the early days of her White House campaign,
faces an uncertain future if she is elected president.

Among the unresolved questions: Who would be able to raise money for the
Clinton Foundation? Could it begin new projects, both at home and overseas?
Is there any way it could operate unburdened by conflicts of interest, real
or perceived, while one of its founders sits in the Oval Office?

"I'm not sure the rules have been invented to apply to this situation,"
said Diana Aviv, president of Independent Sector, a network of nonprofits,
foundations and corporate giving programs.

While Clinton stepped down from the foundation's board after launching her
2016 campaign, husband Bill and daughter Chelsea still hold leadership
roles. They currently have no plans to stop their fundraising and
management activities during the campaign, nor is there a blueprint for
their involvement if Hillary Clinton wins the election, people close to the
foundation said.

Options being considered include Chelsea Clinton taking the helm, with her
father playing a more behind-the-scenes role; fully banning the acceptance
of donations from abroad; and implementing a more rigorous vetting process
for domestic donors.

Neither the foundation nor Clinton's campaign will pledge publicly to give
voters answers about the organization's future before the November 2016
election, but some people close to the Clintons want decisions made before
Election Day.

The people close to the Clintons and the foundation spoke on condition of
anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak publicly about
internal planning.

Campaign officials are also pushing the Clinton Foundation to be more
aggressive in answering the criticism of its high-dollar fundraising. The
organization has raised more than $2 billion since former President Bill
Clinton left office, money it uses to run 11 initiatives focused on global
health, climate change, economic development, wellness and opportunities
for women and girls.

That aggressive fundraising is currently the subject of intense scrutiny,
as Republicans and others look for potential conflicts of interests and
signs that donors to the foundation sought to influence the Obama
administration during Hillary Clinton's four years as secretary of state.

The Clintons deny any improprieties. But the former president has started
to hint that if his wife wins the White House, he may have to step down
from the organization to avoid blurring the lines between U.S. government
policy and the interests of donors.

"I might if I were asked to do something in the public interest that I had
an obligation to do. Or I might take less of an executive role," Clinton
said in a recent interview with NBC News. "But we'll cross that bridge when
we come to it."

Some people close to the Clintons and the foundation say it's unlikely the
former president could continue directly raising money if his wife wins
election. But they say that could be a slow and difficult realization for
him to come to, given how much of his post-White House legacy is linked to
the foundation's work.

"The challenge isn't necessarily the organization surviving the founders —
it's the founders letting go of the organization," said Steven Lawrence,
the research director at the Foundation Center, an organization that
collects data on philanthropic organizations.

There is far less certainty about the role Chelsea Clinton might play in
the foundation's future. The 35-year-old has taken on a more direct role in
recent years and is an obvious choice to take over from her parents. But
despite being well-liked by donors, some question whether she would be able
to raise the same level of money as her popular father.

Clinton Foundation officials have discussed how to sustain the organization
financially if the former president can no longer directly raise money. The
conversations with donors and others have focused not just on the prospect
of Hillary Clinton becoming president, but also the possibility that Bill
Clinton's health leaves him unable to keep up his role as chief fundraiser.

A drive launched in 2013 has endowed a $250 million fund to help keep
programs running under those circumstances.

Donna Shalala, the former Health and Human Services secretary and
University of Miami president who takes over as the foundation's president
and chief executive next month, is expected to do her own accounting of its
activities. Her appointment is also seen as a signal to donors that there
would be continuity in leadership if the Clinton family becomes less
involved in its operations.

The foundation is also weighing whether new projects, both in the U.S. and
abroad, could start during a Clinton presidency, or whether worry about
potential conflicts of interest would limit it to its existing work. While
the foundation says there were no conflicts during Clinton's four years as
the nation's chief diplomat, the potential for such conflicts is far
greater should she become president.

The foundation has already agreed to stop taking money from most foreign
governments during her campaign, with exceptions for six Western nations.

Campaign officials suggested additional changes to foundation activities
are not imminent. Spokesman Brian Fallon said that for now, Clinton is
"proud of the foundation's work and glad that her husband and daughter
continue to lead its day-to-day mission."

OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE

Sanders: I'm 'most progressive' member of Congress
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/241564-sanders-im-most-progressive-member-of-congress>
//
The Hill // Mark Hensch – May 10, 2015

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Sunday that he considered himself the
most liberal lawmaker in Congress.

“I think it’s fair to say I am perhaps the most progressive member of
Congress,” Sanders told host Bob Schieffer on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“I am proud of being the longest-serving independent in the history of the
United States Congress,” he added.

Sanders, a 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, additionally reiterated
his interest in copying some policies from socialist European nations.

“We can learn a whole lot from some of those countries,” he said, citing
Austria, Denmark and Germany as examples.

“College education is free in those countries,” Sanders said of those
nations’ undergraduate educational programs.

“That makes a lot of sense to me,” he said.

Sanders also advocated eliminating the role of wealthy special interests in
political campaign spending.

“Billionaires like the Koch brothers are owning the political process,” he
said of businessmen David and Charles Koch.

“Billionaires should not be able to buy elections,” he said.

Sanders argued that if elected president, he would additionally vet
potential Supreme Court justices by their desire to overturn the landmark
Citizens United ruling on campaign contributions.

“That decision has undermined U.S. democracy,” he said of the case, which
prohibits restrictions on political expenditures from organizations on the
basis of free speech.

Sanders’s rejection of political action committees is a key part of his
2016 campaign.

The Vermont lawmaker argued on Sunday his freedom from wealthy special
interests separates him from Hillary Clinton, the other current contender
for the Democratic nomination.

“We are going to raise the kind of money to run a strong campaign,” he
vowed of contributions he would earn from average Americans.

Why Bernie Sanders Thinks He Can Beat Hillary Clinton
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-10/why-bernie-sanders-thinks-he-can-beat-hillary-clinton>
// Bloomberg // Ali Elkin – May 10, 2015

Bernie Sanders acknowledges he won't outspend Hillary Clinton, but that
doesn't mean he can't beat her.

Appearing on CBS's Face the Nation, the Democratic nomination seeker, a
self-described independent socialist senator from Vermont was asked if he
really thinks he can beat Democratic front runner.

"The answer is yes," Sanders said.

“We've had close to 90,000 contributions.”

His confidence lies in Clinton's ties to billionaires and the
dissatisfaction with income inequality throughout the country.

"There is, in my view, massive dissatisfaction in this country today with
the corporate establishment and the greed of corporate America in an
incredibly unequal distribution of wealth and income, which currently
exists," Sanders said.

Sanders said that unlike Clinton, he will not have a super-PAC to raise
unlimited funds for his campaign. He pointed out the smaller donations that
have been made to his campaign. While he doesn't expect to outspend
Clinton, Sanders said that might not matter.

"Look, we announced a week and a half ago," Sanders said. "Since that time,
we have had 200,000 people go to BernieSanders.com to sign up for the
campaign. We've had close to 90,000 contributions. Do you know what the
average contribution was? It's about $43, 43 bucks, from middle-class
working families. So I don't think we're going to outspend Hillary Clinton
or Jeb Bush or anybody else, but I think we are going to raise the kinds of
money that we need to run a strong and winning campaign."

In a new Bloomberg Politics/Saint Anselm New Hampshire poll, Sanders trails
Clinton by 44 points in the Granite State.

Bernie Sanders: I can beat Hillary Clinton
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-i-can-beat-hillary-clinton/> //
CBS News // Rebecca Kaplan – May 10, 2015

Bernie Sanders, Vermont's independent senator and a self-proclaimed
Democratic socialist, says he can beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic
nomination in 2016.

On CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Sanders said he thinks he can oust the
former secretary of state because, "there is, in my view, massive
dissatisfaction in this country today with corporate establishment and the
greed of corporate America and the incredibly unequal distribution of
wealth and income, which currently exists."

And Sanders said his record on that issue over the past 25 years shows that
he has led the way in standing up for working families and taking on "the
billionaire class," Wall Street, private insurance companies and drug
companies.

Sanders is hesitant to criticize Clinton, saying that he respects and
admires her. But pressed on the question of why he would make a better
Democratic nominee, he points to three things: his opposition to the Trans
Pacific Partnership, a massive Asia-Pacific trade agreement being
negotiated, his vote against the war in Iraq and leadership fighting
against it, and the work he has done opposing the Keystone XL pipeline.

"I'm not quite sure Hillary Clinton has come out with a position on that,"
he said.

Political insiders break down the 2016 presidential race

In a separate interview on "Face the Nation," Democratic strategist
Stephanie Cutter said it is still "pretty likely" Clinton will be the
Democratic nominee, but that Sanders "has a role to play" in the debate.

"I think that there's nobody in the race right now who presents a real
challenge to her in terms of taking the nomination away. But it's important
to remember and we've been through this process many times, that we are
many, many months away from the nomination, never mind the election," she
said.

Former House Speaker and 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who
appeared alongside Cutter on the show, seemed to concur, when he said, if
"you were betting today, you would say she is overwhelming favorite to be
the nominee."

"If she doesn't get the nomination, it will be because 'not Hillary' beats
'Hillary,'" he said. "It won't be because some candidate beats Hillary."

In his "Face the Nation" interview, Sanders reserved the bulk of his
criticism for the Supreme Court and its role in opening up a flood of money
into politics through the 2010 Citizens United decision.

"As a result of this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision,
clearly the billionaires, Koch brothers and others, are owning the
political process. They will determine who the candidates are," Sanders
said.

He pledged that he would use the issue as a litmus test for anyone he would
nominate to the Supreme Court as president.

"That nominee will say that we are going to overturn this disastrous
opinion on Citizens United because that decision is undermining American
democracy. I do not believe that billionaire should be able to buy
politicians," Sanders said.

Clinton will help raise money for a super PAC supporting her candidacy
during 2016 even though she has pledged to "get unaccountable money out of
[the political system] once and for all," even if it takes a constitutional
amendment to overturn the court decision.

"With some Republican candidates reportedly setting up and outsourcing
their entire campaign to super PACs and the Koch Brothers pledging $1
billion alone for the 2016 campaign, Democrats have to have the resources
to fight back," a Clinton aide told CBS News last week. "There is too much
at stake for our future for Democrats to unilaterally disarm."

Even that decision didn't draw fire from Sanders.

"I understand where she's coming from," he said, though he added that he
will not have a super PAC supporting his campaign. Sanders noted that since
he announced his candidacy at the end of April he has received nearly
90,000 donations, and the average is $43.

"I don't think we're going to outspend Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or
anybody else, but I think we are going to raise the kinds of money we need
to run a strong and winning campaign," he said.

Gingrich, whose campaign was kept alive in part because of donations from
billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, said that there is "a declining
value when you get above a certain number" in campaign cash.

"The key for a candidate, which I failed, was to get above a critical
mass," Gingrich said. "If [2012 GOP nominee Mitt] Romney couldn't have
outspent me three to one, I might have become the nominee. But there's a
point at some time, somewhere between five and 20 to one, where you drown.
Nobody who is the nominee in the general election is going to get outspent
by a huge number because the country is too polarized on what kind of
future it wants and both sides can generate huge amounts of money."

Cutter said that the amount of money in politics has made voters cynical,
and people begin to tune out the huge amounts of money and negativity in
modern political campaigns.

"We do need to figure out how we take action to get this money out of the
system," she said.

Bernie Sanders pledges not to accept super PAC support
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/10/bernie-sanders-pledges-not-to-accept-super-pac-support/>
// Washington Times // Jose A. DelReal – May 10, 2015

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday reiterated his pledge not to accept
super PAC support but stopped short of knocking Democratic front-runner
Hillary Clinton’s decision to court allied super PAC donors.

“I understand where she is coming from. [But] I will not have a super PAC,”
Sanders, who last month launched a bid for the Democratic presidential
nomination, said on “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “...I don't think we're
going to outspend Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or anybody else, but I think
we are going to raise the kinds of money that we need to run a strong and
winning campaign.”

Although Sanders did not criticize Clinton about her tacit support for an
allied super PAC, about which The Washington Post’s Matea Gold reported
last week, he nonetheless stressed — without naming names — his belief that
the American political system gives outsize influence to millionaires and
billionaires. He said a central consideration for Supreme Court nominees
should be their position on the Citizens United decision.

[Hillary Clinton cements her support for allied super PAC.]

“Let me say it this way: If elected president, I will have a litmus test in
terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice, and that nominee will
say that we are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on
Citizens United,” he said. “Because that decision is undermining American
democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy
politicians.”

Asked about the differences between Clinton and him, Sanders — who
described himself as "the most progressive member of the United States
Senate" — said he has voiced strong opposition to the Trans-Pacific
Partnership and the Keystone pipeline while Clinton's positions remain
unclear. He also knocked Clinton on her oft-criticized 2002 vote to
authorize the use of military force in Iraq.

“In terms of foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. Not
only did I vote against it, I helped lead the effort against what I knew
would be a disaster. In terms of climate change, I have helped lead the
effort against the Keystone pipeline. I'm not quite sure if Hillary Clinton
has come out with a position on that. So those are just some of the areas
where we differ.”

Sanders suggested that the “massive dissatisfaction in this country today
with the corporate establishment” could give him an edge in the Democratic
primary.

"[L]et me say that I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years.  I respect
her and I admire her.  But I think we're living in a very strange moment in
American history," he said.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a White House contender in 2016, is known for
his stances on budget issues and war. Here's the Vermont senator's take on
Obamacare, Social Security and more, in his own words. (Julie Percha/The
Washington Post)

Bernie Sanders challenges Hillary Clinton on trade deal and Iraq war
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/10/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-trans-pacific-partnership>
// The Guardian // Martin Pengelly – May 10, 2015

Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who is running for the
Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, on Sunday outlined what he said
were differences between his campaign and that of the clear frontrunner,
Hillary Clinton.

Sanders again linked the former secretary of state to the “billionaires” he
says dominate US politics, but widened his criticisms to include the former
secretary of state’s positions on international trade agreements, the Iraq
war and the threat of climate change.

Sanders and Clinton are the only candidates so far to have declared on the
Democratic side; Clinton leads polls on the issue by more than 50%.
Appearing on CBS on Sunday, Sanders was asked what was wrong with Clinton
as a Democratic candidate for president.

“Let me give you an example,” Sanders said. “Congress is in the midst of a
debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP, an agreement with 12 Asian
countries]. I am strongly opposed to that trade agreement on the grounds
that it follows in the footsteps of other disastrous trade agreements that
have cost us millions of jobs.”

Last month, Sanders wrote an op-ed column for the Guardian on the TPP, the
largest trade deal in US history, in which he said: “The TPP is simply the
continuation of a failed approach to trade – an approach which benefits
large multinational corporations and Wall Street, but which is a disaster
for working families. The TPP must be defeated.”

TPP is supported by the Obama administration but opposed by many in the
Democratic party. In an interview with Yahoo Politics that was published on
Saturday, Obama said a prominent voice against TPP, Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts, was “absolutely wrong” on the issue.

Clinton has so far handled TPP with extreme care – last month her campaign
chief, John Podesta, was caught in private remarks to donors saying: “Can
you make it go away?”

On Sunday, Sanders broadened his attack: “On foreign policy, Hillary
Clinton voted for the war in Iraq … Not only I voted against, I helped lead
the effort against what I knew would be a disaster.

“On climate change, I have helped lead the effort against the Keystone
pipeline. I’m not quite sure Hillary Clinton has come out with a position
on that. So those are just some areas where we differ.”

Sanders also repeated his determination to overturn the 2010 Citizens
United supreme court decision, which gave rise to unrestrained spending on
elections.

“As a result of this disastrous Citizens United supreme court decision,
clearly the billionaires, the Koch brothers and all this, are owning the
political process,” he said. “They will determine who the candidates are.

“Let me say this: if elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms
of my nominee to be a supreme court justice. And that nominee will say that
we are going to overturn this disastrous supreme court decision because
that decision is undermining US democracy. I do not believe billionaires
should be able to buy politicians.”

Clinton has said she will form a super PAC, the type of fundraising body
brought into being by Citizens United, to fight her 2016 campaign.

Sanders, who said on Sunday that in two weeks since he declared his
candidacy he had received 200,000 website sign-ups to volunteer and close
to 90,000 financial contributions at an average of $43 each, said: “I
understand where she’s coming from. I will not have a super PAC.”

Sanders confirmed that though he is a self-described “democratic socialist”
– he was again asked to describe what that meant, and again pointed to
Scandinavian countries’ approaches to healthcare, education, childcare and
more – he was running for the White House as a Democrat. He added that he
was “perhaps the most progressive member of the Senate”.

Bernie Sanders's presidential candidacy four decades in the making
<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2015/0510/Bernie-Sanders-s-presidential-candidacy-four-decades-in-the-making>
// Christian Science Monitor // Dave Gram - May 10, 2015

MONTPELIER, VT. — Once a democratic socialist, always a democratic
socialist. Once a scold of big money in politics, still a scold....

No one can accuse Sen. Bernie Sanders of flip-flopping over his four
decades in public life. Rock steady, he's inhabited the same ideological
corner on the left from which he now takes on Hillary Rodham Clinton in an
improbable quest for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.

Here he is in 1974, as the 32-year-old candidate for U.S. Senate of a
fledgling leftist party in Vermont called Liberty Union: "A handful of
banks and billionaires control the economic and political life of America.
... America is becoming less and less of a democracy and more and more of
an oligarchy."

And now, in an Associated Press interview: "This is a rigged economy, which
works for the rich and the powerful, and is not working for ordinary
Americans. ... You know this country just does not belong to a handful of
billionaires."

Some see him as a broken record, others as a person who has been telling
the truth all along and just waiting for enough people to listen.

"The fascinating thing about Bernie right now is that the agenda has caught
up with Bernie," said Garrison Nelson, a University of Vermont political
science professor and longtime Sanders watcher.

During Sanders' near decade as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in the 1980s,
during his eight terms holding Vermont's lone seat in the House of
Representatives, and during his near decade in the Senate, the message has
stayed the same: The rich are absconding with an immorally large part of
the country's wealth, and ordinary people have been getting the short end
of the stick.

Clinton has gone from opposing same-sex marriage rights to supporting them.
Sanders, now 73, favored gay marriage rights before it became fashionable
in Democratic circles. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in the
mid-1990s signed by Clinton's husband, President Bill Clinton. The law,
which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 2013, allowed states
to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other
states.

Early in her primary campaign, Clinton has spoken about the gap between the
rich and the middle class, in an appeal to the party's liberal wing. The
Republican contenders, too, are taking up the problem of income inequality,
although with much different solutions in mind than the Democrats.

Steady-as-he-goes Sanders has been at it for decades. He's admired Canada's
single-payer health care system since way back, talking up "nationalized
health care" during his unsuccessful run for Congress in 1988. When
Republicans charge that Democrats would bring European-style socialism to
the U.S., Sanders says bring it on.

"I can hear the Republican attack ad right now: 'He wants America to look
more like Scandinavia," George Stephanopoulos said while interviewing
Sanders on ABC's "This Week."

Sanders replied, "That's right. That's right. And what's wrong with that?
What's wrong when you have more income and wealth equality? What's wrong
when they have a stronger middle class in many ways than we do, a higher
minimum wage than we do, and they're stronger on the environment?"

If he's undergone any transformation, it's in his political affiliations.
He long ago dropped the Liberty Union banner and has run as an Independent
in his successful elections in Vermont.

He says he remains one "in my heart," but has caucused with Democrats in
Congress. He chose to go for the Democratic nomination and, if he loses the
party primaries, says he won't run for president as an Independent. An
independent presidential bid could split the liberal vote and help elect
the Republican candidate.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Bernie Sanders Says He Can Beat Hillary Clinton
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/10/bernie-sanders-hillary-cl_n_7251704.html>
// Huffington Post // May 10, 2015

Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is confident that he can
beat Hillary Clinton and become the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate.

“In my view, there is a massive dissatisfaction in this country with the
corporate establishment, the greed of corporate America, and the incredibly
unequal distribution of wealth and income that currently exists,” Sanders
said Sunday morning on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” explaining why he thinks he
can beat Clinton despite her massive financial advantage.

“We won’t outspend Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, but we will raise the kind
of money needed to run a strong campaign,” he predicted. Sanders promised
on Sunday that he would not have a super PAC to raise money for his
campaign. According to Sanders, he has received nearly 90,000
contributions, averaging about $43, since announcing his candidacy a week
and a half ago.

Sanders, who described himself as “the most progressive member of the U.S.
Senate,” vowed that if elected, he would work to overturn the Supreme
Court’s Citizens United decision and rein in campaign spending allowances.

While Sanders voiced his respect and admiration for Clinton, he noted that
she voted in favor of the 2003 Iraq War and has avoided taking a stance on
the Keystone XL pipeline. Sanders, who opposed both, has also led the fight
against a bill that would grant the president fast-track authority on trade
agreements.

Warren-for-president push waning
<http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/hillary_chabot/2015/05/chabot_warren_for_president_push_waning>
// Boston Herald // Hillary Chabot – May 11, 2015

Grass-roots efforts to cultivate an Elizabeth Warren presidential run
appear to be withering on the vine as the 2016 Democratic primary firms up,
with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the race, and erstwhile Warren
activists abandoning their labor of love.

“Whether they are slowing down or not, their momentum is slowing,” said
Steve McMahon, a Democratic strategist in Washington, D.C., who hasn’t
committed to a presidential candidate.

“It’s one thing to support a hypothetical candidate before Hillary gets in,
and it’s one thing to support an opponent to Hillary before Bernie gets
in,” McMahon said. “But a lot of progressives who like Warren, at this
point support Hillary and want her to win and don’t want her to be hurt in
a contentious primary.”

Jim Demers, a prominent New Hampshire Democratic strategist who’s backing
Clinton, said the Granite State push to draft U.S. Sen. Warren has been
missing in action recently.

“It seems like it has lost a lot of attention, at least in New Hampshire. I
haven’t seen the organizer out in a couple of weeks,” Demers said, adding
that Clinton may be winning over the Warren crowd with recent moves like
embracing one hot-button issue that

Warren backers wanted on the agenda — immigration.

“We’re already starting to see some of the issues they were hoping would be
in the campaign,” he said.

Hard-line progressive groups like Democracy for America and MoveOn are
behind the Warren-for-president movement, but Warren’s repeated refusals to
run combined with progressive darling U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ entrance
into the race has impacted their campaign.

But those behind the Ready For Warren and Run Warren Run organizations
aren’t ready to give up. One key strategist behind the Ready for Warren
push said the group plans to release another round of big-name former
President Obama supporters who are asking Warren to jump into the 2016
campaign.

“If anything, we’re stronger now that not just Hillary but Bernie are in
the race,” said the strategist, who asked to remain on background.

There’s already evidence of some defectors, however. Artists for Warren
recently endorsed Sanders and Carl Gibson, a progressive activist,
journalist and former Warren-for-president supporter, wrote a column
recently urging the movement to get behind Sanders.

“The quicker her fans stop waiting in vain, the better chance Sanders will
have to fight for the values voters associate with Warren,” Gibson wrote.

GOP

  For GOP, too much of a good thing?
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/10/opinions/zelizer-gop-too-much-competition/>
// CNN // Julian Zelizer – May 10, 2015

 (CNN)The Republicans are going to have another free-for-all primary season
on their hands. Their contest for the presidential nomination is attracting
a huge crowd. For a political party that once insisted on order and
hierarchy, always making clear who the next deserving nominee was going to
be, today the GOP has taken on the character of a political circus.

With the assistance of super Pac donors who have the capacity to
singlehandedly finance candidacies and a decentralized political media with
many outlets that are searching for fresh stories, a number of candidates
-- Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio,
Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham -- have formally or informally entered the
contest.

Julian Zelizer

There are others, including Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Wisconsin's Scott
Walker, New Jersey's Chris Christie and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry who
may jump in as well. We seem to be seeing a replay of 2012 where the
primaries resembled a WWE battle royal with a huge number of contestants
packed inside the steel cage.

Is this good for the party? Is this good for democracy? At one level, it is
always good for a party to have some real competition for the top spot in a
presidential campaign.

The multiplicity of voices will allow the party to showcase a wider range
of ideas and to foster a more robust debate about the direction of the
party. Many experts would agree that Hillary Clinton will benefit from
having a challenge from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland
Gov. Martin O'Malley, who will pressure her to deal with issues from the
left.

Too many candidates means diluted look at issues

But there is difference between a healthy primary competition and an
overabundance of candidates.

What kinds of problems might result from the current trend among
Republicans? The most important is that of the wide-open entrance system is
creating a huge amount of political space for people with super Pacs to
exercise influence. The only way that many of these candidates can mount
any kind of challenge is to find powerful donors who are willing to provide
them with the money that they need.

As Newt Gingrich did in 2012, candidates are turning to people like Sheldon
Adelson who are becoming the new kingpins in American politics. Or to Miami
billionaire Norman Braman, who the New York Times reported, is providing
Marco Rubio with immense financial support. Over the long run, this will
certainly have a corrosive effect on our democratic system as the flow of
private money into elections intensifies.

Hypercompetitive, unfiltered primaries also result in a dilution of media
attention for any single candidate, including competitors to the leading
candidates. The media tends to quickly shift its attention the candidate of
the week. The result is that we lose the kind of public focus on sustained
indepth coverage that is often helpful for voters to better evaluate the
choices that they face.

Opinion: What U.S. conservatives can learn from David Cameron

After Jeb Bush started to seriously show is interest in running, there were
a number of important investigative reports about his time as governor of
Florida. But those stories already seem like the good old days as the press
has shifted to Ben Carson and others. There are so many stories about so
many candidates, it is extraordinarily difficult for voters to keep their
attention on ongoing investigative work amidst all the noise.

When the debates begin, we will once again see events where each candidates
has even less time to answer questions. As Peter Beinart argued in The
Atlantic, in the Democratic primaries Sanders has a serious chance to gain
attention for his economic issues because the competition on the Democratic
side is not so flooded.

What happens with extremist views

A primary system that allows for so many voices to gain high-visibility
platforms also allows for fringe views to gain mainstream attention. This
was evident in 2012, when Donald Trump entered the race and found that his
birther arguments were gaining national attention.

This wasn't good for the GOP, which had to deal with rather extremist views
showcased front and center. Already, as Tim Egan recounts, we have seen a
number of shocking statements, ranging from Ben Carson saying that people
went into prison straight and came out gay as evidence that people choose
homosexuality (Carson later apologized for the remark), to Ted Cruz voicing
support for Texans who fear a military takeover of their state.

It can also have dangerous implications for civil dialogue if fringe
elements gain treatment as legitimate voices of concern.

From the perspective of the party, one of the threats is that this number
of candidates creates an abundance of opportunities for each to go for the
jugular against their opponents. With such a crowded field, the incentives
increase for each person to become more vicious in their treatment of each
other. We saw this in 2012 when the most devastating attacks on Mitt Romney
came from Newt Gingrich, who characterized him as a wealthy scion of
capital who had been willing to burn entire communities in the pursuit of
profit at Bain.

The benefit for Republicans is that in contrast to a seemingly
predetermined contest in the Democratic Party, the competition could be
more compelling for voters, so they will pay closer attention, and create
the impression that the GOP is offering greater diversity within its ranks.
But the costs to the party could be significant.

Political competition is a good thing. But it is time to think a little bit
about the value that political parties used to bring when they helped to
filter through the noise, throwing their support behind others and giving
fewer opportunities for marginal candidates to consume too much valuable
political time and resources.

Of course, there needs to be a balance between a system of gatekeepers and
what we have today.

So some competition is a very good thing but too much can be damaging.

GOP Hopefuls Talk Tough on National Security
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-hopefuls-talk-tough-on-national-security-1431297310>
// WSJ // Janet Hook - May 10, 2015

Republicans running for president face an electorate riddled with anxiety
about national security and terrorism—a big mood swing from 2012 and a
mixed blessing for the GOP in 2016.

As a weekend candidate forum here illustrated, voters’ heightened interest
in world affairs gives Republicans a fresh opportunity to lambaste
President Barack Obama and show some hawkish swagger toward terrorists.

“We will look for you. We will find you. And we will kill you,” said
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, borrowing lines from the action movie “Taken” and
getting robust applause from the conservative audience of about 2,200.

But the GOP contenders also face pressure to explain how they—governors,
senators and political outsiders with little experience managing world
affairs—could shoulder the burden of being leader of the free world.

“Commander in chief is not an entry-level position,” said former Sen. Rick
Santorum, in a line that could cast doubt on the credentials of the entire
GOP field, including Mr. Santorum who lost his Senate seat in 2006.

A spirited foreign policy debate allows Republicans to unify in attacking
their likely Democratic opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton. But it also opens a split within the GOP.

That division is best illustrated by two presidential contenders who didn’t
attend Saturday’s candidate forum: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who argues
for greater restraint in U.S. military intervention than most Republicans,
and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the most hawkish members
of the party.

Mr. Graham, who is expected to announce his bid for the presidency June 1,
has drawn his differences with Mr. Paul in unusually personal terms.

“He is one step behind leading-from-behind,” Mr. Graham said in a USA Today
interview broadcast Sunday. “I think he’d be the worst possible person to
send into the ring when it came to foreign policy.”

South Carolina is a particularly welcoming place for Republicans staking
out a hawkish platform. The state, which hosts the third presidential
nominating contest in 2016 after Iowa and New Hampshire, has eight military
bases, more than 74,000 military personnel, including nearly 58,000
military retirees, according to a recent report by the University of South
Carolina.

But voters’ concern about national security isn’t just limited to
military-connected communities. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News
poll found voters nationally are more concerned about security issues than
they were four years ago, before the last presidential election. Asked what
issues should be the government’s top priority, 21% of poll participants
said national security and terrorism—up from 6% in 2012. The shift is
especially big for Republicans, who made it their No. 1 issue: 27% named it
the top priority, up from 8% in 2012.

That could make this the first election since 2004, when the Iraq war
weighed on voters, that candidates’ foreign affairs credentials and defense
policy stands could factor heavily into presidential politics.

Just in the past year, Americans have been rattled by the rise of Islamic
State, also known as ISIS, and the beheadings of the militant group’s
captives, Russia’s takeover of part of Ukraine, and hostilities in the
Middle East.

Chad Groover, chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party, said
those developments have made national security more important than ever
among voters here. “If you had asked me a year ago, I would not have said
that. I would have said bread-and-butter issues were primary,” Mr. Groover
said. “But the way the world is going, with the advent of ISIS, we see the
need to have a strong focus.”

Adding to voter anxiety is the recent episode in Garland, Texas, where two
gunman, believed to be inspired by Islamic State, were killed as they
prepared to attack a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest. “When it’s right in
your backyard, it wakes you up,” said Terri Russ, a health-care worker from
Columbia, S.C., who attended the Greenville summit.

Republicans, in their speeches, applauded the police officer who foiled the
plot by killing the attackers.

“Thankfully, one police officer helped those terrorists meet their
virgins,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R.,Texas).

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who spoke at the South Carolina event before
traveling to Israel for the first time, acknowledged his need to study up
on international issues. “It’s something that, even though as a governor I
don’t deal with it day in and day out, it has increasingly become one of
the most important things for me to focus in on,” said Mr. Walker, who
hasn’t yet formally announced his campaign for president.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said that as a business woman she
had dealt directly with more heads of state—including Russian President
Vladimir Putin—than any other GOP candidate. “The world is a more dangerous
and a more tragic place when America is not leading,” she said.

While few candidates gave many specifics about what policies they would
implement, Ms. Fiorina did. She called for a series of steps to flex U.S.
military muscle, including rebuilding the Sixth Fleet in Europe, restoring
the missile defense program, and conducting military exercises in the
Baltics.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush also didn’t attend the South Carolina forum
Saturday, instead delivering a commencement address at Liberty University
in Virginia. But he weighed in Sunday on a question concerning the use of
military force that poses a unique challenge to him among GOP candidates,
defining his views compared to his brother’s, former President George W.
Bush.

In an interview with Fox News, Mr. Bush said that he would have authorized
the 2003 U.S. war in Iraq, although he acknowledged that it was a mistake
that more was not done to guarantee security in Iraq after Saddam Hussein
was removed from power. He reminded the interviewer that Mrs. Clinton, then
a U.S. senator also supported the Iraq invasion. And he said his brother
agreed that mistakes were made after Saddam’s fall.

“So just for the news flash to the world, if they’re trying to find places
where there’s big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of
those,” he said.

Mr. Paul didn’t attend the GOP summit because he was in California to open
a Silicon Valley campaign office. Although Mr. Paul is not an isolationist
in the mold of his father, libertarian Ron Paul who ran multiple long-shot
campaigns for president, the senator is more cautious about U.S. military
intervention than other 2016 candidates. Early polls suggest he is in a
weaker position in South Carolina among Republicans than in Iowa and New
Hampshire.

Mr. Graham, who didn’t attend the summit in his home state because of
family obligations, has been, with his hawkish close ally Sen. John McCain
of Arizona, a frequent critic of Mr. Paul.

Mr. Paul could not be reached for comment Sunday on the latest Graham
criticism, but in an April interview with Fox News about similar criticism,
he said Messrs. McCain and Graham were part of a group he considered
“lapdogs” for Mr. Obama’s military initiatives overseas.

Carly Fiorina breaks with many in GOP on Obama's trade pitch
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/10/politics/carly-fiorina-trade-barack-obama-election-2016/>
// CNN // Eric Bradner – May 10, 2015

Washington (CNN)Carly Fiorina says she supports free trade -- yet she
doesn't want President Barack Obama to have the congressional green light
to finalize a massive Pacific Rim deal.

The former Hewlett Packard executive who's seeking the Republican
presidential nomination said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Obama
"does not have a track record of the details matching his selling point."

Therefore, she said, she opposes trade promotion authority -- legislation
that would allow Obama to submit the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership
to Congress for an up-or-down vote with limited debate and no amendments.
That authority, trade negotiators say, is key to getting other countries to
sign off on a final deal.

Republican congressional leaders have strongly backed Obama's request for
the authority. But a bill that would grant it is imperiled as liberal
Democrats who oppose expanded trade and tea party Republicans who distrust
Obama have linked together to oppose it.

"The truth is, we don't know what's in this deal," Fiorina said.

"I think it's important to understand some of the fine print of what's in
this deal," she said. "For example, is China allowed to join this Pacific
trading agreement in a couple of years, yes or no?"

Obama has pointed to the deal, which includes Japan, Australia, Canada and
Mexico, as a way to counter China's growing influence in the Asia-Pacific.
But China is not involved in the negotiations, which are ongoing.

"The point is, what exactly is in this agreement?" Fiorina said. "Because
this administration unfortunately has a track record of burying things in
fine print ... that turn out to be very different from their selling
points."

Carly Fiorina fires back at critics of ‘Domaingate’
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fiorina-fires-back-critics-domaingate> // MSNBC
// Nisha Chittal – May 10, 2015

Almost immediately after former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina announced
she was running for president last week, her staff was dogged by questions
about why they had failed to secure the Web domain carlyfiorina.org, which
had been purchased by a Democratic activist who used it to post a message
about how many people HP had allegedly laid off while Fiorina was the
company’s chief executive.

As Fiorina made the media rounds over the next week, she responded to
questions from the media about the domain gaffe with a sense of humor – and
with a few tricks up her sleeve. During a Wednesday appearance on “Late
Night With Seth Meyers,” Meyers asked Fiorina about the domain, and Fiorina
responded by asking Meyers, “Do you know who owns SethMeyers.org?… I do. I
just bought it in the green room!”  That domain now redirects to Fiorina’s
campaign website.

On Sunday morning, she appeared on “Meet The Press” with Chuck Todd, and
shortly after the show, she revealed on Twitter that her team had also
purchased chucktodd.org – which also now redirects to Fiorina’s website.

And late on Sunday, reporters began to notice that HillaryClinton.net now
redirects to CarlyForPresident.com as well. It might be easy to assume that
this was another work of mischief by the Fiorina campaign – but a
spokeswoman for Fiorina confirmed to msnbc that, in fact, the Fiorina
campaign did not buy the domain. It’s unclear who owns it and when it began
redirecting visitors to Fiorina’s website.

“Many reporters were nearly giddy about what I’ve affectionately labeled
#domaingate when it came to Republicans, but none had bothered to check
hillaryclinton.net or hillaryforpresident.com. I’m now looking forward to
all the stories similarly labeling this a major gaffe by the Clinton
campaign,” Fiorina spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in an email.

Domain gaffes have started to become a regular occurrence on the campaign
trail in this still-nascent presidential contest. First, when Ted Cruz
announced he was running for president in March, reporters pointed out that
his team had not been able to purchase TedCruz.com, which had been owned
for several years by another Ted Cruz, and which displayed a pro-President
Obama message. Rand Paul’s campaign reportedly spent $100,000 securing the
rights to RandPaul.com. Now, Hillary Clinton has her own gaffe on her hands
with HillaryClinton.net and HillaryForPresident.com,  which redirects to
theamerican.net, the personal website of a conservative activist.

Clinton’s missed domains also seem additionally noteworthy given that the
Clinton team has staffed up with many of the top tech talent that worked on
Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

Future candidates, take note: it would be wise to take the time to buy up
every permutation of your name on the Web – or risk letting it fall into
someone else’s hands.

The Pentagon's Response to Ted Cruz Regarding Jade Helm 15
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-stanford/the-pentagons-response-to_b_7251254.html>
// Huffington Post // Jason Stanford – May 10, 2015

Recently, Senator Ted Cruz from Texas asked the Pentagon to clarify its
intentions with military exercises in Central Texas called "Jade Helm 15."
The Pentagon's response follows:

Dear Senator Cruz:

Thank you for your inquiry into whether the Jade Helm 15 military exercise
is the first wave of a federal takeover of Texas, the Trojan Horse, as it
were, of the end of sovereignty in the Lone Star State. Our response,
contrary to the long tradition of official correspondence and military
bureaucracy, is concise: no.

But that's just what you would expect us to say, isn't it?

Perhaps, then, you would prefer not an official proclamation but a reasoned
answer. As a master debater in college (Princeton, right?), you surely
appreciate the reliability of logic, your public statements over the past
few years notwithstanding. If you are disinclined to take the United States
Armed Forces at their word when we promise no ill intentions towards Texas,
then perhaps your considerable and vaunted intellectual powers, which once
posited the regrowth of hymens as a guard against unauthorized incursions
in domestic affairs, could be swayed by incontrovertible fact.

I know you think highly of our capabilities. Why else would you advocate
for a short war with Iran? If we are indeed that powerful, we could
probably launch an attack from any of the 15 U.S. military bases already
within Texas' borders. While Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher may have
found it necessary, even attractive, to invade countries that can easily be
overrun, the present DoD considers such lopsided contests at best
unsporting.

As someone who was not born within the borders of this country, it might
interest you to know that Texas is already part of the United States. In
fact, Texas has twice joined the Union. The first time your adopted state
joined the USA in 1845 it set in motion events that led to the
Mexican-American War. Later, when Union troops conquered the Southern
rebellion, Texas rejoined the Union. It is not, therefore, farfetched to
think that Texas' relationship to the rest of the United States could
involve war, but please also keep in mind that when we refer to the United
States of America, Texas is being implicitly included. We thought about
calling it the United States of America and Texas, but we were afraid
people might think Texas was a retrograde backwater of reactionary lunatics
who think Moses was a Founding Father and laugh at you. This is way better.

Please also consider there are a great many things about Texas and Texan
culture that could be threatened by another unnecessary armed conflict
between Texas and the United States. We like Texas barbecue. That Green
Beret who carried the flag out for the Texas Longhorn football team? That
was pretty cool. The wildflowers along the highways are no joke. The late
Texan Chris Kyle, the "American sniper," is a hero to many. Texas gave the
world Lyndon Johnson, a staggering gift for which America was perhaps not
entirely prepared. Without the Lone Star State, the Western swing band Bob
Wills and His Texas Playboys would have appeared under the performing name
Robert Wills and His Playboys, which is ghastly, or not have existed at
all, a possibility that DoD has officially classified as "too awful to
contemplate". And we really dig the self-awareness, the love of self that,
while occasionally metastasizing into paranoid delusions such as those that
motivated your original query, also make Texas a culture with an indelible
sense of place.

But, we reiterate, that place is in the United States. On previous visits,
we noticed that many of your residents enjoy Social Security and Medicare
(you're welcome), volunteer for the armed services, treasure federal parks,
wildlife preserves, and wilderness areas, and earn and spend currency
backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. With a quick
Internet search, I also learned that nearly a third of Texas' total revenue
is from Federal funding. In fact, millions of your schoolchildren pledge
allegiance to the flag of the United States of America almost every day.
And unlike yourself, they apparently mean it.

There is a fundamental misapprehension that we feel is at the root of your
query about our intentions was revealed in a recent comment you made to the
press.

We are assured it is a military training exercise. I have no reason to
doubt those assurances, but I understand the reason for concern and
uncertainty, because when the federal government has not demonstrated
itself to be trustworthy in this administration, the natural consequence is
that many citizens don't trust what it is saying.

If, Senator Cruz, you believe that the United States military is a
political tool of its civilian leadership, you have reached a conclusion
unsupported by fact, history and good sense. The troops swear to uphold the
Constitution of the United States. To besmirch their loyalty to the
country, even in the service of making hackneyed political points in the
Republican primary, does not make you a patriot, but a partisan. Even a
Princeton and Harvard Law man should know the difference.

Also, it makes you the rudest Canadian we've ever run across.

Sincerely Yours,

Secretary Ashton Carter

Mike Huckabee Defends Endorsement of Diabetes Product
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/10/mike-huckabee-defends-endorsement-of-diabetes-product/>
// First Draft –NYT // Nicholas Confessore – May 10, 2015

Mike Huckabee, the Republican presidential candidate, defended his
endorsement of a dubious diabetes remedy on Sunday, telling an interviewer
that “if that’s the worst thing somebody can say to me” then “I’m going to
be a heck of a good president.”

The former Arkansas governor, who wrote a book about weight loss after
dropping 100 pounds, has more recently appeared in infomercials hawking a
“weird spice, kitchen-cabinet cure” for diabetes that consists mostly of
dietary supplements. He has also endorsed the treatment, which medical
doctors caution against using, through his vast mailing list, along with a
cure for cancer said to be hidden in verses of the Bible.

But Mr. Huckabee, appearing on the CBS program “Face the Nation,”
downplayed the supplements on Sunday, arguing they were a minor part of the
treatment he promoted.

“One of the elements of the plan was dietary supplements, but it’s not the
fundamental thing,” Mr. Huckabee said. “The fundamental thing is always, as
you and I both know, it’s exercise, it’s good eating habits, it’s
maintaining sugar levels, it’s not eating a bunch of junk food, processed
food, lots of carbs, sugar, those type of things.”

Mr. Huckabee, who broke off as a spokesman for the diabetes product not
long before announcing he would make another bid for the White House, also
suggested it was unfair to press him on the issue.

“I don’t have to defend everything that I’ve ever done,” Mr. Huckabee said.
“I’m not doing those infomercials, obviously, now as a candidate for
president.”

Mike Huckabee: Nothing wrong with diabetes infomercials
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/mike-huckabee-nothing-wrong-with-diabetes-infomercials-117795.html>
// Politico // Eliza Collins – May 10, 2015

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on Sunday defended his
endorsement of a diabetes kit whose effectiveness has been challenged.

“If that’s the worst thing that somebody can say to me, is that I advocated
for people who have diabetes to do something to reverse it and stop the
incredible pain of that, then I’m going to be a heck of a good president,”
the former Arkansas governor said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

In an infomercial that had been airing for the Diabetes Solution Kit,
Huckabee said he lost 110 pounds and reversed his diabetes.

CBS host Bob Schieffer said National Journal reported that the infomercial
for the product was “simply not supported by the medical community.” And
Huckabee answered a question from Schieffer, who also has diabetes, about
whether the kit included pills.

“No, no, there was not pills — that’s a misnomer. One of the elements of
the plan was dietary supplements, but it’s not the fundamental thing,”
Huckabee said, explaining the key elements of the plan were healthy eating,
exercise and maintaining blood-sugar levels.

Diabetes is one of the top four diseases that are costing Americans in the
health care system, Huckabee said, adding that the disease needs to be
approached by looking for cures rather than just through treatment.

Huckabee said he’s no longer doing the infomercials now that he is a
presidential candidate.

Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson May Play Key Roles in
Republican Race
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/us/politics/mike-huckabee-carly-fiorina-and-ben-carson-may-play-key-roles-in-republican-race.html>
// NYT // Albert Hunt – May 10, 2015

None of the three candidates who joined the Republican presidential contest
last week — Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson — will win the
nomination.

That’s the view of politically smart strategists who nevertheless say that
all three, especially Mr. Huckabee, could play important roles in shaping
the race.

First, here’s why these latest entries are unlikely to prevail. The
Republican coalition has three pillars, all relatively conservative:
economic, national security and social issues. A candidate has to be
acceptable to at least two of the three. At this stage, former Gov. Jeb
Bush of Florida, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Senator Marco Rubio of
Florida, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and perhaps Senator Rand Paul of
Kentucky make the grade.

Mr. Huckabee — the populist Baptist preacher, former Arkansas governor and
talk-show host — doesn’t. He is adored by the social right, hated by
economic conservatives and isn’t respected by many national security hawks.

Moreover, there’s skepticism about his ability to raise the funds to go the
distance. In 2008, after winning the initial Iowa caucuses, he lacked the
resources to compete through the nominating process. There’s a general
sense that 2012 was his time. He passed.

Mr. Carson, a prominent physician, and Ms. Fiorina, the former chief
executive of Hewlett-Packard, are political novices, neither has ever been
elected to office. The supposed appeal of nonpoliticians in America is
superficial.

In a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll released last week, almost 70 percent
said they would be uncomfortable with a presidential candidate who lacks
previous experience in government.

Mr. Carson and Ms. Fiorina, both cancer survivors, have appealing
narratives. Mr. Carson’s résumé is more impressive: He is one of the
world’s most renowned pediatric neurosurgeons. (He once operated on our
son.) Ms. Fiorina was fired as C.E.O. of Hewlett-Packard and generally gets
negative reviews for her performance.

The possible import of Mr. Carson, who espouses a hard-right line and has
attracted a following in places such as Iowa, is that movement
conservatives account for half of the vote in several early contests.
Governor Walker and Senator Rubio could get a small slice of those votes,
as will Senator Paul, whose basic appeal is to libertarians.

More than 40 percent of the vote is likely to go to a movement right
aspirant. In 2012, the Iowa caucus was won with 24 percent of the vote, in
a smaller and less capable field.

The difference between Mr. Carson getting 5 percent and 10 percent may well
decide if one of the movement right candidates tops 20 percent, which could
be first place.

The top two right-wing candidates are Mr. Huckabee and Senator Cruz. A
no-holds-barred debate between these tough customers, similar in ideology,
vastly different in style, would be worthy of Las Vegas. Senator Cruz, a
brilliant lawyer and champion debater, would assail Mr. Huckabee as a
tax-increasing governor who commuted the sentences of hardened criminals,
including one who went on to commit murder.

The folksy and fiery Mr. Huckabee could attack the Texas senator for
supporting President Obama on free trade and for his ties to Wall Street
and the Republican donor class.

Ms. Fiorina’s corporate background is probably better preparation for
politics than brain surgery. She’s unlikely to make embarrassing gaffes
like Mr. Carson’s recent charge, which he later retracted, that people
enter prison as heterosexuals and leave gay.

Elements of the Republican establishment welcome Ms. Fiorina’s candidacy.
She’s the only woman, and the party has a gender problem. She’s a willing
attack dog against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Yet if she ever does better than the point or two that she scores in
current polls, it would likely be at the expense of an establishment type
such as Mr. Bush.

In the most wide open Republican race in the past half-century, there are
no certainties, and maybe even no likelihoods. A year from now it’s
improbable that we’ll look back on the events of the past week as seminal,
but they may affect how the race looks then.

Lindsey Graham: Hillary Clinton is beatable, but GOP is getting ‘creamed’
at the polls by non-white voters
<http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/lindsey-graham-hillary-clinton-is-beatable-but-gop-is-getting-creamed-at-the-polls-by-non-white-voters/>
// RawStory // Tom Boggioni – May 10, 2015

In an interview on USA Today’s “Capital Download,” South Carolina Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R) said he was “98.6 percent sure” he’ll run for the
Republican presidential nomination, but admitted that the GOP has a problem
with non-white voters where his party is getting “creamed.”

Graham said that he will announce his candidacy soon, joining an already
crowded field of candidates, all of whom believe they can beat presumptive
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“There’s a reason there’s a lot of people running on our side,” Graham
explained. “We all think we can beat Hillary. The world is falling apart. I
think I have a good background. Experience and judgement to re-set what I
think is radical Islam running wild. We’re gonna get hit hard if something
doesn’t change.”

While Graham believes that Clinton is beatable, he doesn’t believe that it
will be easy.

“I think she’s going to be a tough candidate, but I think she represents
the third term of a failed presidency,” Graham said. “The only way we’d
lose this election is if we beat ourselves, and that’s very possible. But
we’re getting creamed with non-white voters.”

Talk then turned to the contentious immigration debate within the
Republican Party, with Graham taking a softer and more conciliatory
approach to undocumented immigrants.

“If I were president of the United States, I would veto any bill that did
not have a pathway to citizenship,” Graham explained. “You would have a
long, hard path to citizenship … but I want to create that path because I
don’t like the idea of millions of people living in America for the rest of
their lives being the hired help. That’s not who we are.”

No interview with Graham would be complete without him taking a shot at
rival Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, with Graham questioning Paul’s foreign
policy positions, saying he “is leading from behind.”

“At the end of the day, his world view has not stood the test of time and I
think he’d be the worst possible person to send into the ring when it came
to foreign policy,” Graham said, adding that Clinton “could get to his
right very easily.”

Rand Paul Courts San Francisco’s Techies
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellencushing/rand-paul-among-the-techies#.ttL5qJVxDp>
// BuzzFeed // Ellen Cushing – May 10, 2015

The Republican presidential hopeful talks Snapchat and won’t take questions
In San Francisco.

It’s a beautiful Saturday afternoon in one of the most liberal cities in
America, and Rand Paul — the Republican United States senator from Kentucky
running for president — is talking about Snapchat.

“We use Snapchat more than anybody else out there,” he brags during a
speech in San Francisco. The crowd loves it. It’s a Snapchat kind of crowd.

Paul is speaking from a concrete-floored South of Market coworking space,
StartupHouse, that will soon become the campaign’s home in San Francisco.
The audience is made up of more than a hundred Rand fans and at least a
dozen reporters. One entire wall is covered in chalkboard paint and pink
and blue handwritten messages. Startup-y miscellany clutters nearly every
empty surface — papers, all manner of cords and chargers, one $4,400 check,
uncashed. One guy is wearing a shirt that says “freelance developer.”
Another has a laptop sticker that reads “I don’t believe the liberal
agenda.” He’s livetweeting. The event is called — and, really, there is
nothing else it could be called — Disrupting Democracy. It’s all very two
point omg.

And it is certainly very new.

As Vincent Harris, a Paul staffer who sat near the back tweeting from the
senator’s Twitter account, told BuzzFeed News, Paul’s campaign is the only
one with a tech advisory board, a CTO, a digital strategist, and offices in
both San Francisco and Austin, Texas. Another attendee, Matt Shupe, a
thirtysomething political consultant, points out that it’s rare for a
politician on either side of the aisle to treat California as anything
other than an ATM, hosting free, open events such as this one.

Paul’s commitment to courting Silicon Valley is genuine, if a bit puzzling
— California hasn’t gone red in a presidential contest since 1988, and as
San Francisco Chronicle political columnist Carla Marinucci noted toward
the end of the panel, “the tech community voted overwhelmingly for Barack
Obama in the last election.” But Silicon Valley is nothing if not
relentlessly optimistic in the face of mounting obstacles and historic
reality. There’s a case to be made that liberal San Francisco’s backlash
against the Google Busses and the Twitter tax breaks have served to
alienate the tech community, and that, if pitched right, Paul’s particular
brand of civil libertarianism could square with Silicon Valley’s
iconoclastic ethos.

At any rate, the people crowded into StartupHouse seemed to believe it
could. “We’re here in San Francisco to show that we’re a different kind of
Republican, and we’re here to compete for every vote,” Paul said at the end
of his short speech, to positively thunderous applause.

After the event — a clean 38 minutes, including opening remarks and a panel
discussion — he was mobbed by people requesting selfies and autographs; one
fan, a youngish guy in a corduroy blazer, chased the Senator about his
startup, a voter engagement app. Think Rand Paul as VC. And then, he was
out.

Outside on the sidewalk past the scrum of picture-takers and
startup-pitchers, I chased Paul down. Although he’d fielded questions from
attendees, he had dodged the press. I wanted to see if I could ask him a
quick question. But he wasn’t having it. This stop was but one of many.

So the Senator from Kentucky trotted off into the sun, surrounded by aides
and bodyguards. I squinted after them, trying to see the car he got into —
look for the tell-tale Uber sticker or Lyft mustache — but no luck; he had
already turned a corner.

Rand Paul Talks About Appealing to Young People on Tech Issues
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/rand-paul-talks-about-appealing-to-young-people-on-tech-issues-20150510>
// National Journal // Eric Garcia - May 10, 2015

In a speech in San Francisco, presidential candidate Rand Paul told Silicon
Valley conservatives that he could win over Californians and other voters
not normally associated with the Republican Party largely on issues of
civil liberties and technology.

At the Disrupting Democracy speaker series hosted by Lincoln Labs, a
tech-friendly conservative organization, Paul made the case for appealing
to younger voters by way of ending mass data collection, an activity he
said went against one of the main reasons young people voted for Barack
Obama in 2008.

"I also think people who voted for President Obama was because they thought
he was a civil libertarian," Paul said.

Saturday's speech was part of Paul's message of reaching to nontraditional
GOP voters. Last year, he spoke at the University of California at
Berkeley, which is not viewed as a conservative bastion.

Paul made the case that criminal justice reform could be a way to appeal to
voters, noting that the Republican Party often touts itself as the party of
the Second Amendment.

"I want to also be the party of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment
but also the Fifth and Sixth Amendment," Paul said. As part of this, Paul
talked about restoring the right to vote for convicted felons.

Paul also held firm to his opposition to net neutrality, saying he had not
seen concerns about internet monopolies that could control rates being
manifested.

"I don't think there is yet evidence that there's absolute control of
rates," adding if there was any organization involved with monopolies, it
was government monopolies. Paul also dismissed the idea that it would make
it harder for small startup companies to succeed.

"The government didn't create Facebook and the government didn't create
Google," he said.

Another issue to which Paul stated his opposition was the refinancing
student loans, an idea championed by some progressives, such as Sen.
Elizabeth Warren.

"It'd lead to chaos," he said, also criticizing the White House proposal
for free community college as "absurd," and instead suggested his proposal
to make college tuition tax-deductible.

"People said there wouldn't be enough money for government; well,
government would have to be smaller," Paul said.

Meanwhile, Paul pushed back on an idea being promoted by the California
secretary of state to make voter registration automatic.

"I am of the belief that getting off your sofa to participate is required,"
Paul said, adding that he did not like the idea of having ballots mailed to
voters, even though some have posited that Republicans are more likely to
vote by mail, while Democrats are likely to vote early and in person.

Rand Paul Plays Down Comments on Military Exercise After Mockery
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/10/rand-paul-plays-down-comments-on-military-exercise-after-mockery/>
// First Draft – NYT // Jeremy Peters – May 10, 2015

SAN FRANCISCO — Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has been mocked by liberal
pundits who accused him of fanning conspiracy theories about a military
exercise along the Texas border, an event that some on the far right
believe is a covert effort to impose martial law.

But in an interview this weekend, Mr. Paul said he had no idea what the
training exercise — known as Jade Helm — was when he was first asked about
it last month on an Iowa radio program.

“Someone on a radio program asked me what it was. I didn’t know,” Mr. Paul
said after he christened a new work space for his presidential campaign in
the Bay Area. He expressed befuddlement at how his comments about “that
ridiculous Jade something” had been blown out of proportion.

“I said sure, I’ll ask my staff to look into it because I didn’t know what
it was,” he said.

The comments that drew ridicule by people like Bill Maher, who accused Mr.
Paul of pandering to the right-wing fringe, occurred on the Jan Mickelson
program. Mr. Mickelson brought up the exercise, telling the senator, “I’d
like to know what the rest of the story is on that.”

Mr. Paul replied, “We’ll look at that also.”

Other Republicans, like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, have gone further. Mr.
Cruz said he had no reason to doubt the military’s motives, but added that
the paranoia was expected because the Obama administration has stoked
questions about its honesty. “I understand the reason for concern and
uncertainty because the federal government has not demonstrated itself to
be trustworthy in this administration.”

Hillaryclinton.Net Redirects To Carly Fiorina Campaign Website
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/10/carly-fiorina-launches-domaingate-buys-hillaryclinton-net/>
// Breitbart // Alex Swoyer - May 10, 2015

GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina has launched #DomainGate on
Twitter. She is seemingly buying up celebrity domains to push her campaign
message. Those going to hillaryclinton.net, for example, find themselves at
Fiornia’s campaign Website.

Breitbart News previously reported Fiorina schooled Seth Meyers on his
show, Late Night with Seth Meyers by buying SethMeyers.org.

Meyers noted that someone had purchased CarlyFiorina.org using it to bash
Fiorina as former CEO of Hewlett Packard.

“Carly Fiorina failed to register this domain. So I’m using it to tell you
how many people she laid off at Hewlett-Packard,” read a note on
CarlyFiorina.org.

The site displays a page of frowning faces, captioned by: “That’s 30,000
people she laid off. People with families.”

It appears Fiorina didn’t stop with SethMeyers.org. She appeared on Meet
The Press Sunday and redirected ChuckTodd.org to her site as well.

If you got to any of the three sites, you are redirected to her campaign
site, CarlyforPresident.com.

Waiting for Jeb to jump
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/jeb-bush-2016-election-waiting-to-declare-117791.html>
// Politico // Glenn Thrush – May 10, 2015

By the end of last week, almost everyone had jumped into the pool. Almost
everyone except John Ellis Bush, who still sits at the water’s edge of the
2016 presidential campaign, suit dry except for the stray splash thrown his
way by his jostling Republican rivals Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz
and Rand Paul.

It wasn’t clear at the time, but is increasingly so now, that Jeb Bush’s
decision last December to signal, but not formally announce, his candidacy
was a short-term logistical masterstroke befitting his family’s reputation
for mastering the mechanics of elections. His undeclared status has freed
him to raise what aides are saying will be as much as $100 million from
rich patrons and outside groups (the second he files presidential
paperwork, he’s prevented from requesting big super PAC checks), and it has
temporarily shielded him from being the target of shots many of his
would-be opponents are leveling at Hillary Clinton. (Aside, that is, from
lots of hand-wringing about the increasingly hereditary nature of American
politics, and mockery of his insistence that he’ll be his “own man” on
foreign policy.)

This inversion — building a campaign on the back of a super PAC instead of
vice versa — is novel and could be a model for the future, but it also puts
a lot of pressure on an opaque candidate who publicly has done little more
than a set of sporadic, low-octane speeches with few specifics to offer.
Given his fundraising focus, he’s already dogged by the notion, eagerly
pushed by his enemies among the party’s tea party hard-liners, that he’s a
bankroll in search of a soul.

Which is why we’ll see the media coverage of the Republican presidential
race coalesce, and soon, around a single question: Is Bush actually the
front-runner, or just a guy with a lot of money trying to buy the
nomination?

A dozen or so Republican operatives and donors I spoke with last week, most
of them open to a Bush candidacy, didn’t have a clue how that question will
be ultimately be answered, but it’s a decisive one, and they are antsy to
find out. The early polls, which show Jeb getting clobbered in Iowa, barely
ahead — if at all — in New Hampshire, and trading a narrow lead nationally
with his fellow Floridian Marco Rubio, are predicting a ferociously
competitive campaign. But who knows how it will play out when Bush actually
announces? “A month ago, the whole story was that Hillary was rusty, that
she hadn’t been out there doing anything,” said a veteran GOP operative who
worked on one of George W. Bush’s campaigns. “Well, she’s been out there
taking hits for a month. Jeb hasn’t. It’s time to get this thing going.”

Nicolle Wallace, a White House communications director to George W. Bush
who started her political life as a 25-year-old adviser to Jeb Bush in
Florida, also sees undeniable parallels with the Democrats’ presumptive
nominee, Hillary Clinton. “I think some of their strengths are parallel.
Some of their strengths are on the policy side, not the retail political
side. I think some of their strengths are in a room, not on a stage,” she
told me during a taping of last week’s POLITICO podcast.

“I think they have some of the same weaknesses, too. They’re both in a
constituent-free zone. Neither of them represents anybody right now.
Neither of them is advocating on anyone’s behalf, except their own
campaigns. And I think it’s awkward, frankly, for both of them.”

Bush’s campaign is slowly, inevitably pushing him into the water, nudging
him into more high-stakes situations ahead of a formal announcement that
could come as early as mid-June. People close to the campaign tell me he
plans to do some press-the-flesh retail campaigning on a trip to New
Hampshire in late May — and his Liberty University commencement address on
Saturday was a risky operation, considering the rock-star reception
conservative fire breather Ted Cruz received at the Jerry Falwell-founded
school when he announced his candidacy there in March.

Bush, a midlife convert to Roman Catholicism, used the speech to emphasize
that he is a man of deep belief — a key signifier in a party that values
faith. But he also sought to differentiate himself from other candidates
who more explicitly bring their religious fervor to their politics, namely
Huckabee and Cruz, warning against feeding into Democratic arguments that
the GOP is turning into a party of religious rigidity. “The mistake is to
confuse points of theology with moral principles that are knowable to
reason as well as by faith,” Bush said, pointedly refusing to bash the move
toward legalizing same-sex marriage that Cruz has embraced as an affront to
his faith. “And this confusion is all part of a false narrative that casts
religious Americans as intolerant scolds, running around trying to impose
their views on everyone.”

The timing of the Liberty address also spoke to Bush’s conflict-avoidance
strategy. He skipped the crowded, potentially more contentious venue of the
South Carolina Freedom Summit in Greenville attended by just about every
other candidate in the field except Rand Paul and Chris Christie.

The Republican most unconstrained in his willingness to attack Bush
declared his intention to run last Wednesday. Huckabee, the roly-poly
former Arkansas governor who reportedly made a fortune selling a dubious
diabetes cure, is viewed by most of the news media as comic relief (he once
quipped that “Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office,” when
asked what his savior would say about the death penalty), but he could
prove to be a very dangerous foil for a patrician candidate with the last
name Bush.

No candidate in the race on either side is more comfortable throwing around
the populist economic rhetoric than Huckabee, who, despite his $3 million
mansion on the Gulf Coast and affection for private jet travel, seems
genuinely irked that his party keeps pushing fancy-pants plutocrats to the
top, and he appears to relish taking on Bush. The signature rhetorical move
of the early 2016 Republican primary is the dual-purpose swipe: a shot at
Hillary Clinton that doubles as a Bush diss. (Rubio, lumping Clinton and
Bush together, recently declared, “I think the 21st century is going to be
better than the 20th century.”)

Huckabee’s swipes at Bush are even less thinly veiled than that — and they
are aimed directly at Bush’s big-money donor base, in mid-American populist
language that could have come from leftist hero Elizabeth Warren — or
William Jennings Bryan for that matter. “The Dodd-Frank banking bill was
written to punish the banks that supposedly got us in trouble,” he told a
small audience in South Carolina on Friday. “They are bigger now than they
ever were.”

He has a knack for making personal attacks seem folksy and somehow not out
of line. Back in 2008, he went on Jay Leno’s show to poke fun at Mitt
Romney, who had emerged as a serious challenger to eventual GOP nominee
John McCain. “People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds
them of the guy they work with rather than the guy who laid them off,”
Huckabee said, a soundbite studied, amplified and broadcast to much effect
by President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign against Romney.

Huckabee is already at it again this year, with the unrestrained zeal of a
man aiming less for real power than one last folk-hero turn on the national
stage. “I don’t come from a family dynasty, but a working family. I grew up
blue collar, not blue blood,” he said during his campaign kick-off
announcement last week, with special emphasis on the final two words of the
sentence. Everyone knew he was talking about Bush.

Will it matter? Huckabee’s impressive victory in the 2008 Iowa caucuses
makes him a force to be reckoned with, but he isn’t doing quite as well in
Iowa this time — in part because voters have seen his act before, in part
because Cruz is making a harder-edged appeal for evangelicals — he’s
currently a middle-of-the-pack 11 percent in recent polls. But Bush is in
far worse shape — at 5 percent with disapproval ratings north of 50 percent.

Of course, on the map of 2016, New Hampshire looms even larger, just as it
did for Romney four years ago, but even this won’t be an easy one for Bush.
A WMUR Granite State poll taken earlier this month showed him leading the
increasingly packed pack with 15 percent of the vote, but Rubio is a close
second at 12 percent.

That Bush is increasingly, inevitably, becoming a focal point of 2016 came
as welcome news in the utilitarian, poorly air-conditioned warren of
re-purposed bank back offices that serves as Hillary Clinton’s headquarters
in Brooklyn. There was a clear feeling, for the first time, among Clinton’s
inner circle last week that she won’t be alone on the firing line for long.
“The whole dynamic of the race changes when the Republicans start attacking
each other, when Jeb gets in,” Tom Nides, a former Clinton State Department
aide close to the campaign, told me.

Indeed, while Bush-bashing is likely to become a favored new sport among
the 20 Republicans clamoring for attention, Clinton’s cardinal advantage as
a candidate — the absence of deep intraparty division over her candidacy —
might have actually paid real dividends for the first time last week.

To the uninitiated in Clinton world, it was a week awash in badish news:
Bill Clinton was on NBC during an Africa trip defending his foundation’s
multiple mistakes in hyperdefensive, cringe-inducing 1990s legalese (his
staff had done nothing “knowingly improper,” he said); Hillary Clinton
agreed to testify in public session during House Republican hearings on
Benghazi; and she drew her first declared primary opponent, Vermont
independent Bernie Sanders.

But none of those hits seemed to faze the Clinton people who have begun
their slow, steady occupation of the bars and brew pubs of nearby Brooklyn
Heights. For the first time in her month-old candidacy, Clinton went on the
offensive and pitched something bold: a promise not only to support but
also to expand President Barack Obama’s immigration reform executive order,
which has offered 5 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.

“I would do everything possible under the law to go even further,” Clinton
told a predominantly Hispanic audience in Las Vegas on Tuesday, signaling
the possibility of halting deportations for parents of “Dreamers,” children
whose parents brought them to the U.S. illegally.

The national media was still chewing over the implications of the Clinton
speech two days later, on Thursday, when Sanders made his formal
announcement, which was easily overshadowed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker
and some other Republicans blasting Clinton’s idea as “amnesty,” Bush and
Chris Christie dodging the question, and White House officials griping that
Clinton didn’t give Obama enough credit.

No doubt, Sanders’ core case against Clinton, that she is just another
defender — and major financial beneficiary — of a system that protects the
ultrawealthy at the expense of everybody else will have its day when
Sanders scores points in a debate or surges in an Iowa poll. “There will be
a time this fall, mark my words, when Bernie Sanders or [former Maryland
governor and possible Democratic presidential candidate] Martin O’Malley
will have his moment,” one senior Clinton aide told me. “But it’s not going
to be because we haven’t addressed issues like economic inequality.”

How much does Clinton’s left flank need protecting? Not quite as much as
last time. Clinton’s people have been aggressively promoting the storyline
that she is a looser, more relaxed, more authentic candidate than in 2008,
but for now it’s not personality but the absence of a threatening
progressive challenger — armed with an issue as damaging as her ‘yes’ vote
on the Iraq War — that is allowing Clinton to go on offense. More
importantly, the Clinton team believes she won’t have too much trouble
debunking the notion she’s not a true liberal: Clinton will take her hits
from the Warren-Sanders wing of the party for her associations with Wall
Street, they say, but she is completely in step with the broader
progressive agenda on jobs, unions, the environment, social issues and
especially immigration.

Indeed, as Sanders was entering the race, some Clinton surrogates were
making the case that the wild-haired Brooklyn native was to the right of
Clinton on gun control — helpfully reminding reporters that Sanders, while
representing liberal but gun-loving Vermont, has sided with the National
Rifle Association on many gun-control measures, including Bill Clinton’s
Brady Law.

Yet the challenges posed by Huckabee to Bush and by Sanders to Clinton are
real, and rooted in a deep dissatisfaction with the status quo, a
dissatisfaction that can’t help but be a liability for perhaps the two
candidates in modern history most representative of the dynastic political
establishment.

If they somehow manage to make it to the general election, voters will
witness a multibillion-dollar dual-rebranding initiative designed to turn
two American royals into commoners.

It’s already begun: Hillary’s first political act as a 2016 candidate was
visiting a Chipotle, incognito, in her “Scooby Van” to order a chicken
burrito bowl.

Not to be outdone, Jeb — with, no doubt, the devastating 1992 image of his
father standing dumbstruck before a New Hampshire supermarket scanner —
insisted upon a public rebuttal. I go to Chipotle, too, Jeb insisted. Then
he paused. “Drive my own car. Park my own car. Get out of my own car.”

Choices, choices: Republicans ponder crowded field
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/10/republicans-2016-jeb-bush-scott-waljer/27079325/>
// USA Today // David Jackson – May 10, 2015

Republican primary voters face an unusual test in 2016.

Multiple choice.

The party that usually features well-established favorites in its primary
races is now looking at a free-for-all with more than a dozen aspirants,
each of whom facing his — and her — own unique test: standing out in a very
crowded field.

"It feels like anybody can just jump in!" said Kirstin Griffin, 43, a
Greenville preschool teacher's aide who listened to some of the candidates
at a weekend forum in upstate South Carolina.

"I think it's good," she added. "Everyone has to prove themselves."

That's what brought Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry,
Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, John Bolton, George Pataki, Carly Fiorina and
Donald Trump to a weekend "Freedom Summit" in downtown Greenville. It's why
Jeb Bush delivered a commencement address at Virginia's Liberty University,
the religious school founded by Jerry Falwell.

In the coming months, candidates such as Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee — and
perhaps Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham and John Kasich, as well — will
travel to Pizza Ranches in Iowa, high schools in New Hampshire and barbecue
pits in South Carolina.

They'll be giving interviews to local media, making online sales pitches,
and — for those who can afford it — cutting spots for local radio and
television ads.

In August, the crowded Republican field will try to draw contrasts in what
likely will be the most important encounters: debates.

All this activity has a single goal: getting attention from voters in early
caucus and primary states.

"I am looking for charisma in a candidate," said Dan Herren, 43, an
advertising account manager for radio stations in South Carolina. "You have
to communicate effectively."

Herren and other South Carolina Republicans who watched candidates at the
Peace Center for the performing arts said they want a nominee who can
forcefully carry the conservative message on issues like immigration,
reducing the federal debt and fighting terrorism.

They're also looking for someone who can actually win the general election
in 2016, probably against Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

"Let's face it," Herren said. "Hillary Clinton is a lot like her husband.
... She can communicate very well."

Katie Stoddard, 31, a public relations specialist from Greenwood, S.C.,
said that, right now, the Republican candidates are stuck on "talking
points" and giving people "a lot of the same-old-same-old." At some point,
she said, the GOP contenders will have to start giving voters more
specifics.

"Fundraising is going to be big," she added.

Also big is the series of Republican Party-sponsored debates expected to
begin in August.

"That's going to separate the men from the boys, as they say," said Peggy
James, 78, a retired retail manager from Mauldin, S.C.

Sipping a Pepsi in the lobby the of the Peace Center, James said candidates
have to prove to GOP voters they have sufficient "fire in the belly" to
make a successful race.

"They show it by conviction (voters) can feel," she said. "You can see it."

The Republicans will be looking for votes in what may be the most wide-open
GOP race in seven decades.

In years past, Republicans have tended to bestow presidential nominations
on the next one in line.

Think Richard Nixon in 1960 (and 1968), or Ronald Reagan in 1980, George
H.W. Bush in 1988, or Bob Dole in 1996. Even John McCain, after faltering
early in the 2008 campaign, rallied in part because of his status as a
political veteran. Mitt Romney played the role of heir apparent in the 2012
race.

Republicans have also had well-funded "establishment" candidates at the
start of races. Early support helped George W. Bush stave off McCain's
"maverick" challenge in 2000.

Even when the Republicans have competitive races, they tend to be smallish
affairs. Dwight Eisenhower overtook conservative stalwart Robert Taft in
1952. Another conservative leader, Barry Goldwater, held off a series of
more moderate challengers to claim the GOP nomination in 1964.

This time around, "it's no one's turn," said Bruce Haynes, a Republican
consultant who hails from South Carolina.

"We're shopping in the new car lot," he said.

One model is Jeb Bush, the son and brother of Republican presidents, who is
likely to be the best-funded candidate. But party members in South Carolina
and elsewhere question the former Florida's governor's commitment to
conservatism, as well as the prospects of a "third Bush" seeking the
presidency.

Other candidates are also stressing their gubernatorial experience. This
group includes current state executives Walker (Wisconsin), Christie (New
Jersey) and Jindal (Louisiana), as well as ex-governors Perry (Texas) and
Huckabee (Arkansas). Another sitting governor — John Kasich of Ohio — may
also join the GOP fray in the coming weeks.

A group of senators is also pursuing the Republican nomination. Rubio of
Florida, Cruz of Texas and Paul of Kentucky have formally declared their
candidacies, and Graham of South Carolina may soon follow suit.

The Republican field also includes non-officeholders who are campaigning
against what they call "professional politicians." The outsider group
includes businesswoman Carly Fiorina and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.
Businessman and television personality Donald Trump is again flirting with
a Republican presidential bid.

As voting time approaches early next year, candidates will begin staking
out early states best suited to them. The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire
primary are expected to be in early in February; Nevada and South Carolina
figure to hold contests in late February.

"You pick your spots," said Republican analyst Rich Galen.

Right now, Republican voters are still in the "flavor of the month" stage,
said Linda Slaton, 67, a retired speech therapist from Greenville.

"They'll weed out," she said. "It's nice to have choices."

Jeb Bush says he, Hillary Clinton would have backed Iraq invasion
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/10/exclusive-jeb-bush-says-hillary-clinton-would-have-backed-iraq-invasion/>
// Fox News // May 10, 2015

Former Florida GOP Gov. Jeb Bush says that he would have authorized the
2003 invasion of Iraq but acknowledges that mistakes were made after Saddam
Hussein had been removed from power, in an exclusive interview with Fox
News’ Megyn Kelly.

“I would have [authorized the invasion], and so would have Hillary Clinton,
just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted
with the intelligence they got,” Bush told Kelly in a wide-ranging
interview that will be aired Monday night.

Bush says the United States failed to focus on security first, which he
argues led Iraqis to turn on the military because there was no protection
for families.  However, he challenged the idea that the security issue was
a point disagreement between him and his brother, President George W. Bush,
who ordered the invasion.

“By the way, guess who thinks that those mistakes took place as well?
George W. Bush,” Jeb Bush said. “Yes, I mean, so just for the news flash to
the world, if they’re trying to find places where there’s big space between
me and my brother, this might not be one of those.”

Bush also talked about his views on immigration reform and whether he could
get his ideas through a GOP primary should he decide to run for president.

“I mean, there’s got to be a point where we fix this system so that legal
immigration is easier than illegal immigration and show some respect for
people,” he said. To “a kid that might have been here 10 years, that might
be a valedictorian of their high school, to say, 'No, no, no, you’re not
allowed to go to college,' I just think there’s a point passed which we’re
over the line. “

On the issue of whether he could persuade people in the conservative wing
of the party to agree with him, Bush said that he believed he could but
that standing by his beliefs at the same time is equally important.

“But here’s the deal, Megyn, if I go beyond the consideration of running to
be an actual candidate, do you want people to just bend with the wind, to
mirror people’s sentiment whoever is in front of you?  ‘Oh, yes, I used to
be for that but now, I’m for this.’  Is that the way we want to elect
presidents?”

Can Rubio or Bush help Republicans finally win Latino vote in 2016?
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-adv-latinos-presidential-race-20150510-story.html?track=lat-pick>
// LAT // Mark Z. Barabak - May 10, 2015

Once an afterthought, Latino voters have moved to the center of the 2016
presidential campaign, the object of early and unprecedented courtship by
candidates on both sides.

The efforts, both substantive and symbolic, reflect a political map that
has changed dramatically with the transformation of states such as Nevada,
Colorado and others that are no longer the white, Republican bastions of
old.

President Obama twice carried Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and Florida,
thanks in good part to strong support among their growing Latino
populations; in Nevada, the Latino share of the vote has tripled in the
last 20 years.

All four are once more expected to be among the few competitive states in
2016.

 Jeb Bush

“I know about the immigrant experience because I married a beautiful girl
from Mexico. My children are bicultural and bilingual,” Republican Jeb Bush
points out. (Alex Wong / Getty Images)

A key question is whether the eventual Democratic nominee can cement those
gains for elections to come, or Republicans can reverse their dismal
performance of the last two presidential contests and, by doing so, expand
their narrow path to the White House.

Republicans seem to stand their best chance in years of harvesting Latino
support with the candidacy of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban
immigrants; and the expected run by the state's former governor, Jeb Bush,
whose wife is Mexican-born and who is fluent in both the Spanish language
and Latino culture.

Every week seemingly brings a new Bush appearance before Latino voters — a
town hall in Puerto Rico, a speech to evangelical leaders in Houston —
where he delivers, in English and Spanish, a message unlike any heard from
previous Republican presidential hopefuls.

First, though, he and Rubio have to navigate their party's nominating
process, a course dominated by white conservatives who favor a hard-line
approach to immigration reform, the very issue that has driven so many
Latinos into the arms of Democrats.

"In essence, Hispanic voters tell us our party's position … has become a
litmus test, measuring whether we are meeting them with a welcome mat or a
closed door," members of a Republican task force wrote in a postmortem
after the party's nominee, Mitt Romney, won fewer than 3 in 10 Latino votes
in 2012.

The most specific policy recommendation in the 97-page autopsy was support
for comprehensive immigration reform, which, translated, means going beyond
the law enforcement remedies favored by the party's bedrock supporters. Of
the top-tier candidates, only Bush and Rubio have embraced that approach.

It was hardly coincidental that Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton last week
unveiled her immigration policy in Las Vegas or that, in doing so, she
checked off much of the wish list of Latino activists, including a path to
citizenship for millions of people in the country illegally and more
compassionate enforcement of the country's border laws.

Nevada enjoys a prominent place on the nominating calendar, now slotted as
the third to vote after contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. But more than
that, the state mirrors the broad demographic changes that are reshaping
politics across the country by the day.

In 1994, more than 90% of Nevada voters were white, a number that shrank to
67% in 2012. Over the same period, the Latino share of voters grew from 5%
to 15%, a percentage expected to increase further by 2016.

(Nationally, Latinos accounted for 10% of the vote in the last presidential
race. They are expected to account for nearly half of the growth in the
eligible electorate between now and 2030, according to research by the
nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center.)

If a Democrat hopes to be president, he or she must not only reassemble
Obama's winning coalition, which included Latinos and other minorities, but
ensure that those voters turn out in robust numbers. Clinton's immigration
proposals seem calculated to do just that, leaving Republicans the
unpalatable choice of seconding her views — and alienating their
conservative base — or rejecting them and risking further estrangement from
Latino voters.

Nevada offers an object lesson.

Last year, with a virtually uncontested governor's race and little effort
by state Democrats to spur turnout, Latino voters stayed home in droves. As
a result, Republicans not only swept every statewide constitutional office,
they knocked off a supposedly safe Democratic House member here in Las
Vegas and seized control of the state Legislature for the first time since
the 1920s.

"Democrats can't take those voters for granted," said David Damore, a
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, expert on Latino political participation.
"They need to spend money on outreach, get-out-the-vote, Spanish-language
advertising. Without them, Democrats don't win."

Marco Rubio enters 2016 race touting youth, avoiding messy issues

Marco Rubio enters 2016 race touting youth, avoiding messy issues

Clinton apparently got the message: Two of her first Nevada hires, campaign
director Emmy Ruiz and organizing director Jorge Neri, helped Obama win 70%
of the state's Latino vote in 2012.

For Republicans, the imperative is less urgent, given their overwhelming
support among white male voters. But their nominee can't afford a
Romney-style blowout.

Whit Ayres, a veteran GOP pollster working for Rubio, believes the party's
eventual nominee will need to win more than 40% of the Latino vote to carry
the White House, a performance only two Republicans — Ronald Reagan and
George W. Bush — have approached in the last 35 years. (Obama won 67% of
the Latino vote in 2008 and 71% in 2012.)

This time Bush's brother, Jeb, has been most conspicuous in his courtship
of Latino support. "We're an immigrant nation and we should be proud," he
recently told supporters during a stop in Puerto Rico. "I know about the
immigrant experience because I married a beautiful girl from Mexico. My
children are bicultural and bilingual."

Rubio, of course, needn't reach to make that cultural connection. If
anything, he seems to downplay his Latino heritage as he appeals to white
conservative audiences.

But implicit in his very candidacy is the chance for Republicans to make
history by nominating their first-ever minority standard-bearer, who, as a
youthful Latino, reflects the demographic wave inexorably remaking the
country, state by state.

For decades, Latinos were characterized — patronized, some said — as a
slumbering giant: large in number, potentially powerful but largely
apathetic and politically impotent. No more.

Now voters such as Santos Garcia have become highly sought-after.

"They're going to want our support," said Garcia, a 59-year-old kitchen
worker at Harrah's casino on the Las Vegas Strip. "Without the Spanish vote
they know they can't win. So they're going to come look for us."

Why Carly Fiorina was fired, according to Carly Fiorina
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-carly-fiorina-was-fired-according-carly-fiorina>
// MSNBC // Anna Brand - May 10, 2015

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina on Sunday once again
defended her tenure — and firing — as the former Hewlett-Packard chief
executive, saying that “it is a leader’s job to challenge the status quo,
and when you do, you make enemies.”

Fiorina during an interview on “Meet the Press” pointed to the rocky
recession that led to layoffs at the technology company.

When pressed by host Chuck Todd, who flat out asked “So, why were you
fired?” Fiorina responded as she has before, even using identical phrasing.

“Well, they did fire me. I’ve been very open about that. I was fired in a
boardroom brawl,” Fiorina said. “We had board members who were leaking
information out of the boardroom.”

On why the stock at HP, on the day she was fired, went up nearly 7%,
Fiorina fired back, “the stock has gone down during my tenure, as did every
other single technology company.”

Related: Fiorina on CarlyFiorina.org: ‘You can’t buy every domain name’

After Fiorina officially declared her candidacy for president in 2016 last
Monday, the URL carlyfiorina.org illustrated via endless sad-faced emojis
the number of people laid off at HP. “Carly Fiorina failed to register this
domain. So I’m using it to tell you how many people she laid off at
Hewlett-Packard. It was this many,” the site read, followed by 30,000
unhappy faces.

“What people fail to comment on is the fact that we doubled the size of the
company,” Fiorina hit back on Sunday.

For the past six days, Fiorina has been all over the media largely
attempting to set her record straight at HP, gain much-needed face
recognition, and criticize Democratic presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton.

In her announcement video, Fiorina showed a clip of Clinton before even
showing herself. It was a move that let her essential role in the election
be known as the anti-Hillary.

Earlier this weekend, Fiorina spoke at the South Carolina Freedom Summit —
alongside other Republican presidential hopefuls — to again pit herself
against Clinton.

“Like Hillary Clinton, I too am running for president of the United States.
But unlike Hillary Clinton, I’m not afraid to answer questions about my
track record or my accomplishments or my principles,” Fiorina said, adding
that Clinton doesn’t have a “record of accomplishment.”

On Sunday, Florina reiterated this sentiment. “I understand the executive
decision making, which is making a tough call in a tough time, for which
you are prepared to be held accountable,” she told Chuck Todd. “Something
that at least Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a track record of.”

Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson May Play Key Roles in
Republican Race
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/us/politics/mike-huckabee-carly-fiorina-and-ben-carson-may-play-key-roles-in-republican-race.html>
// NYT // Al Hunt - May 10, 2015

WASHINGTON — None of the three candidates who joined the Republican
presidential contest last week — Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina and Ben
Carson — will win the nomination.

That’s the view of politically smart strategists who nevertheless say that
all three, especially Mr. Huckabee, could play important roles in shaping
the race.

First, here’s why these latest entries are unlikely to prevail. The
Republican coalition has three pillars, all relatively conservative:
economic, national security and social issues. A candidate has to be
acceptable to at least two of the three. At this stage, former Gov. Jeb
Bush of Florida, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Senator Marco Rubio of
Florida, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and perhaps Senator Rand Paul of
Kentucky make the grade.

Mr. Huckabee — the populist Baptist preacher, former Arkansas governor and
talk-show host — doesn’t. He is adored by the social right, hated by
economic conservatives and isn’t respected by many national security hawks.

Moreover, there’s skepticism about his ability to raise the funds to go the
distance. In 2008, after winning the initial Iowa caucuses, he lacked the
resources to compete through the nominating process. There’s a general
sense that 2012 was his time. He passed.

Mr. Carson, a prominent physician, and Ms. Fiorina, the former chief
executive of Hewlett-Packard, are political novices, neither has ever been
elected to office. The supposed appeal of nonpoliticians in America is
superficial.

In a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll released last week, almost 70 percent
said they would be uncomfortable with a presidential candidate who lacks
previous experience in government.

Mr. Carson and Ms. Fiorina, both cancer survivors, have appealing
narratives. Mr. Carson’s résumé is more impressive: He is one of the
world’s most renowned pediatric neurosurgeons. (He once operated on our
son.) Ms. Fiorina was fired as C.E.O. of Hewlett-Packard and generally gets
negative reviews for her performance.

The possible import of Mr. Carson, who espouses a hard-right line and has
attracted a following in places such as Iowa, is that movement
conservatives account for half of the vote in several early contests.
Governor Walker and Senator Rubio could get a small slice of those votes,
as will Senator Paul, whose basic appeal is to libertarians.

More than 40 percent of the vote is likely to go to a movement right
aspirant. In 2012, the Iowa caucus was won with 24 percent of the vote, in
a smaller and less capable field.

The difference between Mr. Carson getting 5 percent and 10 percent may well
decide if one of the movement right candidates tops 20 percent, which could
be first place.

The top two right-wing candidates are Mr. Huckabee and Senator Cruz. A
no-holds-barred debate between these tough customers, similar in ideology,
vastly different in style, would be worthy of Las Vegas. Senator Cruz, a
brilliant lawyer and champion debater, would assail Mr. Huckabee as a
tax-increasing governor who commuted the sentences of hardened criminals,
including one who went on to commit murder.

Continue reading the main story

The folksy and fiery Mr. Huckabee could attack the Texas senator for
supporting President Obama on free trade and for his ties to Wall Street
and the Republican donor class.

Ms. Fiorina’s corporate background is probably better preparation for
politics than brain surgery. She’s unlikely to make embarrassing gaffes
like Mr. Carson’s recent charge, which he later retracted, that people
enter prison as heterosexuals and leave gay.

Elements of the Republican establishment welcome Ms. Fiorina’s candidacy.
She’s the only woman, and the party has a gender problem. She’s a willing
attack dog against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Yet if she ever does better than the point or two that she scores in
current polls, it would likely be at the expense of an establishment type
such as Mr. Bush.

In the most wide open Republican race in the past half-century, there are
no certainties, and maybe even no likelihoods. A year from now it’s
improbable that we’ll look back on the events of the past week as seminal,
but they may affect how the race looks then.

Paul Tells Tech-Heavy Crowd He's Against NSA Data Collection
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/10/paul_tells_tech-heavy_crowd_hes_against_nsa_data_collection_126549.html>
// AP // Ellen Kickmeyer - May 10, 2015

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul sparked
applause from a tech-heavy audience Saturday when he criticized the
government's bulk collection of data but drew a more tepid response for his
opposition to so-called net neutrality.

Appearing at a tech start-up office space in the South of Mission district,
Paul reiterated his stance against the National Security Agency collecting
and storing data on nearly every American's phone calls. The practice,
aimed at preventing terrorism, has divided Republican presidential
candidates.

Tech entrepreneurs, typically zealous in guarding their online privacy,
welcomed Paul's pledge to rein in U.S. intelligence agencies' broad data
captures of phone calls and Internet use.

"The NSA doesn't need to be recording all of our phone calls," said Paul, a
Republican senator from Kentucky. He added, "There's not one other
candidate ... willing to say, 'On Day One, I'd stop it all. I'd end all
bulk collection of records.'"

Congress is debating the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, which is
set to expire on June 1. Supporters of the surveillance law, including
presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., say it's critical to
anti-terrorism efforts. Paul and fellow Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, see the law
as a privacy infringement.

Net neutrality opposes an Internet fast lane, with speedier connections at
higher prices, for those who can afford to pay more. Paul, however, argued
that market forces demand that if wealthier people are willing to pay more,
they get the chance. He also asserted that mandated same-speed Internet for
all is a market distortion akin to subsidized bread in the Soviet Union.

When a moderator of a panel said Paul's proposal to let graduates deduct
their college costs on their taxes over their lifetime would only benefit
the wealthy, Paul responded, "Poor kids go to Harvard, too."

Paul's appearance in a liberal bastion of a liberal state is part of his
effort to expand the traditional boundaries of support for a Republican
presidential campaign.

"Some people want to know what the hell is a Republican doing in San
Francisco," he said. "I would say, it's about time."

Ben Carson outlines flat-tax proposal
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/ben-carson-outlines-flat-tax-proposal-117785.html>
// POLITICO // Eliza Collins - May 10, 2015

Low-income taxpayers can — and want — to pay taxes, Ben Carson said on
Sunday.

The retired neurosurgeon who is seeking the Republican presidential
nomination, said on “Fox News Sunday” he had adopted a flat-tax proposal
from tithing in the Bible, citing a 10 percent rate as an example.

It’s “very condescending,” he said, to say that poor people can’t pay at
the same tax rate as the wealthy.

“I can tell you that poor people have pride too,” said Carson, who grew up
in a low-income family in inner-city Detroit.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. speaks during the Conservative Political Action
Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Md., Friday, Feb. 27, 2015. (AP
Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Carson rejected host Chris Wallace’s information from the Tax Policy Center
that in order for the government to raise as much money as it does now the
flat tax rate would have to higher than 20 percent.

“If you eliminate the loopholes and the deductions, then you’re really
talking about a rate between 10 and 15 percent,” Carson said his experts’
research has shown. “Let’s have a battle of the experts.”

A flat tax would help the government run like a business rather than the
“great inefficient behemouth that we have now,” he said.

“If everybody is paying, it makes it very difficult for these politicians
to come along and raise taxes” Carson said of his proposal for a new
streamlined, flat-tax system.

In South Carolina, a Republican Scramble to Stand Out
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/10/in_south_carolina_a_republican_scramble_to_stand_out_126548.html>
// AP // Bill Barrow and Mitch Weiss - May 10, 2015

GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) -- Republicans making their pitch to be the party's
2016 presidential nominee aimed to out-do each other Saturday in arguing
that President Barack Obama is a failed leader.

But hitting Obama with the usual critiques - from his 2010 health care
overhaul to allegations of missteps on foreign policy to the rise in the
national debt during his time in office - also made it hard for the gaggle
of White House aspirants to stand out during a forum in South Carolina
hosted by the conservative group Citizens United.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker tried by touting his ability to beat whomever
is nominated by the Democratic Party, reminding activists that he won three
statewide elections in four years in a state twice carried by Obama.

"The last time a Republican carried the state for president was 1984," he
said. "That's a tough state."

He even took the crowd back to his decision to run for county executive in
heavily Democratic Milwaukee County. "Never ever had there been a
Republican in that spot before," he said.

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO, continued her tactic of
going straight at Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic favorite for 2016.
"She is not trustworthy, and she does not have a record of accomplishment,"
Fiorina said.

In an interview before his turn on stage, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
pointed to his work on policy, saying he's the only potential candidate in
the field who has "spent the last 18 months coming up with detailed ideas
on health care, on foreign policy, on energy."

Once on stage, Jindal spent considerable time touting his credentials as a
social conservative, including his pushback against criticism from some in
the business community over "religious liberty" laws that have become a
flashpoint in the national debate over same-sex marriage.

"Don't even waste your breath trying to bully the governor of Louisiana,"
Jindal said, repeating what he said was his message to corporate leaders.

Rick Santorum, who won the Iowa caucuses in 2012 before fizzling out
against eventual nominee Mitt Romney, warned that Republicans eager to
retake the White House after Obama's two terms in office must stay focused
on reaching working-class voters.

"We have to be a pro-worker party," he said. "We have to be the party for a
rising tide lifting all boats. There are millions and millions of Americans
who have holes in those boats."

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio took a hard line on foreign policy, saying the
nation must get tougher with terrorists. Adapting a line from the movie
"Taken," he said: "We will look for you. We will find you. And we will kill
you."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz trumpeted his unapologetic approach on Capitol Hill,
where he helped engineer a partial government shutdown in 2013. And he told
activists that they should compare his style with his rivals, all of whom
insist they are conservative.

"Have you had anyone up here today say, 'I'm an establishment moderate who
stands for nothing?'" he said. "So how do you tell the difference? The
scriptures tell us, 'You shall know them by their fruits." That means, he
said, asking candidates, "You say you believe these principles. When have
you fought for them?"

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry let loose a series of broadsides at Obama and
his policies, drawing cheers from the crowd for a withering critique that
covered immigration, the Affordable Care Act, the Islamic State militant
group and the federal budget.

His bottom line: "We've seen gross incompetence. We're here to declare that
we're not going to take it anymore."

Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who, like Fiorina, announced his
candidacy earlier this week, is running as the outsider. "I'm not a
politician," he said. "That's what sets me apart."

Those not in South Carolina on Saturday included former Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush, who delivered the commencement address at Liberty University in
Virginia; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who was campaigning in northern
California; and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who was in South
Carolina on Friday.

Citizens United President David Bossie dismissed the idea that the large
number of GOP candidates muddled their messages and called the wide field
an advantage.

"These men and women all believe in American exceptionalism," Bossie said.
He added that along with criticizing Obama, Republicans should focus their
ire on Clinton - a point on which many in the crowd agreed.

"Any one of them would be better than the disaster we've got now," said
Gary Gunderson of Abbeville, South Carolina. His wife, Margaret, chimed in:
"Or Hillary."

OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS

Hillary Clinton Uses Mother's Day To Talk About Paid Family Leave
<http://jezebel.com/hillary-clinton-uses-mothers-day-to-talk-about-paid-fam-1703456690>
// Jezebel // Stassa Edwardsd – May 10, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s latest campaign video is a Mother’s Day themed affair. In
it Clinton pays homage to her own mother, celebrates the birth of her
granddaughter, and shifts into the issue of paid family leave. “It’s
outrageous that America is the only country in the developed world that
doesn’t guarantee paid leave,” Clinton says.

It’s a typical campaign video in many respects, she plays on the old cliché
of politicians kissing babies. And the language is also familiar
political-speak: “When women are strong, families are strong,” Clinton says
in a voice over.

While some (ahem, Maureen Dowd) have criticized Clinton for using both her
daughter and granddaughter to cynically “soften” her image, the campaign
video is an interesting study in a relatively new type of political
populism and, however faux it may be, it’s nice at least to see that
reframed around issues that are deeply important to many American women.

Whether or not you love Clinton or hate her (or feel deeply ambivalent
about her), her candidacy seems to be rooted in pushing so-called “women’s
issues” to the forefront. And maybe I’m soft because it’s Mother’s Day and
I’m typing this post with one hand and a two-year-old on my knee, but if
the only way we can talk about issues like paid leave or equal pay is with
familiar clichés and sappy music, then I’ll take it for now.

How Hillary Is Winning
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-how-hillary-is-winning.html?ref=opinion>
// NYT // Frank Bruni - May 9, 2015

As fleetly as Hillary Clinton vacuums up the money, she piles up the
paradoxes.

She showed fatal weaknesses the last time she chased the presidency and her
inevitability evaporated like a California puddle, but she’s somehow
inevitable all over again. Invincible, even. Journalists have to remind
themselves daily not to type or say “presumptive Democratic nominee” before
her name.

She’s fashioning herself as someone uniquely attuned to “everyday
Americans” while her husband fashions $500,000 speeches as amulets against
the bill collector. Someone’s got to pay for the burrito bowls.

And her Republican rivals convince themselves that “I’m not Hillary” is
their strongest argument and best bet, although the reverse holds true. At
least for now, not being any one of them is her ace in the hole.

The 2016 race in its adolescence is between the dependably messy,
perpetually maddening spectacle of the Clintons and a party with a
brand-decimating profusion of mad hatters like the two who announced their
bids and grabbed the spotlight last week, Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson.

Advantage: Hillary Clinton.

That’s a clear takeaway from several surveys of voters released last week.
They showed that despite her email shenanigans, despite the ethical muddle
known as the Clinton Foundation, despite the growing confusion about
whether the Hillary Clinton of 2016 will be of an ideological piece with
the Hillary Clintons of yesteryear, voters will gladly take her,
considering the alternatives.

According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, she was six points ahead
of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in head-to-head contests with either. She was
10 points ahead of Scott Walker.

Inexplicably and rather alarmingly, she was only three ahead of Rand Paul.
The mysteries of the American electorate are boundless.

Meanwhile a New York Times/CBS News poll found that over the past month and
a half, during which she weathered a veritable hurricane of negative news
coverage, her favorability rating improved, and the percentage of voters
who see her as a strong leader rose to 65 from 57. Nearly 80 percent of the
Democrats surveyed deemed her honest and trustworthy.

Hillary Rodham Clinton at Columbia University in New York last week.Hillary
Clinton’s Appeal Survives Scrutiny, Poll SaysMAY 5, 2015

There are many explanations. For starters, the hurricane I mentioned was
experienced as a drizzle, if that, by many Americans, who aren’t exactly
riveted by political news. Inasmuch as they notice journalists pouncing on
the Clintons, they’re apt to shrug. The substance of the accusations is
eclipsed by the familiarity of the tussle. It’s like lions on an impala:
bloody, yes, but the natural order.

And the Clintons are being accused of what? Greed? There’s plenty of that
to go around. Just ask Huckabee, a self-styled man of God and slave to
Mammon.

As recounted by Trip Gabriel in The Times, Ron Fournier in the National
Journal and Max Brantley in Salon, he’s a case study in financial high
jinks, a master class in shamelessness. He reportedly used the Arkansas
governor’s office “as a personal ATM,” in Fournier’s description,
channeling public money toward private expenditures (a doghouse, Taco Bell)
and accepting tens of thousands of dollars in highly questionable gifts,
some from people who later received prominent political appointments.

More recently he did an infomercial hawking dietary supplements as a
diabetes cure, even though reputable physicians and medical associations
call it poppycock. Only three of the following four adjectives correctly
describe that decision: tacky, mercenary, irresponsible and presidential.

Clinton benefits from not being Huckabee, who described Obamacare’s
contraception provision as a big-government sop to women who can’t “control
their libido,” blamed an absence of God in schools for the deadly shooting
rampage in Newtown, Conn., in 2012 and then proceeded to write a book with
a title that put firearms on a comforting par with breakfast food. Run,
don’t walk, to pick up your copy of “God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy.”

Clinton also benefits mightily from not being Carson, who has lumped
together homosexuality and bestiality and has likened Obamacare to slavery,
President Obama to a psychopath and the United States under President Obama
to Nazi Germany. It is said that Carson is a talented brain surgeon. I’m
taking my cerebellum elsewhere if it ever comes to that.

And Clinton benefits as well from not being Carly Fiorina, who also
declared a candidacy for the presidency last week. When Americans look
askance at professional politicians, it doesn’t mean that they long for the
polar opposite and are poised to award the presidency to someone who, in
Fiorina’s case, has never held elected office, routinely failed to vote in
the past, bungled her role as a surrogate for John McCain in 2008, had a
miserable showing in her 2010 race for the United States Senate against
Barbara Boxer, and claims a business expertise that’s long been in vigorous
dispute. Her campaign will be powered by hubris, not logic.

REPUBLICANS crow about their deep bench. And they do have some formidable
candidates, including Marco Rubio, who is an anti-Hillary in ways that
could indeed work for him, and Jeb Bush. But Rubio and Bush share the bench
with an unruly crowd that pulls them and the party too far to the right.

Republicans also take heart from their majority in the Senate and their
greater number of governors. But voters behave somewhat differently in
presidential elections than in other ones, which is one reason Wisconsin
has remained blue even during Walker’s red reign.

The party’s image hasn’t gone through the intended upgrade after its defeat
in 2012. According to the Times/CBS poll, just 29 percent of Americans now
view Republicans favorably, though 43 percent feel that way about
Democrats. That number is unlikely to improve much with the likes of
Huckabee, Carson, Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum roaming Iowa and foaming at
the mouth.

Besides, these two words come into play: Supreme Court. I know voters who’d
give more consideration to Rubio, Bush, Chris Christie or John Kasich if
they didn’t fear the kind of jurist one of them might nominate at the
behest of the religious right. And the next president could easily wind up
filling two vacancies on the high court.

That thought is the soil in which love for Hillary Clinton flowers. It’s a
prompt for people who otherwise suffer bone-wearying Clinton fatigue to
focus on her unquestioned smarts over her questionable scruples, her
experience over her i.o.u.s, her sturdiness over her slipperiness. There’s
a case to be made for her, and there’s motivation to make that case.

In another recent poll, by CNBC, she was the preferred candidate of voters
with a net worth of $1 million or more. Apparently they, too, have made
peace with her. Or maybe they just recognize a kindred spirit.

Clinton: Direct Evidence vs. Facts
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-direct-evidence-vs-facts-1431288821>
// WSJ // Mike Carroll – May 10, 2015

May 10, 2015 4:13 p.m. ET

Regarding Kimberley Strassel’s “The Clinton Scandal Manual” (Potomac Watch,
April 24): I’m a former judge. Let me pose this hypothetical: I am soon to
hear a big case involving various parties. One of the parties offers a
lucrative fee to my spouse for a speech, or they donate a large amount of
money to my beloved charitable foundation.

If I go ahead and hear the case, and people later complain I was
compromised and violated my fiduciary duty to the public, could I simply
reply, as almost every Hillary Clinton defender has done, “there’s just no
evidence.”

Of course, there are almost always no “direct evidence facts” because there
is no overt quid pro quo. It’s a covert wink-and-nod sort of thing where
there’s plausible deniability (you know, “there’s just no evidence”). Many
people are in prison today based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial
evidence—being indirect facts that tend to inferentially prove other vital
facts—is legal evidence. Clinton apologists are purposely trying to equate
“evidence” with only direct evidence.

It is such an inherently corrupt practice and betrayal of one’s fiduciary
duty to receive any benefit of any value to any family member from a
subject your principal has entrusted you to administer, that if a judge
does it, he or she will be removed. The rules are clear. They recognize
that the obvious corruption that flows from such obvious influence peddling
is a violation of the canon of ethics. The judicial ethics board doesn’t
need any “evidence” showing that you actually were swayed by the benefit
conferred. No. The mere receipt is sufficient for removal from office.

“There’s just no evidence” doesn’t cut it as a defense.

Mike Carroll

Tuscola, Ill.

George Clooney gushes over Hillary Clinton and his new life with Amal
<http://www.womansday.com.au/celebrity/hollywood-stars/george-clooney-gushes-over-hillary-clinton-and-his-new-life-with-amal-12522>
// Woman’s Day - May 11, 2015

Outspoken Democrat George Clooney has thrown his support behind the US
party’s new Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton as he continues to gush
about his new bride Amal and how she changed his outlook on life.

“I think that she’s a tremendous candidate,” George said of the new
Democratic Presidential nominee in an interview with Fusion TV.

He continued: “I know her and I think the world of her and I think that I
would be very happy if she was president”

When he was asked if he could consider campaigning on Hillary’s behalf,
George said: “Sure, whatever she wants. In whatever way I can help.”

George, 54, was quite a vocal supporter of the last Democratic candidate
and current President, Barack Obama, hosting a fundraiser for him in 2012
that brought in over $15 million.

With Hillary’s campaign advisors having set an initial fundraising target
of $100 million, an endorsement from the charming movie star could prove
quite a boon to the party.

George’s endorsement for Hillary comes just days after a hugely positive
endorsement of his new wife, Amal, 37, whom he sheepishly admitted he was
intimidated by as he first asked her out, in an interview with Access
Hollywood.

"It's always intimidating. She's an incredibly warm, wonderful person so
it's always intimidating. I think everyone gets intimidated," George said
of the pressure involved when asking the stunning Human Rights lawyer out.

It reportedly didn’t take long for Tomorrowland star George to realise that
the stunning British beauty with the impressive C.V. was in fact “the one”.

"I think it was about three days in, I knew she was the one," George said.

"I knew when I met her that she was super-extraordinary. I wondered if I
would ever get a chance to date her. We were friends for a while and
luckily she said, 'yes'."

Like any couple though, George admits that they don’t see eye to eye on
everything.

"I watch sports, and it kills her," George said in an interview with Extra.

"I got her into March Madness a little, I'm a huge Kentucky fan, so she got
into that, but it was enough."

Amal, who tied the knot with George in a lavish ceremony in Venice last
year, attended the premiere of the dashing star’s latest flick Tomorrowland
in Hollywood over the weekend. The pair played happy families with her
13-year-old lookalike niece Mia Alamuddin in tow. Amal of course looked as
glamorous as ever.

George gushed about his wife even further at the premiere, going as far as
to say Amal “changed everything” about his world view.

“All I know is that it sort of changed everything in terms of what I
thought my future – my personal future – was going to be,” he told People
magazine at the event.

“But I’ve always been an optimist about the world,” the actor, 54,
continued.

“I wasn’t always completely optimistic about how it was going to work out
personally for me. But now I am.”

In Britain, an electoral earthquake shatters pre-election assumptions
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-britain-an-electoral-earthquake-shatters-pre-election-assumptions/2015/05/09/12506bd2-f632-11e4-bcc4-e8141e5eb0c9_story.html>
// WaPo // Dan Balz - May 10, 2015

LONDON — It was both energizing and bracing to watch the election returns
roll in here Thursday night and into the early hours of Friday — energizing
because the unfolding story bore little resemblance to the polls and
forecasts; bracing for the very same reason and for what that said about
all the pre-election analysis.

Public polls — and they were many and often — predicted a wholly different
result. What the country was told to expect was the second hung Parliament
in a row, and the prospect of tortuous negotiations and maneuvering to
construct a new government.

Dan Balz is Chief Correspondent at The Washington Post. He has served as
the paper’s National Editor, Political Editor, White House correspondent
and Southwest correspondent. View Archive

Instead, the Conservative Party under Prime Minister David Cameron produced
a stunning victory, giving his party its first outright majority since the
Tories yielded power to Tony Blair’s New Labor Party in 1997. Cameron
didn’t call it the “sweetest victory” of all for him and the Conservatives
for no reason. Rather than falling back in strength after five years in
power as the head of a coalition government as might be expected, Cameron
was able to enlarge his party’s numbers, to 331 seats in the 650-seat
Parliament.

Cameron emerged politically and personally strengthened, if nonetheless
left to deal with the huge challenges the election so aptly defined and
highlighted, from the place of Scotland in what could be an increasingly
divided United Kingdom, to Britain’s future place in the European Union and
the world. With a slender majority and a potentially rebellious back bench,
his leadership could be constantly tested as he tries to sort these out.

In contrast to the Conservatives, the Labor Party was left shattered by the
final results, with a 99-seat deficit in Parliament, its traditional
stronghold in Scotland in the grip of the Scottish National Party and its
top two leaders now on the sidelines.

TOP NEWS

Domestic

Jimmy Carter falls ill in Guyana, returns to U.S. early
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-jimmy-carter-ill-in-guyana-20150510-story.html>
// LAT // Kurtis Lee - May 10, 2015

Former President Jimmy Carter returned to the United States from Guyana on
Sunday after becoming ill.

A statement released by Carter's nonprofit foundation, the Carter Center,
did not offer much about the 39th president's condition. It said he "was
not feeling well" and needed to return to Atlanta.

Carter, 90, was in the South American country to observe its general
election, which is scheduled for Monday.

For the most part, Carter has remained in good health recently, and he has
been active in traveling. Earlier this month, he visited the Middle East.

Former President George H.W. Bush, the oldest living president, has had
several hospital visits in recent years. In December, Bush, also 90, spent
nearly a week in a Houston-area hospital after experiencing shortness of
breath.

Carter's visit to Guyana was part of an ongoing effort by the Carter Center
to observe peaceful elections around the world.

"President Carter is hopeful about Guyana's election and expressed his
commitment and that of the Carter Center to supporting Guyana in the days
ahead, stressing the need for a peaceful process before, during and after
the election," the center said.

Networks Fret as Ad Dollars Flow to Digital Media
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/business/media/networks-fret-as-ad-dollars-flow-to-digital-media.html?google_editors_picks=true>
// NYT // Emily Steel and Sydney Ember - May 10, 2015

Beginning Monday, television networks will roll out the red carpet for
marketers during the annual bazaar known as the upfronts, trying to lure
them into committing tens of billions of ad dollars for the coming TV
season. If things go well, the networks will sell as much as 75 percent of
their advertising time in the negotiations that follow a week of flashy
presentations and star-studded parties.

But behind that lavish veneer, the mood at some television networks is
nervous and the sales pitch urgent.

That is because broadcast and cable companies are asking marketers to open
their wallets at a time of great anxiety in the industry, when TV ratings
have collapsed and networks are fending off fierce competition from digital
outlets.

Television viewing has plummeted 9 percent so far this season compared with
the previous season, according to MoffettNathanson Research. To explain the
drop, some industry executives and analysts point to the rapid increase in
the amount of time people spend watching Netflix and other streaming
alternatives. Netflix viewing accounted for about 43 percent of the decline
in traditional TV viewing in the first quarter of this year, according to
MoffettNathanson.

In the past, a decline in ratings did not always damage the networks during
the upfronts. As audiences fragmented, conventional television remained the
best approach for reaching huge numbers of viewers. Even as digital media
grew, advertisers kept pouring more money into TV. They dipped into their
print advertising budgets to fuel spending on digital ads.

But now even traditional television is splintering, especially as the major
broadcast networks make their programming available for streaming. With the
number of digital alternatives growing quickly, and with marketers seeking
greater flexibility in how they allocate their spending, the industry is
bracing for what many expect to be an anemic upfront market. That would
follow a soft market last year, which was one of the weakest the industry
has seen, said Michael Nathanson, an analyst for MoffettNathanson.

“The story around the ratings decline has been a persistent drumbeat that’s
reached a fever pitch this year, to the point where marketers are thinking,
‘We need to seriously think about alternatives,’ ” said Amanda Richman,
president for investment and activation at Starcom USA, a Publicis
Groupe-owned media buying agency whose clients include large advertisers
like Kellogg’s, Kraft Foods and Procter & Gamble.

“It feels like this is a pivotal year,” she said.

The total amount of money advertisers commit during the upfronts this year
is expected to tumble 7 percent, according to Magna Global, an ad-buying
group owned by the Interpublic Group. That represents a 10 percent drop in
spending committed to broadcast networks and a 5 percent drop for cable
networks.

John Janedis, a media analyst at Jefferies, is predicting total ad spending
commitments to drop about 6 percent, to about $20 billion, with ad rates
flat or up 3 percent.

 “Clearly, we’re going through a transition here,” Chase Carey, chief
operating officer of 21st Century Fox, said during an earnings call last
week. “Advertisers, without a doubt, have more choices. They want more
flexibility in some ways. You could say the upfront we’re about to go into,
while important, is probably a bit of an antiquated practice, given where
the world is heading.”

For the advertising world, that direction is toward digital, and more of
that money is likely to come from the share that has gone to the networks.
While some streaming services like Netflix do not accept advertising,
marketers are increasingly seeking out other new digital outlets that do,
like Snapchat, Vine and YouTube, where viewers — especially younger ones —
are spending an increasing amount of time.

“We’re at the tipping point now where the very role of TV in our mix is
under consideration,” said Ivan Pollard, a top marketing executive at
Coca-Cola North America. “Ten years ago, they held a much stronger hand
than they hold today, but they all know that. They’re talking differently
to us.”

Magna Global predicts that total TV ad revenues will be flat over the whole
year, even as spending on digital media increases 19.1 percent. The group
forecasts that digital media ad revenues will match television ad revenues
by the end of 2016, each accounting for about $67.5 billion in spending and
about 38 percent of the total ad market.

“There’s no question that we’re seeing a new advertising reality here,
because money definitely has migrated out of traditional media into new
media,” Robert A. Iger, chief executive of the Walt Disney Company, said
during an earnings call last week. He added that he expected his company’s
networks, which include ABC, ESPN and the Disney Channel, to fare “just
fine” during the upfronts.

To compete, television networks are featuring a host of their own digital
offerings during this year’s upfronts, along with more data and targeting
capabilities, qualities that are extremely important to marketers as they
seek to increase the effectiveness of their ads. Executives are also
highlighting television’s ability to reach broad audiences, and big events,
like sports and awards shows, also dominate.

Rivalries among TV networks are becoming ever more cutthroat as they
compete for their share of the ad-spending pie. That puts even more
pressure on the networks to produce attention-grabbing hits.

“There are certain networks that have done very well this year, certain
networks that haven’t done so well,” Leslie R. Moonves, chief executive of
CBS, said during an earnings call last week. “I’m not going to go into
great detail, but you could figure that out yourselves. So we are up, and
we expect it to be a good marketplace.”

Some analysts warn against predicting TV’s demise just yet. “It is less
impactful than it was, but it so dwarfs everything else,” said Brian
Wieser, a media analyst with Pivotal Research. “We’re getting closer to the
point when the world changes. We just haven’t seen it yet.”

Nuclear plant to clean up oil spill in Hudson River
<https://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ei=I95PVdLILYS2sAX71YGwBg&ved=0CAUQqS4oBQ>
// USA Today // Matt Spillane - May 10, 2015

BUCHANAN, N.Y. – The owners of the Indian Point nuclear power plant plan to
clean up what may be several thousand gallons of oil that spilled into the
Hudson River following a transformer fire that shut down part of the plant,
a federal official said Sunday.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo was scheduled to discuss the cleanup at a news conference
Sunday at the plant, which is located across the Hudson River from Stony
Point in Rockland County.

The fire, which began at 5:50 p.m. Saturday, sent smoke billowing into the
air and oil overflowing the plant's moat, said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman
for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"The plant's fire suppression system automatically sprayed water on the
transformer fire," Sheehan said. "Oil made its way into the drains and into
the water. Several thousand gallons may have overflowed the transformer
moat."

Sheehan said Entergy Corp. is hiring an environmental contractor for the
clean up. A strong odor of oil could be smelled Sunday across from the
plant.

The fire didn't cause the release of any radiation and didn't pose a threat
to workers or the public, according to a statement on Entergy Corp's
website.

The fire was first declared out at about 6:15 p.m. Saturday, but flames
rekindled at 6:37 p.m., Sheehan said. Firefighters from Verplanck and
Buchanan entered the plant and used foam to put out the blaze, which was
extinguished by 8:05 p.m.

Transformer fire shuts down N.Y. nuclear power plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors went to the plant Saturday night
and will be reviewing what caused the transformer fire. Sheehan said the
initial inspection found the plant's procedures and fire-suppression system
worked.

Indian Point classified the explosion and fire as an "unusual event," the
lowest of four levels of emergency classification used by the regulatory
agency, Sheehan said. He said the explosion and fire was considered
"unusual" because it occurred within the plant's fenced in protected area.

The transformers are used to step up power produced by the plant before it
is transmitted to the grid, Sheehan said. The facility opened in September
1962.

On Saturday evening, Cuomo said officials and commercial crews — supervised
by the state Department of Conservation — were working to prevent oil from
seeping into the Hudson River.

"This was a relatively minor situation, but when you're talking about a
nuclear power plant there are no really minor situations," Cuomo said
Saturday night, calling the plant "controversial" because it is "a stone's
throw from one of the most densely populated urban areas on the planet."

International

Saudi Arabia Says King Won’t Attend Meetings in U.S.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-king-wont-attend-camp-david-meeting.html?_r=0>
// NYT // Helene Cooper - May 10, 2015

WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia announced on Sunday that its new monarch, King
Salman, would not be attending meetings at the White House with President
Obama or a summit gathering at Camp David this week, in an apparent signal
of its continued displeasure with the administration over United States
relations with Iran, its rising regional adversary.

As recently as Friday, the White House said that King Salman would be
coming to “resume consultations on a wide range of regional and bilateral
issues,” according to Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman.

But on Sunday, the state-run Saudi Press Agency said that the king would
instead send Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister,
and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the defense minister. The
agency said the summit meeting would overlap with a five-day cease-fire in
Yemen that is scheduled to start on Tuesday to allow for the delivery of
humanitarian aid.

Arab officials said they viewed the king’s failure to attend the meeting as
a sign of disappointment with what the White House was willing to offer as
reassurance that the United States would back its Arab allies against a
rising Iran.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister.

King Salman is expected to call President Obama on Monday to talk about his
decision not to attend the summit meeting, a senior administration official
said on Sunday.

The official said that when the king met Secretary of State John Kerry in
Riyadh last week, he indicated that he was looking forward to coming to the
meeting. But on Friday night, after the White House put out a statement
saying Mr. Obama would be meeting with King Salman in Washington next week,
administration officials received a call from the Saudi foreign minister
that the king would not be coming after all.

There was “no expression of disappointment” from the Saudis, said the
official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not
authorized to speak publicly. “If one wants to snub you, they let you know
it in different ways,” the official said.

Another senior administration official said the White House did not believe
that King Salman’s absence was because of any disagreement.

Jon Alterman, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, said King Salman’s absence was both a blessing and a
snub.

“It holds within it a hidden opportunity, because senior U.S. officials
will have an unusual opportunity to take the measure of Mohammed bin
Salman, the very young Saudi defense minister and deputy crown prince, with
whom few have any experience.”

But, Mr. Alterman added: “For the White House though, it sends an
unmistakable signal when a close partner essentially says he has better
things to do than go to Camp David with the president, just a few days
after the White House announced he’d have a private meeting before
everything got underway.”

Mr. Kerry met on Friday in Paris with his counterparts from the Arab
nations that were invited to the summit meeting — Saudi Arabia, the United
Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman — to discuss what they were
expecting from the summit meeting, and to signal what the United States was
prepared to offer at Camp David.

But administration officials said that the Arab officials had pressed for a
defense treaty with the United States pledging to defend them if they came
under external attack. But that was always going to be difficult, as such
treaties — similar to what the United States has with Japan — must be
ratified by Congress.

Instead Mr. Obama is prepared to offer a presidential statement, one
administration official said, which is not as binding and which future
presidents may not have to honor.

The Arab nations are also angry, officials and experts said, about comments
Mr. Obama recently made in an interview with The New York Times, in which
he said allies like Saudi Arabia should be worried about internal threats —
“populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are
underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some
cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for
grievances.”

At a time when American officials were supposed to be reassuring those same
countries that the United States would support them, the comments were
viewed by officials in the gulf as poorly timed, foreign policy experts
said.

In addition, the Arab countries would like to buy more weapons from the
United States, but that also faces a big obstacle — maintaining Israel’s
military edge. The United States has long put restrictions on the types of
weapons that American defense firms can sell to Arab nations, in an effort
to ensure that Israel keeps a military advantage against its traditional
adversaries in the region.

That is why, for instance, the administration has not allowed Lockheed
Martin to sell the F-35 fighter jet, considered to be the jewel of
America’s future arsenal, to Arab countries. The plane, the world’s most
expensive weapons project, has stealth capabilities and has been approved
for sale to Israel.

In Paris on Friday, Mr. Kerry said that the United States and its Arab
allies, which constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council, were “fleshing out a
series of new commitments that will create between the U.S. and G.C.C. a
new security understanding, a new set of security initiatives that will
take us beyond anything that we have had before.”

The king is the latest top Arab official who will not be attending the
summit meeting for delegations from members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

The United Arab Emirates is also sending its crown prince to the meetings,
the officials said. The Emirati president, Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan, was
never expected to attend, because of health reasons, American and Arab
officials said. The sultan of Oman, Qaboos bin Said al Said, also will not
be attending because of health reasons, officials said.

Yousef Al Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States,
declined to say exactly what his government was pushing for from the United
States when he spoke at a conference in Washington on Thursday.

“The last thing I want to say is ‘here’s what we need,’ ” he said at a
panel discussion sponsored by the Atlantic Council in Washington. “That’s
not the right approach. The approach is, let’s come here, let’s figure out
what the problems are, how we can work together to address our needs.”

King Salman’s decision to skip the summit meeting does not mean that the
Saudis are giving up on the United States — they do not have many other
options, said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace. “As upset as the Saudis are, they don’t really
have a viable alternative strategic partnership in Moscow or Beijing,” Mr.
Sadjadpour said.

But, he added, “there’s a growing perception at the White House that the
U.S. and Saudi Arabia are friends but not allies, while the U.S. and Iran
are allies but not friends.”

Chasing a rainbow party
<http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21650926-new-leader-and-new-challenges-democratic-alliance-chasing-rainbow-party>
// Economist // May 10, 2015

SOUTH AFRICA'S main opposition party has elected its first black leader, a
step rightly thought necessary for the Democratic Alliance (DA) to shake
its image as a "white party" and challenge the mighty African National
Congress (ANC). Mmusi Maimane, aged just 34, won his election by a
landslide at a weekend DA party congress in the coastal city of Port
Elizabeth. The only other candidate was Wilmot James, aged 61. Mr James is
a mixed-race, respected elder statesman of the party, but is seen as
lacking the dynamism needed to give the party a boost and attract new
voters.

Mr Maimane, who was raised in Soweto, is the DA's parliamentary leader—he
will keep this post—and on weekends a pastor at a Christian church in Cosmo
City, a Johannesburg suburb. He has the oratory of a preacher, too, and is
widely praised for his ability to hold a crowd. Helen Zille, the outgoing
DA leader, avoided openly backing a candidate but had previously described
Mr Maimane as symbolising the party's future. But some doubt his ability to
sell dubious voters on the DA. "I don't think they have an ideal
candidate,” said Eusebius McKaiser, a political analyst and author of a
book titled "Could I Vote DA? A Voter's Dilemma". “The fact that Mmusi is
black helps,” but, he said, it won’t by itself attract black votes. Mr
Maimane will need to go beyond feel-good tales about his own rise from
Soweto and abstract notions of a rainbow, "non-racial" party, and address
the hard issues facing South Africa.

The liberal DA portrays itself as a party of competency and efficiency,
with its Western Cape base considered the best-run province in South
Africa. Its congress was a well-organised, slickly run affair, in contrast
to the ANC's chaotic last elective congress, in Mangaung (though the DA had
far more white people awkwardly dancing to the music of Brenda Fassie, a
famed anti-apartheid singer). There were many tributes to Miss Zille, who
during her term increased the DA's share of the vote from 17%, in 2009, to
22% in last year's election.

With Mr Maimane as leader, the party’s biggest challenge now will be to
speak to a broader range of voters, in particular to black South Africans
in the ANC's rural heartland. His first test will be the 2016 local
elections, with a close race expected in the battleground municipalities of
Johannesburg, Pretoria and Nelson Mandela Bay, which includes Port
Elizabeth.

While the DA remains the main opposition party, it has been overshadowed in
recent months by the leftist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), led by Julius
Malema, a former ANC Youth League leader who, like Mr Maimane, is 34. The
attention-grabbing, radical EFF has found support among young black voters,
frustrated with the lack of change and opportunity in South Africa. When Mr
Maimane was asked by The Economist how he planned to tackle the EFF, he
dodged the question. Instead, he spoke about the party's presence at
universities and touted the DA's recent surprise victory in student-council
elections at Fort Hare, Nelson Mandela's alma mater in the Eastern Cape.
That was indeed a win for the party, but the work ahead will be a good deal
tougher.

-- 
*Alexandria Phillips*
*Communications | Press Assistant*
*Hillary for America *
https://www.hillaryclinton.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HRCRapid" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email-masked].
To post to this group, send email to [email-masked].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.