Subject: H4A News Clips 5.15.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 07:19:28 -0400
List-Id: <hrcrapid.googlegroups.com>

*H4A Press Clips*

*May 15, 2015*

SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS

Yesterday Hillary Clinton visited her Brooklyn headquarters for the first
time since she joined the presidential race a month ago. She then took an
unannounced stroll in Brooklyn Heights meeting shop owners and others that
welcomed her to the neighborhood.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came out on Thursday in
full support of allowing certain undocumented young people to join the
military, as the House of Representatives debates the issue. Her campaign
issued a statement in support of allowing young undocumented immigrants who
came to the U.S. as children, called DREAMers, to enlist.

Thursday chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy, said he would not call
Hillary Rodham Clinton to testify until the State Department turned over a
trove of documents about the episode. This statement likely pushes Hillary
Clinton’s appearance to no earlier than this summer.

ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos has given $50,000 to the
Clinton Foundation in recent years, charitable contributions that he did
not publicly disclose while reporting on the Clintons or their nonprofit
organization. He said in an interview yesterday that he will not moderate
the ABC News-sponsored Republican primary debate in February after failing
to disclose those contributions.

LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS

Jeb Bush/Iraq coverage on each network. ABC noted that Bush clarified his
position for the fifth time today. NBC included Republican criticism of Jeb
Bush's answers, as well as the clip of a student telling Bush that George
W. Bush created ISIS. CBS also included coverage of Bush changing his
answer multiple times throughout the week and John Dickerson said that the
GOP nominee will have to face the likely nominee of HRC, who voted to
authorize the Iraq war.

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

LAST NIGHTS EVENING
NEWS................................................................. 1

TODAY’S KEY
STORIES............................................................................
4

*Hillary Clinton Campaign: Let Dreamers Serve In The Military* //
Huffington Post // Elise Foley - May 14, 2015          4

*Hillary Clinton Makes First Visit to Brooklyn Since Announcing Campaign*
// NYT // May 14, 2015 5

*Benghazi Panel Wants Documents Before Hillary Clinton Testifies* // NYT
//Michael S. Schmidt – May 14, 2015       7

*Stephanopoulos regrets Clinton Foundation donation, will not moderate GOP
debate* // Politico // Dylan Byers - May 14, 2015            8

SOCIAL
MEDIA..........................................................................................
9

*Brian Stelter (5/4/15, 1:02 PM)* ABC's @GStephanopoulos to me: "I am going
to continue to cover the 2016 campaign." Full story:
http://cnnmon.ie/1EHM0f7...................................................................................................
10

*Gabriel Debenedetti (5/14/15, 1:10 PM)* It's not just Hillary who talks
about "everyday Americans": O'Malley's PAC email to supporters
pre-announcing his announcement cites 'em
too........................................................................
10

*Annie Karni (5/14/15, 3:17 PM)* "The team scripted a scene where O'Malley
would run down the street + pass two ppl who would ask, "Who is running?"
http://cnn.it/1K7knUy........................................................................................................
10

*The Lead CNN (5/14/15, 1:42 PM)* Full credit to all 2016 candidates taking
Qs from the press #TheLead             10

*Steve Krafft (5/14/15, 10:42 AM)* Jeb Bush, saying he wants to dump
Obamacare, says health apps on his Apple Watch are a better option
#fox10phoenix........................................................................................................................
10

*Jonathan Weisman (5/14/15, 9:41 AM)* Bill to crack down on currency
manipulation is passing Senate on huge bipartisan vote, over opposition of
@BarackObama &
@SpeakerBoehner.....................................................................................
10

*KDKA (5/14/15, 7:30 AM)* #BREAKING: Freight train derails in Hazelwood,
outside #Pittsburgh. 10 cars off the tracks.
http://cbsloc.al/1HjctXr................................................................................................................................................
10

HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE..................................................................
10

*Can Hillary Clinton Move Beyond Benghazi?* // Newsweek // Nina Burleigh -
May 14, 2015 10

*What Do Prison Families Think of Hillary's Promises About Mass
Incarceration?* // The Intercept // Liliana Segura - May 13,
2015                20

*Benghazi Panel Republican Criticizes Clinton on Testimony Plans* //
Bloomberg // Billy House - May 14, 2015           24

*GOP Delays Hillary Clinton Benghazi Hearing, Puts Onus on John Kerry*//
National Journal // Ben Geman - May 14, 2015                  25

*‘Hillary Clinton Sold Her Soul When They Accepted That Money’* // Politico
Mag // Kenneth Vogel – May 15, 2015      27

*Jeb Bush Taunts Hillary Clinton Over Not Taking Questions* // NYT //
Michael Barbaro - May 14, 2015            30

*Nicolle Wallace to Carly Fiorina: Hands off Hillary* // Politico // Glenn
Thrush - May 14, 2015               30

*Hillary Clinton Pens Beautiful Letter To Lesbian Couple Featured In Her
Campaign Announcement* // Huffington Post // JamesMichael Nichols - May 14,
2015...........................................................................................................................
32

*Q: How much of a factor will Hillary Clinton's gender be in the 2016
presidential race?* // National Journal // Sarah Mimms – May 15,
2015            32

*Hillary’s Got A Friend: James Taylor Backs Clinton For President* // Daily
Caller // Kaitlan Collins - May 14, 2015    34

*Hillary Clinton’s litmus test for Supreme Court nominees: a pledge to
overturn Citizens United* // WaPo // Matea Gold and Anne Gearan - May 14,
2015........................................................................................................................................
35

*Hillary Clinton Enlists Bigger-Name Backers in Novel Ways* // NYT //
Maggie Haberman - May 14, 2015     36

*The Brooklyn Democratic Party Has Endorsed Hillary Clinton* // Observer //
Ross Barkan - May 14, 2015       37

*Hillary Clinton Woos Donors Visiting Campaign Headquarters* // ABC News //
Lis Lerer, Associated Press - May 14, 2015    38

*Hey Brooklyn, Hillary Clinton has arrived* // Politico // Annie Karni -
May 14, 2015......... 39

*Hillary Clinton just had her first big outing in Brooklyn* // Business
Insider // Colin Campbell and Hunter Walker - May 14, 2015
39

*Hillary Clinton explores Brooklyn Heights neighborhood* // Capital New
York // Dana Rubinstein - May 14, 2015    40

*Hillary Clinton adds third Chicago fundraiser: Hits hometown May 19, 20*
// Chicago Sun Times // Lynn Sweet - May 14, 2015           41

*Clinton organizing meeting in Newton* // Boston Globe // Frank Phillips -
May 14, 2015... 42

*Hillary Clinton books second trip to Iowa* // USA Today // Jennifer Jacobs
- May 14, 2015... 43

*Hillary Clinton to return to NH on May 21* // WMUR // May 14,
2015................................... 44

*In Texas, Clinton Campaign Revs Up* // The Texas Tribune // Patrick Svitek
- May 13, 2015 44

*Democrats 2016: Sanders Now Clinton’s Chief Rival* // University of
Virginia, Center for Politics // Geoffrey Skelley - May 14,
2015                47

*Hillary Clinton wants to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill* // Business
Insider // Leslie Larson - May 14, 2015        49

*Hillary Clinton tweets support for Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill* // NY
Daily News // Cameron Joseph - May 14, 2015         49

*EXCLUSIVE: Bill Clinton’s travel schedule eyed for ties to Hillary's time
as secretary of state* // NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph - May 14,
2015................................................................................................................................................
50

*'Clinton Cash' publisher corrects '7 or 8' inaccurate passages* //
Politico// Annie Karnia - May 14, 2015            50

*'Clinton Cash' Author Slams Stephanopoulos, ABC News for 'Massive Breach
of Ethical Standards'* // Bloomberg // Joshua Green - May 14, 2015   52

*George Stephanopoulos discloses $50,000 contribution to Clinton Foundation*
// Politico // Dylan Byers - May 14, 2015          52

*ABC anchor sorry for not disclosing Clinton donations* // CNN // May 14,
2015.................. 54

*George Stephanopoulos donations to Clinton Foundation: Immediate crisis
for ABC News* // WaPo // Erik Wemple - May 14, 2015   56

*George Stephanopoulos Interviewed Bill Clinton About CGI In 2013* //
Buzzfeed News // Katherine Miller - May 14, 2015       58

*George Stephanopoulos' 2016 Role Suddenly Less Certain Amid Criticism Over
Clinton Foundation Donations* // Huffington Post // Michael Calderone and
Sam Stein - May 14,
2015................................................................................
59

*Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Manager Interned for George Stephanopoulos* //
Free Beacon // Brent Scher - May 14, 2015         61

*Trump gave at least $100K to Clinton Foundation* // The Hill // Mark
Hensch - May 14, 2015 62

OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE....................................... 64

*Progressives’ looming challenge: Bill de Blasio, Elizabeth Warren,
inequality, and a stunning blind spot* // Salon // Joan Walsh - May 14,
2015  64

*Dems: Hillary Clinton must campaign more* // Politico // James Hohmann and
Katie Glueck – May 14, 2015                68

*Bernie Sanders has picked a terrible argument against the TPP* // Vox //
Dylan Matthews - May 14, 2015      74

*Is Bernie Sanders the Best Candidate on Climate Change?* // Mother Jones
// Ben Adler - May 14, 2015               76

*Democrats 2016: Sanders Now Clinton’s Chief Rival* // Center for Politics
// Geoffrey Skelley - May 14th, 2015              78

*O'Malley secured Baltimore headquarters for potential presidential bid* //
Baltimore Sun // Erin Cox - May 14, 2015                80

*Presidential hopeful Martin O'Malley hails US role in controversial war*
// The Guardian // Ben Jacobs - May 14, 2015          81

*O’Malley Won’t Criticize Stephanopoulos Over Clinton Foundation Donation*
// Daily Caller // Al Weaver - May 14, 2015        82

*O’who? What you should know about Hillary Clinton’s most serious
challenger* // Fusion // Brett LoGiurato – May 14, 2015                 82

GOP.........................................................................................................
84

*The Field Is Flat* // National Journal // Charlie Cook – May 15,
2015................................... 84

*Silver State looks to play in 2016 election* // CNN // Ashley Killough -
May 14, 2015.......... 86

*Meet the College Democrat Who Told Jeb Bush: ‘Your Brother Created ISIS’*
// ABC News // Alana Abramson - May 14, 2015 89

*Jeb Bush Reverses Himself: ‘I Would Not Have Gone Into Iraq’* // TIME //
Zeke J. Miller - May 14, 2015                 90

*Why Jeb Bush Had to Ditch Dubya* // The Daily Beast // Matt Lewis - May
14, 2015.............. 91

*Rubio shows his prowess at CFR* // WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – May 14,
2015........................ 93

*Like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio Has Evolved on Iraq Question* // ABC News //
Erin Dooley - May 14, 2015                  95

*An Open Letter To Marco Rubio: I Am Ashamed I Ever Worked On Your Behalf*
// Western Journalism // KrisAnne Hall - May 14, 2015        96

*The small surprises in Marco Rubio’s big foreign policy speech* // WaPo //
Daniel W. Drezner - May 14, 2015                 99

*Ted Cruz: I Won Those Purple Hearts!* // The Daily Beast // Patricia
Murphy – May 15, 2015 101

*Chris Christie shrugs off doubts, hires two top campaign aides* //
Politico // Alex Isenstadt – May 14, 2015   103

*Rick Santorum Says He’s Baffled by Jeb Bush on Iraq* // NYT – First Draft
// Mike Barbaro – May 14, 2015     104

TOP
NEWS.............................................................................................
105

DOMESTIC..........................................................................................
105

*Russ Feingold Running For Senate In 2016* // Huffington Post // Amanda
Terkel - May 14, 2015          105

*Senate, in Reversal, Begins Debate on Trade Authority* // NYT // Jonathan
Weisman - May 14, 2015                  106

*House GOP partly funds Obama police camera initiative after recent deaths*
// US News // Andrew Taylor, Associated Press - May 14, 2015
106

*Amtrak Says Shortfalls and Rules Delayed Its Safety System* // NYT //
Michael Shear – May 14, 2015              107

*House passes Iran review bill, sending it to Obama’s desk for signature*
// WaPo // Paul Kane - May 14, 2015                 111

INTERNATIONAL................................................................................
112

*Defying U.S., Colombia Halts Aerial Spraying of Crops Used to Make Cocaine*
// NYT // William Neuman  - May 14, 2015      112

*Ancient Ruins at Palmyra Are Endangered by ISIS Advance in Syria* // NYT
// Anne Barnard and Hwaida Saad - May 14, 2015      115

*Migrants From Myanmar, Shunned by Malaysia, Are Spotted Adrift in Andaman
Sea* // NYT // Thomas Fuller and Joe Cochrane - May 14, 2015  117

OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS...........................................................
120

*End Immigration Detention* // NYT // Editorial Board – May 15,
2015.............................. 120

*O’Malley Tells Friends He’s Leaning Toward Running for President* // WSJ
// Laura Meckler – May 14, 2015                  122

*Hillary Clinton’s got Beyonce. And that’s important.* // WaPo // Hunter
Schwarz - May 14, 2015           122

*Hillary’s Got A Friend: James Taylor Backs Clinton For President* // The
Daily Caller // Kaitlan Collins – May 14, 2015          123

*Time for candidate Clinton to step up on trade* // WaPo // David Ignatius
– May 14, 2015. 124

*George Stephanopoulos Gave to the Clinton Foundation. So What?* // NY Mag
// Jonathan Chait - May 14, 2015            125

*Stephanopoulos’ Clinton Donations Not the ‘Scandal’ Everyone Wants It to
Be* // Mediatite // Matt Wilstein - May 14, 2015   126

*Hillary Rodham Clinton Ups the Super PAC Ante* // NYT // Francis Clines –
May 14, 2015 128

*New Neighbor Hillary Clinton Shops and Dines in Brooklyn Heights* // BK
Heights Blog // Claude Scales – May 14,2015       129

TODAY’S KEY STORIES

Hillary Clinton Campaign: Let Dreamers Serve In The Military
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/hillary-clinton-dreamers-military_n_7287076.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// Huffington Post // Elise Foley - May 14, 2015

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came out on
Thursday in full support of allowing certain undocumented young people to
join the military, as the House of Representatives debates the issue.

Her campaign issued a statement in support of allowing young undocumented
immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, often called Dreamers, to
enlist.

"If these courageous young men and women want to serve, they should be
honored and celebrated, not discriminated against," Clinton's national
political director, Amanda Renteria, said. "Hillary Clinton is committed to
comprehensive immigration reform to strengthen families and our country.
While we keep up the pressure for comprehensive action, allowing Dreamers
to serve in the military is the right step forward.”

The House is set to vote later Thursday on whether to strip a measure from
the National Defense Authorization Act that would encourage the secretary
of defense to consider allowing certain Dreamers to enlist.

The measure, offered by Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) does not mandate that
the Defense Department allow more Dreamers to join the army. But it still
caused controversy among Republicans, who said it would be an implicit
endorsement of the "amnesty" programs by President Barack Obama.

Democrats are arguing that all Dreamers granted work authorization under
Obama's 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA,
should be able to enlist, although Gallego's measure would not require such
a policy change.

Clinton has taken a liberal turn on immigration during her presidential
campaign this year. She recently voiced support for driver's licenses for
undocumented immigrants, after opposing them during her 2008 presidential
campaign.

Last month, Clinton told a group of Dreamers that she would support going
even further than Obama to protect certain undocumented immigrants from
deportation.

Hillary Clinton Makes First Visit to Brooklyn Since Announcing Campaign
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/14/hillary-clinton-makes-first-visit-to-brooklyn-since-announcing-campaign/>
// NYT // May 14, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday made her first trip to Brooklyn since
she joined the presidential race a month ago, visiting her headquarters and
taking an unannounced stroll in Brooklyn Heights.

Then she headed to a meeting for donors who have secured at least 10 checks
totaling $2,700.

Mrs. Clinton spent about an hour in her headquarters at 1 Pierrepont Plaza,
shaking hands and meeting people, aides said. She told them it was
important to win, but also to “have fun,” said her spokesman, Nick Merrill.

She then took a walk through the neighborhood as an aide from the
campaign’s digital team used a video camera to record people approaching
Mrs. Clinton on the street. The candidate was accompanied by Mr. Merrill,
Huma Abedin, a longtime aide, and a few Secret Service agents.

Mrs. Clinton stopped at a pizza place, Monty Q’s, ordering a salad. Next up
was Area Kids, a toy store a few doors down, where she bought a child’s
romper, presumably for her granddaughter, Charlotte. She then walked a few
blocks to the Brooklyn Women’s Exchange, where she bought a second romper.

After that, she headed to the Liberty Warehouse in Red Hook for the donor
event, where hundreds of people received small pins with her campaign logo
and briefings from officials like Robby Mook, her campaign manager;
Jennifer Palmieri, her communications director; and Teddy Goff, the
campaign’s digital chief.

Mrs. Clinton — who announced her presidential candidacy on April 12 — was
last in Brooklyn on April 1, at an event with Chirlane McCray, the first
lady of New York City, to announce a public awareness push to increase
cognitive development in young children.

Mrs. Clinton spent more than 40 minutes talking to attendees at the Liberty
Warehouse gathering, which included some of her close former aides,
including Tom Nides, a Morgan Stanley executive; Steve Elmendorf, a veteran
lobbyist and Democratic strategist; Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic National
Committee member; and the financier Alan Patricof, a longtime friend and
supporter of the Clintons.

She did not urge that people give to the super PAC supporting her,
Priorities USA, according to an attendee. But she encouraged people to find
additional donors to support her race — and took note of how many super
PACs were “sprouting up like mushrooms” on the Republican side, according
to former Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who attended the event.

She never mentioned her potential Republican opponents, he said, although
during an earlier polling presentation by campaign officials, they
highlighted that her poll numbers had held steady despite “a couple of
tough news cycles,” a reference to controversies over her use of email at
the State Department and fund-raising by her family’s foundation. They also
barely mentioned her rivals, but did point out that two Republicans, Jeb
Bush and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, have remained “static” in the
polls.

Mr. Bayh told reporters that there was a noticeable change in Mrs.
Clinton’s demeanor since the 2008 campaign.

“She’s embraced this, in a joyful spirit, which is a nice thing to see,” he
said.

“There’s something in some ways about being unsuccessful that can be
liberating,” he said in referring to her failed 2008 run. “She didn’t have
to run. She’s focused on the fact that it’s really not about her, it’s
about where the country needs to go. And that is a liberating perspective.”

She was asked several questions, including about her position on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that President Obama is pushing, Mr.
Bayh said.

“She said, ‘Look, I want to see what the proposed agreement is before
expressing an opinion on it — we need to reap the benefits,'” but also
“help the people who would be adversely affected,” Mr. Bayh recalled.

Benghazi Panel Wants Documents Before Hillary Clinton Testifies
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/us/politics/benghazi-panel-wants-documents-before-hillary-clinton-testifies.html?_r=0>
// NYT //Michael S. Schmidt – May 14, 2015

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012
attacks in Benghazi, Libya, said on Thursday that he would not call Hillary
Rodham Clinton to testify until the State Department turned over a trove of
documents about the episode.

The statement by the chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of
South Carolina, makes it probable that Mrs. Clinton, who had said she was
willing to testify this month, will now appear no earlier than this summer.

In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Mr. Gowdy said the State
Department had not “produced one single piece of paper responsive to the
committee’s request for records” from aides to Mrs. Clinton, the former
secretary of state and current Democratic presidential candidate.

Mr. Gowdy originally asked for the documents, which include the aides’
emails and other documents related to Libya, in November. He then issued a
broader subpoena in March.

“The pace of State Department document production has become an impediment
to the progress of the committee,” Mr. Gowdy said. “Secretary Kerry
promised in previous House testimony swift action when it came to producing
department documents, now it is time for his department to explain why they
have failed to keep his word.”

The State Department said on Thursday that it had given Mr. Gowdy more than
4,000 pages of documents since his November request. “It’s clear the
committee doesn’t know how to take ‘yes’ for an answer,” said Alec Gerlach,
a department spokesman.

Democrats have charged that Mr. Gowdy is dragging out the process so he can
call Mrs. Clinton to testify closer to the 2016 election.

But Mr. Gowdy said that before the committee would allow Mrs. Clinton to
testify, it needed the documents “to have some of the completeness” so it
could “formulate substantive questions for her on Benghazi.”

Mr. Gowdy had said that he wanted Mrs. Clinton to testify before the
committee twice — once about her exclusive use of a personal email account
to conduct government business when she was secretary of state, and a
second time about the Benghazi attacks, which killed four Americans,
including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

But Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer said last week that she was willing to testify
before the panel only once. Whenever she testifies, she will be prepared to
stay as long as necessary to answer all of the committee’s questions, said
the lawyer, David E. Kendall.

Shortly after Mr. Gowdy sent his letter, the ranking Democrat on the
Benghazi committee, Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, released a statement
saying that “Republicans are on a fishing expedition for anything they can
use against Secretary Clinton in her presidential campaign.”

“Every time they come back empty-handed, they extend their trip at taxpayer
expense,” Mr. Cummings said. “The committee has had Secretary Clinton’s
emails for months. This new claim that the department has not produced a
single responsive document is completely baseless.”

Stephanopoulos regrets Clinton Foundation donation, will not moderate GOP
debate
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/stephanopoulos-says-he-should-not-have-donated-to-207160.html>
// Politico // Dylan Byers - May 14, 2015

George Stephanopoulos says he should not have donated money to the Clinton
Foundation and that he will not moderate the ABC News-sponsored Republican
primary debate in February after failing to disclose those contributions.

In an interview with the On Media blog on Thursday, Stephanopoulos said
that while he made the donations "for the best reasons," he now realizes he
should not have given.

"In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have, even though I did it for the
best reasons," he said.

Stephanopoulos also said that he has given a total of $75,000 to the
Clinton Foundation. That figure represents charitable contributions of
$25,000 in 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively. ABC News initially said that
Stephanopoulos had given a total of $50,000 to the foundation.

The "Good Morning America" co-anchor and host of "This Week" said that he
would not moderate ABC's GOP debate, which is scheduled to take place in
February in New Hampshire. Republican Sen. Rand Paul said Thursday that
Stephanopoulos should be prohibited from moderating any debates during the
2016 presidential campaign.

"I won't moderate that debate," Stephanopoulos said. "I think I've shown
that I can moderate debates fairly. That said, I know there have been
questions made about moderating debates this year. I want to be sure I
don't deprive viewers of a good debate."

But Stephanopoulos said that he would not recuse himself from coverage of
the 2016 presidential campaign, despite urging from the office of
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, which said Thursday that Sen. Lee would
be advised not to go on "This Week" unless the host "recuses himself from
all 2016 coverage."

Throughout the interview, Stephanopoulos apologized profusely for failing
to disclose his contributions to viewers, including during an interview
with author Peter Schweizer, whose book "Clinton Cash," alleges that
donations to the foundation may have influenced some of Hillary Clinton's
actions as secretary of state. On Thursday, Schweizer accused
Stephanopoulos of a "massive breach of ethical standards."

"At the time I did not perceive the problem, but in retrospect, as much as
I support the very good work that's been done by the foundation, I should
have gone above and beyond any guidelines to make sure that there wouldn't
be any appearance of any conflict," he said.

Stephanopoulos would not say whether it had crossed his mind to disclose
the issue earlier. Instead, he said he "believed that the donations already
were a matter of public record" because his name is listed among donors on
the Clinton Foundation's website.

"But I should have gone the extra mile and disclosed [the donations] to the
viewers," Stephanopoulos reiterated. "I now realize I should have done
that."

ABC News has issued a statement of support for Stephanopoulos and said it
would take no punitive action against him. Stephanopoulous would not say
whether he believed he deserved any sort of punitive repercussion.

"I'm sorry to both the ABC viewers and to my colleagues, but I intend to
move forward and prove that I can do the job every single day," he said.

The host also said he intends to address the issue on this Sunday's edition
of "This Week."

Stephanopoulos is the chief anchor and chief political correspondent for
ABC News, as well as the co-anchor of ABC's "Good Morning America" and host
of "This Week," its Sunday morning public affairs program. Prior to joining
ABC News, he served as communications director and senior adviser for
policy and strategy to President Clinton. He also served as communications
director on Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign.

Sources with knowledge of Stephanopoulos' charitable giving said he gives
to dozens of charities every year and that the total sum of these annual
contributions is in the millions of dollars. Those sources said that the
Clinton Foundation contributions represent a very small percentage of the
total.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Brian Stelter (5/4/15, 1:02 PM)
<https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/598941556708679680> ABC's
@GStephanopoulos to me: "I am going to continue to cover the 2016
campaign." Full story: http://cnnmon.ie/1EHM0f7

Gabriel Debenedetti (5/14/15, 1:10 PM)
<https://twitter.com/gdebenedetti/status/598943474541531137> It's not just
Hillary who talks about "everyday Americans": O'Malley's PAC email to
supporters pre-announcing his announcement cites 'em too

Annie Karni (5/14/15, 3:17 PM)
<https://twitter.com/anniekarni/status/598975393903808512> "The team
scripted a scene where O'Malley would run down the street + pass two ppl
who would ask, "Who is running?" http://cnn.it/1K7knUy

The Lead CNN (5/14/15, 1:42 PM)
<https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/598951626074824704> Full credit to
all 2016 candidates taking Qs from the press #TheLead

Steve Krafft (5/14/15, 10:42 AM)
<https://twitter.com/SKrafftFox10/status/598906186260291585/photo/1> Jeb
Bush, saying he wants to dump Obamacare, says health apps on his Apple
Watch are a better option #fox10phoenix

Jonathan Weisman (5/14/15, 9:41 AM)
<https://twitter.com/jonathanweisman/status/598891014229774336> Bill to
crack down on currency manipulation is passing Senate on huge bipartisan
vote, over opposition of @BarackObama & @SpeakerBoehner

KDKA (5/14/15, 7:30 AM)
<https://twitter.com/CBSPittsburgh/status/598857989056032768> #BREAKING:
Freight train derails in Hazelwood, outside #Pittsburgh. 10 cars off the
tracks.  http://cbsloc.al/1HjctXr

HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE

Can Hillary Clinton Move Beyond Benghazi?
<http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/22/can-hillary-clinton-move-beyond-benghazi-331390.html>
// Newsweek // Nina Burleigh - May 14, 2015

On October 28, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in
Islamabad, Pakistan, for a three-day visit—without a headscarf. As the
motorcade snaked through the city, Osama bin Laden was still hiding out
with his wives less than an hour away, and Clinton was greeted with
placards reading “Hillery [sic] Go Home.” Shortly after she landed, a car
bomb exploded in Peshawar, Pakistan, killing more than 100, and scenes of
carnage were broadcast along with her televised welcome.

Traditionally when the boss rolls into town, U.S. embassies arrange a
meeting with national leaders, a press conference and maybe a reception
before escorting the secretary back to the tarmac. But Clinton had added a
new duty: organizing the “Townterview.” These awkwardly nicknamed, often
televised gatherings with vetted natives reprised the town halls and
“listening tours” that had been a hallmark of Clinton’s style as first
lady, U.S. senator and presidential candidate. The idea was to use her star
power to rehabilitate America’s image. “In an age of connectivity,” Clinton
policy aide Jake Sullivan explains, “even in authoritarian countries,
public opinion matters. Hillary Clinton going out and reaching millions of
people around the world through a give-and-take conversation, broadcast
live, helped advance the sense that the United States is listening.”

So embassy staff in Pakistan had arranged a small listening tour for Madame
Secretary. Some aides had a bad feeling about the Townterview in Islamabad
and a later one scheduled in Lahore. “They warned, ‘You’ll be a punching
bag,’” Clinton wrote in her State Department memoir, Hard Choices. “I
smiled and replied, ‘Punch away.’”

Clinton got what she asked for when she faced female Pakistani journalists
and an audience of professional women who had been told belatedly that
they’d be participating in a televised format similar to The View. Whoopi
and Babs they were not; they grilled Clinton, angered about what they saw
as American designs on Pakistani nuclear power and U.S. support for archfoe
India. Things got worse in Lahore, where university students asked about
drones and trigger-happy American contractors. She nodded in her trademark
way and crafted calibrated answers, but she won few hearts or minds.

The New York Times reported that in Lahore Clinton sounded “less like a
diplomat and more like a marriage counselor.” She did manage to land a
punch, though, becoming the highest U.S. official to publicly accuse
Pakistan of hiding the Al-Qaeda leader: “I find it hard to believe that
nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get to them if
they really wanted to.”

The trip was not a seminal moment in Pakistani-American relations, but it
typified Clinton’s style as secretary of state in many ways: the good
soldier taking a hit for the team; the career “listener” with unshakable
faith in the power of her charm and reasonableness; the hawkish tendency;
the innovative executive; the deft verbal strategist; and the star pupil
who did the most homework and got a gold star from the teacher, in this
case the White House.

In Washington, despite the obsession on Benghazi (13 hearings and 25,000
pages of reports, at last count, on the killing of the U.S. ambassador and
three other Americans; with her House committee testimony scheduled for
mid-May), conventional wisdom holds that Secretary Clinton was good in her
last job. She just left no legacy. “Competent” but “not a great one,” wrote
Michael Hirsh of her in Foreign Affairs, as she stepped down from the
secretary’s post in 2013.

Dismissing Clinton’s performance at State as mediocre misses the point. Her
great strengths—personal charm, innovative thinking, political savvy—were
not up to the task of taming the likes of Putin, Assad, the Taliban, Boko
Haram or the rest of the savage world in chaotic times. It’s difficult to
imagine any wise man now or in history—Henry Kissinger or Thomas Jefferson,
to name two—being able to create order from a world in which a
1,000-year-old invention, the nation-state, is under siege everywhere.

The right question is whether Hillary did well with what she had, and the
consensus answer is yes. Her policies sometimes fell short (the Russia
reset, designed to improve relations with Moscow), but more often they were
right (the Asia pivot to devote more U.S. attention to the Far
East).Critics often assume that to be a “great” secretary of state, a major
diplomatic treaty must be crafted or a war ended. But modern secretaries of
state are more managers than Metternichs—they don’t necessarily have the
grand visions of the world that the 19th century Austrian diplomat did.
They confront foes and soothe friends and often they fail. Clinton was no
exception, but her performance rating is of special interest now because
her tenure at State reveals a lot about how she might operate as president.

LIKABLE ENOUGH

Clinton was the third woman to be secretary of state after Madeleine
Albright and Condoleezza Rice. She sailed through her confirmation hearings
promising to use “smart power,” a wonky variation on “soft power,” which
was a too-girly-sounding strategy. Smart power implied a more equally
distributed application of the military and the softer powers—diplomatic
and development tools—than had been the norm in the George W. Bush years,
when belligerent “military-think” predominated.

Clinton’s job, as Barack Obama imagined it, was to win back some friends
for America after the middle-finger stance of the W years. And according to
a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project,
she did that. In 2008, America’s overall favorability rating hit abysmal
lows—in the 20s and 30s. By 2014, according to Pew, a global median of 65
percent had a positive opinion about America. Some of that was due to Bush
leaving the White House and the hope invested in Obama, but some credit
surely belongs to Clinton.

But her job was about more than refurbishing America’s image. It was about
managing relationships—with heads of state, with fellow Cabinet members
(the State vs. Defense rivalry is one of Washington’s oldest) and with
Obama, not to mention the State Department’s 70,000 careerists. It was her
first run as an executive instead of a first lady, senator, law partner or
chairwoman (of the Children’s Defense Fund). Finally, she had to manage her
relationship to power—for many women, the trickiest relationship of all.

Critics often assume that to be a “great” secretary of state, a major
diplomatic treaty must be crafted or a war ended. But modern secretaries of
state are more managers than Metternichs—they don’t necessarily have the
grand visions of the world that the 19th century Austrian diplomat did.
They confront foes and soothe friends and often they fail. Clinton was no
exception, but her performance rating is of special interest now because
her tenure at State reveals a lot about how she might operate as president.

LIKABLE ENOUGH

Clinton was the third woman to be secretary of state after Madeleine
Albright and Condoleezza Rice. She sailed through her confirmation hearings
promising to use “smart power,” a wonky variation on “soft power,” which
was a too-girly-sounding strategy. Smart power implied a more equally
distributed application of the military and the softer powers—diplomatic
and development tools—than had been the norm in the George W. Bush years,
when belligerent “military-think” predominated.

Clinton’s job, as Barack Obama imagined it, was to win back some friends
for America after the middle-finger stance of the W years. And according to
a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project,
she did that. In 2008, America’s overall favorability rating hit abysmal
lows—in the 20s and 30s. By 2014, according to Pew, a global median of 65
percent had a positive opinion about America. Some of that was due to Bush
leaving the White House and the hope invested in Obama, but some credit
surely belongs to Clinton.

But her job was about more than refurbishing America’s image. It was about
managing relationships—with heads of state, with fellow Cabinet members
(the State vs. Defense rivalry is one of Washington’s oldest) and with
Obama, not to mention the State Department’s 70,000 careerists. It was her
first run as an executive instead of a first lady, senator, law partner or
chairwoman (of the Children’s Defense Fund). Finally, she had to manage her
relationship to power—for many women, the trickiest relationship of all.

She was a celebrity humbly serving a former rival in the Democratic
presidential primaries who had once sneered that she was “likable enough.”
A popular Clinton caricature is the scheming Lady Macbeth. The meme was
born during her husband’s 1992 campaign and refreshed in the decidedly
anti-Hillary best-seller about the 2008 primaries, Game Change, which
gleefully detailed her profane meltdowns in contrast with no-drama Obama.

The giant egos vying for influence in the president’s Cabinet, the vast
bureaucracy of Foggy Bottom and the sprawling mess of global diplomacy all
offered unlimited opportunities to hatch Machiavellian plots. And yet
Clinton was a force for “teamwork and discipline” in the Cabinet, according
to Obama. As secretary of state, Clinton logged nearly a million miles of
air travel (956,733, to be exact), keeping healthy in body and spirit with
Methodist prayers and yoga to deliver calm, and a tiny, talismanic bottle
of hot sauce to ward off colds. During downtime she lived not with her
husband in New York but in spinsterish isolation in Washington with her
nonagenarian mother. “I’d come home from a long day at the Senate or State
Department, slide in next to her at the small table in our breakfast nook,
and let everything pour out,” she recalled in her book.

Obama hoped having Clinton run the State Department would give him the
space to devote his greatest energies to domestic matters like the passage
of health care reform (something she had failed to do during her husband’s
time in the White House) and averting an economic depression. She took the
job on the condition that he agree to meet regularly with her. Beyond that
weekly face-to-face, they engaged two to three more times a week on the
margins of larger White House meetings, says Sullivan, her aide. “They
reinforced and supported one another.” During a joint 60 Minutes interview
in January 2013 after she resigned, CBS’s Steve Kroft tried several times
to get Clinton and Obama to reminisce about their political rivalry, but
Obama wouldn’t bite. Their friendship, he said, was based on “trust [from]
being in the foxhole together.”

THE SCHMOOZER

On February 10, 2010, Secretary Clinton and her entourage left the
Snowmageddon of Washington, D.C., and landed a day later in the desert
kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In the blinding sunlight on the tarmac, guards
ushered her to King Abdullah’s retrofitted bus, where she sat across from
the foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, for a ride to the king’s
desert retreat. Inside a deluxe, black, six-top tent, she spent 20 minutes
chatting with the 85-year-old king, teasing him about his foreign
minister’s dislike of camels. After a requisite feast, she and the king
retreated for a four-hour private meeting from which she emerged “smiling
broadly.” She soothed ire over Obama’s prior visit to the kingdom, during
which he had turned to unpleasantries immediately—asking the king to allow
El Al to fly over Saudi territory and for him to receive Israeli trade
ministers. It had been all too fast and too much for the ancient Arab
potentate. “Whoever advised you to ask me this wants to destroy the
Saudi-American relationship,” the king supposedly said.

In Hard Choices, Clinton recounted how she put her friendship with the
Saudi leadership to use. Rights groups were outraged that a 50-year-old
Saudi man was about to marry an 8-year-old girl—an act the child’s mother
opposed but was legal in Riyadh. Saudi courts had rejected the mother’s
plea to stop the marriage. Clinton quietly intervened by phone. “Fix this
on your own, and I won’t say a word,” she recalled saying to the Saudi
authorities. A new judge was appointed, and he granted the child a quickie
divorce.

She used the same personal touch behind the scenes with former Afghan
President Hamid Karzai, an ally who had gone rogue, double-crossed Obama
and was enmeshed in corruption. “Of all the leading members of the national
security team, she had the best ability to talk Karzai down,” a former
spokesperson at State tells Newsweek. “He is prone to say these crazy
things, and she would be the one periodically that would pull him off the
ceiling. She would say, ‘Look, Mr. President, I understand you have all
these competing constituencies. Let’s try to figure out a solution that
works within the context of your politics.” Clinton, the politician,
understood the needs of other pols.

She used the same combination of patience, empathy and celebrity that had
won over a thobe-draped Saudi potentate and the notoriously difficult
Afghan president when confronting one of the greatest crises in the State
Department’s internal history.

Just before Thanksgiving 2010, newspapers were preparing to publish
excerpts from classified documents released by WikiLeaks, including
thousands of diplomatic cables in which far-flung U.S. officials had
regaled Washington with candid critiques of world leaders. French President
Nicolas Sarkozy was described as an “emperor less than fully dressed”;
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was “lost in neo-Ottoman Islamist
fantasies”; Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was “a mistake-prone
control freak.” Clinton was on record saying Saudi donors were “the most
significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide” and
complaining that it was “an ongoing challenge” to get Saudi leaders to
address the problem. The remark was ironic because the Saudis were among
the biggest donors—tens of millions of dollars—to her husband’s Clinton
Global Initiative (now called the Clinton Family Foundation).

Today, although WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange is still holed up in the
Ecuadorean Embassy in London and Chelsea Manning, the
soldier-whistleblower, is in jail, WikiLeaks is basically a blip in the
annals of State Department history. At the time, it was such a crisis that
some speculated Clinton would have to resign as an act of national
contrition.

Instead, she got on the phone. After a long Thanksgiving weekend spent
making hundreds of personal apology calls, she had already done private
damage control by the time WikiLeaks dropped its bomb on Monday morning.
Clinton’s personal relationships and exhausting display of contrition
maintained trust between national leaders after the first great leak of the
cyberage. The episode also positioned her as a battle-hardened government
loyalist when Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security
Agency peeled back the veil on the vast American cyberspying apparatus.

THE MANAGER

Former Bush and Reagan diplomat Elliott Abrams, a leading neoconservative,
thinks Clinton was terrible on the Arab Spring movement and left no worthy
legacy. Still, he gives her high marks for management. “Morale in the State
Department was very high” under Clinton, he says. “She surrounded herself
with some very able young people.”

One of her first administrative acts was to launch the Quadrennial
Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), modeled on the Pentagon’s
Quadrennial Defense Review, aimed at modernizing the structure of the State
Department. The first QDDR focused the department on emerging areas such as
post-conflict resolution and the cyberworld. She created an office for
public-private partnerships and community outreach, and promulgated a
manual for the ethical and legal policy rules for such partnerships.

In the hive of the Building—as State Department hands call the eight-story
Foggy Bottom headquarters, with its 4,975 rooms—Clinton was queen bee. But
she was also the busiest worker bee, ensconced in her elegant seventh-floor
office with fireplace, Oriental carpet and soft homey chairs, reading
briefing books no one else opened and perpetually scratching items off her
legendary checklist. (One adviser believes she was the only top official to
actually slog through the briefing books.) It was the same studiousness
that had earned her plaudits in the Senate when many expected her to be a
show horse.

At State, Clinton reassembled some of her now familiar entourage. It was
Hillaryland redux—personal aide Huma Abedin, who endured the tawdry Twitter
exhibitionism of her husband, Anthony Weiner; politico Philippe Reines; and
Cheryl Mills, the infamously protective former deputy White House counsel,
who defended Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial. But she also tapped
new brains, including Sullivan, who recalls that Clinton insisted upon
hearing from people outside the chain of command. During one early meeting
on the issue of Muslim extremists in Europe, Sullivan says a George W. Bush
holdover, regional expert Farah Pandith, spoke up about how extremism was
affecting communities. Clinton, who had not previously met Pandith, quickly
made her the State Department’s first-ever special representative for
Muslim communities.

“That’s the kind of thing that would happen [often],” Sullivan says. “She
would say...‘I want to hear people speak up and disagree.’”

IDEALISTIC REALIST

Clinton could charm, but she could also make cold calculations about how
much of her resources to expend. “Our challenge is to be clear-eyed about
the world as it is without losing sight of the world as we want it to
become,” she wrote. “I prefer being considered…an idealistic realist.
Because I, like our country, embody both tendencies.”

She was more mechanic than messianic, and she harbored no Wilsonian- or
W-like schemes to make the world safe for democracy. One country in which
she applied her measured approach was Hungary.

In 2010, Hungarians elected a rightist party, Fidesz, that immediately set
about writing a new constitution, shackling the media and restricting
opposition parties and civil society. The anti-democratic trend was more
than a far-off concern because Hungary was about to take its turn at the
helm of the E.U. presidency in 2011. And it was alarming because the
country was a NATO member that had been on a democratic path and now seemed
to be drifting into Moscow’s orbit.

Clinton traveled to Hungary in June 2011, intending to share American
concerns. As was her custom, she asked the embassy to gather members of
civil society groups for a meeting. Ambassador Eleni Kounalakis and her
staff arranged to bring in Hungarian journalists, lawyers and rights
activists, who talked about how they had been systematically shut out of
national decision making. “Secretary Clinton listened intently,” Kounalakis
recalls. “Then she asked the group what they were going to do about it.”

The democratic-minded Hungarians were stunned. The sympathetic, nodding
face of the superpower had raised their hopes that the Americans might take
a robust role in supporting their cause. (The failure of the Eisenhower
administration to support the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956 is
still remembered in Budapest.) Now Clinton was telling them they were still
on their own. It was a “sobering and powerful” message, Kounalakis says,
meant to prod the Hungarians to fight back.

Later that year, the Hungarian parliament passed anti-democratic measures
without the input of civil society groups or opposition parties by a
two-thirds vote. Clinton dove back in, with a letter to Hungarian President
Viktor Orban detailing U.S. concerns. The letter was leaked, and “headlines
roared of the specific concerns that Hillary Clinton and the United States
were expressing over Hungarian democracy,” Kounalakis wrote in a memoir
about her years in Hungary. The gambit worked, and belatedly, European
leaders and EU officials who had ignored the situation began speaking out
about the Hungarian laws.

Weeks later, Hungary’s leaders announced they had “moved too fast” and
needed to “make corrections” in the oppressive laws.

That small victory for Clinton was short-lived. A new Hungarian president
was installed and soon implemented many of the offending laws: diminishing
women’s rights, condemning homosexuality and putting the central bank under
political authority. Today, anti-Semitism is on the rise, and The Guardian
spoke for many when it announced: “Hungary is no longer a democracy.”

Clinton’s modest efforts in Hungary only delayed the inevitable. “Under
ordinary diplomatic constraints she did as much as she could very
effectively,” Kounalakis says. “I am convinced that her leadership and
engagement brought positive change to that country. But, as a realist,
there is a limit to U.S. engagement in the internal affairs of a NATO ally.”

Clinton used soft power and personal clout to help push back on an
authoritarian regime. It didn’t work, but it seems unlikely that any
secretary of state would have had better luck. The U.S. was no more willing
to use force than Eisenhower was almost 60 years ago, and there was no
support from allies for sanctions. The episode illuminates the limits of
U.S. power in the 21st century, and it shows Clinton doing the best she
could with a very weak hand.

THE HAWK

Last year, Mother Jones published a column titled “Who Said It?” that
challenged readers to figure out which hawkish statements were uttered by
Hillary Clinton and which came from Republican Senator John McCain.
Progressives suspect Clinton has neocon in her veins because of her vote to
authorize the use of force in Iraq. They’re probably right. She doesn’t
share McCain’s dismay at the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq on her
watch, but as secretary she was rarely, if ever, the dove in the room.

This became apparent when it came to Libya, long before the notorious 2012
Benghazi attack. The Libya crisis escalated from unrest into civil war
during March 2011. The Arab Spring had come to Libya, and its leader,
Muammar Qaddafi, had vowed to exterminate his opponents. With a
humanitarian disaster looming, the sentiment in the West was swinging
toward intervention.

By the time Clinton landed in Paris on March 14 for a meeting of the G-8,
even Arab League members were calling for “robust” action in Libya, and
Sarkozy was all but brandishing a sword. Clinton sided with two other Obama
national security counselors, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, in supporting
military intervention for humanitarian reasons. Pundits took to calling
them “the three Valkyries,” but in Paris she was in no rush to send bombs
over Tripoli, reflecting the mood in Obama’s situation room. “I was
sympathetic but not convinced,” she later wrote.

Then the Arab League voted to request a no-fly zone over Libya. As
terrified Libyan civilians waited for Qaddafi to start his slaughter,
Sarkozy dispatched French warplanes to Libya without conferring with the
British or Americans. After that, Clinton wrote, “there was no time for
hesitation.” A few hours later, U.S. Navy warships fired more than 100
cruise missiles at Libyan air defenses and ground troops.

Critics blamed America’s reluctance to bomb on a strategy—or lack of
one—that came to be called “leading from behind.” Clinton denies that: “It
took a great deal of leading—from the front, the side, and every other
direction—to authorize and accomplish the mission and to prevent what might
have been the loss of tens of thousands of lives.”

Fair enough, but her willingness to use force in Libya—and her later
eagerness to arm Syrian rebels—makes her complicit in the at best confused,
and at worst failed, American response to the Arab uprisings. The attacks
in Libya left that country in chaos and open to colonization by North
African Islamists, and created the current refugee crisis in the
Mediterranean. Clinton might not be another McCain, but she is a liberal
hawk, convinced that bombs can be humanitarian. And though NATO airstrikes
may have brought an end to Serbian oppression during her husband’s
presidency, in this century good intentions have not often been rewarded.
Like George W. Bush, she promoted U.S. military action that left a
repressive Arab country in anarchy.

HALF THE POPULATION

In 1995, Clinton became the first representative of a superpower to equate
women’s rights with human rights, a seminal moment that made her a hero to
women worldwide. It put the world on notice that if you beat your wife or
denied your daughter an education, it was no longer a private matter.

One of her first acts at the State Department was to appoint her White
House chief of staff, Melanne Verveer, as ambassador-at-large for women’s
issues. “My role…was not to oversee ‘special projects,’” says Verveer, who
has been with Clinton since 1997. “It was to play an integrationist role,
so [women’s] issues would be integrated throughout the State Department.”

Verveer tells Newsweek her chief achievement was collecting and
disseminating data to other nations on how women’s involvement affects
economies favorably: “Data shows women’s participation creates jobs and
influences security. No country doesn’t want to grow its economy.” Other
high-profile women’s initiatives included a public-private project (in
alliance with the Clinton Global Initiative) to bring cookstoves to women
in poverty-stricken areas. On the policy side, Clinton persuaded Obama to
sign a National Action Plan that put the U.S. behind a long-standing U.N.
resolution to involve more women in conflict resolution, peace and security.

With Verveer dispatched around the globe to talk about women, Clinton could
be a feminist without getting on a soapbox. She rarely spoke out publicly,
for example, about the egregious mistreatment of women by America’s allies
in the Gulf. For human rights observers, that reticence was a signal flaw,
but her colleagues say her feminist instincts are unassailable. “We all
know successful women who wouldn’t go near a woman’s issue because that
detracts from her ability to play in the big leagues,” Verveer says. “Well,
Hillary understands you can’t write off half the population in the world.”

BLOOD THINNERS

Coming home after long days grappling with apocalyptic global mayhem,
Clinton relied not on her husband but on her aged mother to help her
unwind. Dorothy Rodham’s death in November 2011 left Clinton alone, and the
pace eventually took a physical toll.

“The exhaustion is always there,” says Verveer. “These are killer jobs,
very hard jobs, especially if you do them in intensive ways.” Clinton had
walked into State exuding energy, and crawled out four years later,
straight into a hospital. She fell and smacked her head during a woozy
episode in what was reportedly a bout with a stomach virus in late 2012.
The accident left her with a dangerous blood clot behind the right ear,
requiring hospital observation and a regimen of blood thinners.

She no longer has to tangle with Putin or Karzai. Now she faces angry
investigative committees. But she’s been here before. Committees have come
and gone, from Whitewater to impeachment, and she’s still around.

Whatever happens to her presidential bid, the years at State seem to have
released her from the defensive crouch she maintained during her first lady
years. Verveer says Clinton has evolved into a happier person. “When we
first got to know each other, she was in a position solely by virtue of her
marriage. How many times did you hear people say, ‘Who elected her?’”

Stints as first lady in Arkansas and the White House are not a good launch
pad for any modern politician, but Clinton captured a U.S. Senate seat in
2000 with a lot more than her last name. Based on résumé alone, Hillary
Clinton is arguably more qualified to run the White House than her husband
was when he got elected president in 1992. In terms of job training, 14
years as governor of Arkansas do not match eight years in the White House
(granted, as a spouse), six in the Senate and four traveling the globe as
secretary of state during one of the most chaotic eras in memory.

Early in American history, secretary of state was a steppingstone to the
presidency. Jefferson was among six men to use it as a rung, but it has
been 160 years since the nation’s top diplomat was elected president. On
our fractious and yet hyper-connected planet, where events in Pakistan
reverberate in New York City, a stint at State ought to be a résumé builder
for the presidency, but as former National Security Council spokesman Tommy
Vietor said to Foreign Policy recently, “I do believe that not a single
voter will make their decision based on her policy towards Burma. You’ll be
lucky if they know where the fuck it is.” Historian Douglas Brinkley put it
more politely: “You’ve got to play big in Des Moines, not in Paris.”

Clinton’s time at State proved the professional “listener” can also make
men listen. Obama affirmed that when he said on 60 Minutes, “One thing I
will always be grateful for” was Clinton’s way with big egos. “We had
[Defense Secretary] Bob Gates and [CIA Director] Leon Panetta and a lot of
strong personalities around the table,” he said, noting she had
“established a standard in terms of professionalism and teamwork.” Gates,
who served in both Bush administrations, was even more effusive in his
praise: “I found her smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded,
indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb
representative of the United States all over the world.”

Beyond the Beltway, Clinton’s stint as America’s top diplomat earned her
other sorts of devoted fans. Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, who is
backing her campaign, has called Clinton “the most consequential secretary
of state since Dean Acheson.”

Sullivan, Clinton’s aide, who admits he is a fan (he also might become the
youngest national security adviser in history if she’s elected), calls her
relationship with the men in Obama’s Cabinet “a high-water mark” of her
term at State. “People leaned forward when she spoke,” he says. For a woman
working in rooms full of men, there is perhaps no higher praise.

What Do Prison Families Think of Hillary's Promises About Mass
Incarceration?
<https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/13/prisoners-family/> // The
Intercept // Liliana Segura - May 13, 2015

Ronald Simpson-Bey remembers the day the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act was signed into law. “April 24, 1996,” he recalls. At the time
he was entering his second decade behind bars and working for Prison Legal
Services of Michigan, helping fellow prisoners with their appeals. The
landmark legislation, signed by President Bill Clinton in the wake of the
Oklahoma City bombing, sharply curtailed the federal habeas appeals of
people in prison, including those facing execution. Simpson-Bey’s office
was already so swamped there was a five-year waitlist for new clients.
Suddenly, all these people faced a one-year deadline to challenge their
cases in federal court. “We panicked,” he recalls. “We were like, oh hell
no.” Incarcerated since 1985 for shooting at a police officer (a crime he
insisted was carried out by an associate who turned state’s witness),
Simpson-Bey was a self-taught paralegal, able to adapt to the stringent new
standards the AEDPA imposed on his own case. But for others, who did not
understand the law, it swiftly closed the door on their federal appeals.
“It was so traumatic,” Simpson-Bey says. “Heartbreaking.”

We were discussing Hillary Clinton’s recent vow to “end the era of mass
incarceration,” a lofty promise that would mean undoing decades of criminal
justice policy, including sweeping measures enacted by her husband, largely
with her support. The groundwork for mass incarceration may have started
years before, but “Clinton was the biggest prison builder in the country,”
Simpson-Bey said.

The AEDPA was not the first time Clinton had shown how punitive a Democrat
could be. Two years earlier, Clinton had signed the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act (known as the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill) — a grab bag
of “tough on crime” legislation that poured billions of federal dollars
into new prison construction and hundreds of millions in incentive grants
for states to pass Truth-in-Sentencing laws. Then there was the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, which made it more difficult for prisoners to
challenge their conditions of confinement. Supporters said it would curb
“frivolous lawsuits.” But Simpson-Bey, who was part of a historic
class-action in Michigan demanding better psychiatric services and less
time in segregation, knew it was about much more than that. “This was an
era where they were building these prisons and, at the same time, making it
harder for people to get out by denying access to courts,” Simpson-Bey
explains.

Simpson-Bey finally left prison three years ago, taking a plea deal after
his conviction was overturned. In total he spent 27 years behind bars.
Today he works for the American Friends Service Committee and is active in
groups like the recently launched JustLeadershipUSA, which seeks to cut the
US prison population in half by 2030. Simpson-Bey was among the attendees
last week at the InterNational Prisoner’s Family Conference in Dallas, TX,
a volunteer-run gathering of activists, ministries, and people with loved
ones behind bars. Many participants were once in prison themselves. The
presentations were in many ways a devastating reflection of what the
Clinton era wrought: families suffering the stigma and isolation of having
a loved one on a sex offender registry (the 1994 Crime Bill mandated that
states begin tracking sex offenders); fathers trying to overcome barriers
to reentry (Clinton’s 1995 welfare reform banned federal benefits like
housing assistance and food stamps to felons); death row families on the
“disenfranchised grief” of those whose relatives are condemned to die
(Clinton personified the Democrats’ embrace of capital punishment,
attending the execution of a brain damaged man while on the campaign trail
and expanding capital crimes).

As the conference got underway, Clinton himself was making headlines for
telling CNN that his 1994 Crime Bill “cast too wide a net” and put “too
many people in prison.” On the heels of Hillary’s big criminal justice
speech, the political calculus was clear. But in Dallas, no one seemed to
be paying much attention to what either Clinton had to say. Instead, there
were tips to share about navigating the prison bureaucracy that rules so
much of their lives. There was the need to grapple with the “ripple effect”
of incarceration (often referred to by the more clinical “collateral
consequences”) — the way the criminal justice system splits families into
pieces. When veteran activist Barbara Allen described in her thick New York
accent how her late husband’s imprisonment in 1966 marked the start of her
serving her time, the audience murmured with recognition.

Allen founded Prison Families Anonymous on Long Island 40 years ago.
Although she rejects the label “support group” — “we’re a family” – it
provides a space to help other women and families cope with a loved one’s
imprisonment. Despite the overwhelming number of people touched by mass
incarceration, prisoners’ family members often feel invisible – and
compelled to stay that way. One woman recalled making small talk about her
work at a dentist appointment. The dental hygienist waited for her boss to
leave the room before whispering to her, “I’ve got a brother in prison.”
Shame and stigma make the already difficult work of political organizing
even harder. But there is strength in visibility, and in numbers: in
Dallas, the same women whose voices shook because they were new to public
speaking later approached other nervous presenters to encourage them, to
say they’d done a great job.

In this environment, where people shared their most intimate trauma and
talked seriously about healing, bringing up 2016 felt almost crass and out
of place. When I did, the phrase “jumping on the bandwagon” came up again
and again. “I’m not a political animal,” said Carolyn Esparza, the
conference founder, when asked about the election. “I know Hillary said she
wants to end mass incarceration. But to be honest with you, I don’t trust
any politician. Any.” Esparza, a social worker who has spent her career
inside prisons, advocates for juveniles serving long sentences, including
for violent crimes — an issue untouched by candidates for any office.

“She’s trying to get elected,” scoffed Yvette Reeves about Hillary Clinton.
Reeves is married to a man serving a 216-year sentence in California for a
crime he insists he did not commit. Her life sounds like an exhausting mix
of work, prison visits (he’s incarcerated more than 280 miles away), and
efforts to start her own advocacy group, tentatively called Prisoner Family
Nation. She is also determined to fight somehow for the repeal of AEDPA,
which stands directly in the way of her husband’s innocence claim, and
which she says was passed with no real consideration. “Everyone was so
hyped up about Oklahoma and it being domestic terrorism, they didn’t read
it thoroughly,” she said. Just trying to understand the law has taken
enormous energy — “I spend so much time at the law library it’s ridiculous”
— and it angers her that people in prison are expected to apply concepts
that attorneys spend years in law school to comprehend. Hillary may not
have been directly responsible for AEDPA, Reeves says, but as an attorney
she could have looked at the bill more closely. “When I found out that Bill
Clinton was the one that signed it, I was like how could you do this? You
were my favorite president!”

When politics was on the conference program, it was mainly to share
strategies at the most practical level: How to get the attention of a local
representative or legislative aid; convincing Department of Correction
officials who feel like “the enemy” to post information for families on
their websites. Successes can be fleeting – lawmakers will finally grasp
the need for reform only to leave office before a bill can be passed. “Then
we have to start all over again.”

To hear what it takes to win even incremental reforms in a single locale –
then try to multiply the need across the vast map of US prisons and jails –
was to begin to see the contours of mass incarceration on its true,
horrifying scale. It also helped explain the disconnect between the
conference and the presidential race: For decades, “tough on crime”
policies – under Reagan, under Clinton — passed easily, rapidly creating a
prison system of unprecedented proportions. The damage will be much, much
harder to undo. Much of it — in collective trauma, in ruined lives — cannot
be undone. And even a president who is completely sincere about curbing
mass incarceration would have limited means to do so. Dismantling specific
policies will require new legislation – most of it at the state level.
Federal prisons account for only a fraction of the incarcerated population.
And prosecutors still wield enormous power to decide who goes to prison,
for how long.

Still, there are some obvious places to start. Michigan activist Lois
DeMott, whose teenage son, Kevin, spent traumatic bouts in solitary
confinement as a result of his mental illness, pointed to an aspect of the
1994 Crime Bill that should be reversed: “Bill Clinton was the one who
really cut the funding for the college programs,” she says, referring to
the elimination of Pell grants that provided access to higher education to
people behind bars. When it comes to Hillary, “I’m just like, okay, is this
for real? Does she understand that her husband did something that really
set back and harmed not only the people inside, but their families, by
cutting off that education? I don’t know. I’d like to ask her about that.”

To Xavier McElrath-Bey, who scraped by and got his degree in an Illinois
prison right before the funding dried up, taking college courses from
prisoners was the cruelest, most counterproductive thing politicians could
do. Sentenced to 25 years at the age of 13 for a gang-related murder on
Chicago’s South Side, McElrath-Bey grew up amid extreme poverty, abuse and
neglect – he had previously been arrested 19 times, beginning at age nine.
Yet he described how children like him were pathologized as intrinsically
bad. “We’ve come from a generation that they were saying were
‘superpredators,’” he told attendees on the last day of the conference.
“They said that we were incorrigible, that we were beyond repair. They
stated that we were godless, fatherless, heartless monsters. These were
professors and researchers who fed the media the hype of an impending flood
of juvenile crime that never actually occurred.”

The superpredator myth – long since discredited — was perpetuated by
Hillary Clinton herself. The same day McElrath-Bey spoke, Buzzfeed pulled
up a speech she delivered at Keene State University in 1996, in which she
boasted that her husband’s crime policy was designed to rein in juvenile
criminals who “are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds
of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy.”

Dehumanizing kids had consequences. Speaking alongside McElrath-Bey was
Sara Kruzan, who became a victim of sex trafficking at age 11, at the hands
of a man she ultimately shot dead at 16. For this, she was given a life
without parole sentence in California. (I wrote about Kruzan here.) Both
Kruzan and McElrath-Bey are among the lucky ones: Kruzan was released in
2013 after her sentence was commuted. McElrath-Bey left prison by age 30.
Both have devoted themselves to helping kids avoid a similar fate.

If politicians are to be taken seriously, McElrath-Bey told me, they will
have to move past the rhetoric. “If you recognize today that [mass
incarceration] is truly something that needs to be addressed, then you need
not just to talk about it,” he said. “You need to get involved in
addressing these policies. Just as much as we’re expected as offenders and
ex-offenders to take responsibility.”

The closing keynote was Ronald Simpson-Bey. His speech spoke to the way the
criminal justice system divides people into false categories, drawing sharp
distinctions between “victims” and “criminals.” He described how his
mother, after years of enduring abuse, had shot and killed his father. He
described how his own adult son was killed by a 14-year-old and how, for
all his rage, Simpson-Bey fought to prevent the teenager from going to
adult prison because that would only create more harm. Above all, he
emphasized what so many other attendees did – from the formerly
incarcerated supporting hunger strikers in California to families fighting
against video visitation in New York: the people most impacted by mass
incarceration must lead the fight against it. He quoted JustLeadershipUSA
founder Glenn Martin: “Those closest to the problem are closest to the
solution.”

Benghazi Panel Republican Criticizes Clinton on Testimony Plans
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-14/benghazi-panel-republican-criticizes-clinton-on-testimony-plans>
// Bloomberg // Billy House - May 14, 2015

The Republican chairman of a House panel investigating the 2012 attack in
Benghazi, Libya, criticized Democratic presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton for seeking to limit her testimony before his panel to one
appearance.

“Secretary Clinton is insistent she will appear once and only once before
the select committee,” Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina,
chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Thursday in a
statement.

“The committee must be equally insistent that her appearance is thorough
and fully productive,” Gowdy said. “This requires the record to be complete
so the members can effectively base their questions on documents.”

Gowdy also released a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry on what he
said was the department’s failure to produce e-mails and records for top
department officials more than six months after they were first requested.

Gowdy’s committee has been in a standoff with Clinton, the U.S. secretary
of state at the time of the attack.

Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, wrote to Gowdy earlier this month that she
is willing to appear before the committee for questioning once, in public,
but not twice as the panel requested.

Democrats have cast the Republican investigations focusing on Clinton as
being inspired by partisan politics. Republicans want to keep the
investigation and Clinton’s potential appearances before the committee
open-ended, they contend.

The committee has said it doesn’t expect to issue a final report on its
findings until sometime in 2016, the presidential election year.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the
attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and a nearby CIA
outpost.

Multiple Investigations

Republicans have tried for more than two years and through multiple
investigations to prove that Clinton failed to bolster security before the
assault and shared blame for the initial, erroneous account by President
Barack Obama’s administration of what happened.

Those efforts, now concentrated through Gowdy’s committee, were
re-energized with the disclosure earlier this year that Clinton used a
private e-mail address and home server while secretary of state.

Gowdy had requested that Clinton appear for an interview before his
committee to discuss the e-mails during the week of May 18, and again to
more broadly discuss the Benghazi attacks by June 18.

Kendall said in a May 4 response that Clinton previously testified for more
than five hours before House and Senate committees about the Benghazi
attack. Kendall said Clinton was willing testify in public before Gowdy’s
panel, though once, not twice.

Clinton’s Testimony

In her previous testimony in January 2013, Clinton said she never saw a
request for more diplomatic security in Libya, which went to staff members
even though all such communications are addressed to the secretary of state
by protocol.

She responded with an angry outburst when she was questioned on why the
Obama administration didn’t know sooner that the attack in Benghazi didn’t
grow out of a protest.

“The fact is we had four dead Americans,” Clinton told the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys
out for a walk one night who decided that they’d go kill some Americans?
What difference, at this point, does it make?”

GOP Delays Hillary Clinton Benghazi Hearing, Puts Onus on John Kerry
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/gop-delays-hillary-clinton-benghazi-hearing-puts-onus-on-john-kerry-20150514>//
National Journal // Ben Geman - May 14, 2015

The House select committee won't call in the Democratic frontrunner to
testify until the State Department hands over documents.

The GOP-led House panel probing the 2012 Benghazi attack has put off plans
for a hearing with Hillary Clinton, telling Secretary of State John Kerry
in a letter that State's failure to release documents is standing in the
way.

"The only thing standing between the Committee and the former Secretary
being able to discuss her tenure as Secretary of State as it relates to
Libya and Benghazi is the Department of State's failure, in more than half
a year, to produce a single, solitary email responsive to our request and
subpoena," wrote Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Select Committee on
Benghazi.

Gowdy last month had floated the idea of a hearing to take place as soon as
May 18, but now says that lawmakers need more information to inform their
questions to Clinton about the fatal attacks and her use of a private email
server for State Department business.

"There is still the possibility of scheduling the former Secretary's
appearance soon, but that is contingent upon Department of State
compliance," Gowdy wrote.

Democrats on the panel allege that Gowdy is delaying the hearing and
slow-walking the probe for political reasons.

ADVERTISEMENT

The panel's Republicans have put the ball in Kerry's court and still
haven't picked a firm date, but in the meantime, they're preparing for the
high-stakes phase of the probe.

Since House Republicans created it a year ago, the Select Committee has
kept a low-profile by design, doing most of its probe of the fatal 2012
events outside of public view. But the political glare will soon get much
brighter.

A hearing with Clinton will draw massive press scrutiny of not only the
Democratic frontrunner, but also her GOP inquisitors, whom Democratic
lawmakers and Clinton's political allies accuse of using the process to
wound Clinton in the presidential race.

Republicans on the panel have tried to avoid giving off any whiff of
politics, even as the Republican National Committee has sought to batter
Clinton's electoral prospects with attacks on her email practices.

Ask the House Benghazi committee's Republican members about their plans and
you'll get a just-the-facts-ma'am take on the panel's role probing the
fatal Benghazi attack, as well as Clinton's use of a private email system
for State Department business.

"We would be making the same type of inquiry and conducting ourselves in
the same way if it was Secretary Rice or Secretary Powell," said Rep. Susan
Brooks, referring to George W. Bush's secretaries of State.

Gowdy was dismissive when asked about the spotlight on Clinton's appearance
before the panel. "I don't have any control over scrutiny. You guys decide
what's scrutinized and what is not. We have had three public hearings and I
have not mentioned her name," Gowdy said.

DON'T MISS TODAY'S TOP STORIES

“I find them informative and appreciate the daily news updates and enjoy
the humor as well."Richard, VP of Government AffairsSign up form for the
newsletter

Both lawmakers spoke to National Journal ahead of Thursday's announcement.

Clinton's appearance will be a high-stakes political affair regardless of
what Republicans say about their goals. The pro-Clinton group Correct the
Record, which has pushed back against the Benghazi probe, is preparing for
rapid-response as Republicans question Clinton.

Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the group, says they will be "ready and
nimble" with its press work "as required by the antics of Gowdy's political
circus."

The latest flare-up came last week. A committee report on its activities to
date said the panel would call Clinton to testify "once it is satisfied
that all the relevant information has been provided by both the State
Department and her."

Democrats quickly accused Republicans of delaying the Clinton appearance,
noting the report signals that Republicans are backing off their plan to
have Clinton—who has said through her lawyer that she's ready and willing
to testify—appear the week of May 18.

"At every turn, the Select Committee comes up with a new excuse to further
delay its work and then blames its glacial pace on someone else," said Rep.
Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the panel, said last week.

"Republicans are desperately trying to validate the $3 million in taxpayer
funds they have spent over the past year, but they have nothing to show for
it other than a partisan attack against Secretary Clinton and her campaign
for president," he said.

A mid-April letter from Gowdy to Clinton's lawyer said he wanted to hold a
hearing that week on her emails and a second one later about the Benghazi
attacks. Clinton's lawyer this month rejected the idea of two hearings.

But Republicans insist that they're still awaiting important documents and
that the Obama administration's lack of responsiveness has hobbled the
investigation.

And Gowdy said that if they're only going to get one chance to question
Clinton, they need to come armed with as much information as possible.

"I am not going to ask my members, if they are going to have one
opportunity to have a constructive conversation with Secretary Clinton, I
am certainly not going to ask my members to have that conversation without
the documents they need," he said.

"I try very hard not to tell people in your line of work how to do their
job and you all have been really good about not telling me how to do mine,
but at some point somebody does need to ask the State Department [why] six
months is not long enough to produce emails," Gowdy added.

‘Hillary Clinton Sold Her Soul When They Accepted That Money’
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clintons-morocco-117979.html#.VVW74GCJndk>
// Politico Mag // Kenneth Vogel – May 15, 2015

LAAYOUNE, Western Sahara—A day after Bill Clinton feted donors and
dignitaries at an extravagant Moroccan feast under a warm Marrakech night
sky, a group of local Sahrawi Arabs gathered for tea in a far more humble
setting here to share their outrage that Clinton’s family foundation had
accepted millions of dollars from a company owned by a government accused
of repressing their people.

The four men used to work as miners for a subsidiary of OCP, the
state-owned phosphate company that paid more than $1 million to sponsor the
lavish outdoor gala and the concurrent two-day meeting of the Bill, Hillary
and Chelsea Clinton Foundation headlined by the former U.S. president. Its
purpose was to highlight efforts by the foundation, its donors and the
Moroccan government to improve the lives of marginalized people in North
Africa and the Middle East, and Bill Clinton opened the event by praising
OCP, King Mohamed VI and “Morocco’s longstanding friendship to my family
and to the United States.”

The former miners have seen a very different side of Morocco’s government
and OCP. They say the company, formerly called the Office Chérifien des
Phosphates, forced them to retire early and slashed their pensions, leaving
them struggling to scrape by while hiring ethnic Moroccans for more senior
jobs. The miners also told me how they had witnessed first-hand multiple
examples of the “arbitrary and prolonged detention” and “physical and
verbal abuse” that the U.S. State Department says Moroccan authorities mete
out to Sahrawis advocating for independence in Moroccan-occupied Western
Sahara.

“Hillary Clinton sold her soul when they accepted that money,” declared
Mohamed Lahwaimed, who gathered with the other former miners in a second
floor walk-up in the Western Sahara capital of Laayoune, a modern-looking
desert town with a population of 200,000 people about 500 miles southeast
of Marrakech. Wearing traditional Sahrawi dara’a robes and lounging on worn
pillows, they sipped green tea and spoke Arabic. “And now we are concerned
that if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency of the United States of
America, she will take the side of Moroccans even more,” Lahwaimed said
through an interpreter.

Added fellow former miner Lahbib Salhi, “All the tainted money that Morocco
has gathered from taking away our rights has been used to bribe the Clinton
Foundation and the international community.”

The miners—and human rights activists interviewed in Laayoune—put real
faces on abstract criticisms swirling half a world away around Hillary
Clinton’s presidential campaign. The runaway favorite for the Democratic
nomination, Clinton has found herself scrambling to answer suggestions that
donations to the family’s sprawling $2-billion global charity influenced
her actions as secretary of state and could compromise her objectivity as
president.

It’s certainly true that the Clintons have had a long—and
lucrative—relationship with Morocco. Moroccan King Mohamed VI, who was
traveling abroad during last week’s CGI meeting in Marrakech, nonetheless
loaned one of his palaces to Bill and Chelsea Clinton to stay in during the
meeting, according to attendees. The king was listed on a donor roll as
having pledged as much as $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation to help build
Bill Clinton’s presidential library (though the foundation says the
donation never came through), while the state firm OCP has donated as much
as $6 million over the years to the Clinton Foundation’s efforts. Both
Clintons have publicly embraced the king in recent years as an example of
an Arab moderate ruler with whom the U.S. should partner, and leaked
Moroccan diplomatic cables show that Hillary Clinton during her tenure as
secretary of state was seen by Rabat as among its most ardent supporters in
the Obama administration.

There is no evidence that she tailored her official positions to suit
Morocco’s preferences because of personal or financial relationships. But
the overlap between her diplomatic portfolio and the funding for her
family’s philanthropy illustrates the way nearly any foreign donations to
the Clinton Foundation can be viewed through the prism of U.S. policy. And
it highlights why countries, companies and individuals that could benefit
from her past and possibly future public service might be inclined to
support the foundation.

In fact, Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Morocco’s government was
pivotal in brokering last week’s Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) meeting in
Marrakech, according to sources familiar with the foundation’s inner
workings. They say that, as CGI was considering options including Hong Kong
and Singapore for possible international meetings, the former secretary of
state, then serving on the foundation’s board, talked to the King about the
Moroccan option, which emerged as the frontrunner. Mrs. Clinton herself
originally was listed as a meeting host, but she backed out only as her
presidential campaign approached, resigning from the foundation soon after
officially entering the race.

As the campaign kickoff neared, the foundation proceeded with plans to hold
the meeting in Marrakech with funding from OCP despite concerns of some
foundation staffers about the political optics of affiliating with a state
company tied to the occupation of Western Sahara and the controversial
mining of a valuable natural resource, which some observers say violates
international law. The approach the staffers settled on was “just to avoid
using the word ‘Western Sahara’ and stay out of it,” said one source
involved in the planning. “It’s not polite to your host.”

In a statement, the foundation said that it doesn’t have a stance on the
Western Sahara dispute and suggested that the issue didn’t factor into
either the planning of the CGI meeting or the meeting itself. “CGI is not a
political or diplomatic organization. CGI does not take political positions
on issues and it’s critical to our mission that we do not,” said the
statement. “The purpose of the CGI Middle East & Africa meeting—like all
CGI meetings—is to encourage meaningful Commitments to Action that address
many issues, and that will ultimately expand access to clean water, create
new employment opportunities for young people, and empower women and
girls.”

The foundation has not facilitated any projects in Western Sahara,
officials said, and the plight of the territory was not mentioned at all
during the official proceedings last week in Marrakech.

When Politico broached the issue to one CGI meeting participant who works
in the region, he stalked off. Another participant who witnessed the
exchange urged Politico to refer to “the Southern Provinces” of Morocco,
not the Western Sahara, explaining “you don’t use those words here. Those
are fighting words.”

Jeb Bush Taunts Hillary Clinton Over Not Taking Questions
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/14/jeb-bush-taunts-hillary-clinton-over-not-taking-questions/>
// NYT // Michael Barbaro - May 14, 2015

RENO, Nev. — Jeb Bush has a pointed message for Hillary Rodham Clinton: I’m
willing to face tough questions. You’re not.

“You can’t script your way to the presidency,” Mr. Bush said of Mrs.
Clinton at a stop in Reno on Wednesday.

Fielding questions from residents, Mr. Bush repeatedly mocked Mrs. Clinton
for avoiding formats in which she might encounter unexpected questions from
potential voters and reporters. Those are the kind of formats, Mr. Bush
suggested, that he relishes and seeks out.

“I was watching Fox last night,” Mr. Bush said. “Somebody had actually
counted up the times that Hillary Clinton had been asked a question. I
think she’s been asked six times by the press. In public settings, I don’t
know that she’s been asked any questions.”

He added, “I’ve been asked hundreds of questions both from the press and
from people.”

Expanding upon his critique, Mr Bush said, “Everybody else does speak to
the press and have town hall meetings where they aren’t scripted.”

“That’s part of the process. You can’t script your way to the presidency —
put yourself in a protective bubble and never interact with people, only
talk to people who totally agree with you. It’s not going to work.”

Mr. Bush brought up Mrs. Clinton again by poking fun at a long-winded
question from one man in the audience.

“You wouldn’t have been able to get it into a Hillary Clinton event,” Mr.
Bush said.

Nicolle Wallace to Carly Fiorina: Hands off Hillary
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/nicole-wallace-to-carly-fiorina-hands-off-hillary-117940.html>
// Politico // Glenn Thrush - May 14, 2015

Nicolle Wallace, co-host of The View and longtime aide to Jeb and George W.
Bush, thinks GOP hopeful Carly Fiorina should lay off of Hillary Clinton,
the only other woman to enter the 2016 race so far.

Fiorina, the conservative former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and failed
California Senate candidate, opened up her long-shot campaign for the
Republican presidential campaign with a sharp attack on Clinton – and has
been lambasting the former secretary of state for months.

“Mrs. Clinton, name an accomplishment,” Fiorina said at the Conservative
Political Action Conference earlier this year – and when Clinton released
her announcement video in April, Fiorina responded with a Facebook jab,
remarking, “She’s not the woman for the White House.”

“Her role in the Republican field has been to be the most sort of strident
critic of Hillary Clinton’s, which is interesting to me as well. Why does
that fall to a woman?” Wallace told chief political correspondent Glenn
Thrush during a taping of this week’s POLITICO podcast.

“You know, I don’t want to be the chick police, but I think that Carly will
go far by broadening the attack to everything that’s wrong with the liberal
approach as opposed to being the thorn in Hillary Clinton’s side,” added
Wallace, who has been making the rounds promoting her new novel, “Madame
President,” which she calls a “fantasy” in which women also serve as
defense secretary and White House chief of staff.

“She runs the risk of having it look personal,” Wallace added. “But it’s
certainly up to her, if she thinks she’s found her niche as the No. 1
Hillary Clinton critic, I’m sure she’ll get a lot of attention.”

Wallace, who worked on the McCain-Palin campaign, noted that Clinton
refused to pointedly attack Palin – even after being asked to do so by
members of Obama’s male-dominated inner circle; she said that Palin
returned the favor by pulling her punches against Clinton.”

She predicted the current spate of stories about questionable fundraising
by the Clinton family foundation – and the candidate’s use of a “homebrew”
email server to avoid State Department-mandated disclosure rules — wouldn’t
have much of a long term effect. “No one thinks they don’t do shady things,
but it’s like the cake has been put in the oven: It’s cooked for 40
minutes, it rose, it’s on the counter already. You can’t change the cake …
It’s the Clinton cake. It’s what’s in it, it’s what people know is in it,
and they eat it anyway,” she added.

There is one thing that could sink the Clintons, according to Wallace:
Detailed reporting on a serious schism between the former first family and
the current one.

“She and the Obama White House really, really hated each other,” Wallace
said. If that came out, “I think that would confound a lot of Democrats,”
she added.

Hillary Clinton Pens Beautiful Letter To Lesbian Couple Featured In Her
Campaign Announcement
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/hillary-clinton-lesbian-letter_n_7283350.html?ir=Politics&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016>
// Huffington Post // JamesMichael Nichols - May 14, 2015

2016 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton made another display of
solidarity this week with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)
community by penning a beautiful letter to the lesbian couple featured in
her campaign announcement video.

Kassie Thornton and Christy Spitzer opened their mailbox this week to
discover the letter from Clinton, which thanked the pair for their
involvement in the video and for their involvement with the lives and
struggles of queer youth. Spitzer was a producer on MTV's "It Gets Better"
specials, programs that enhanced the visibility and stories of young LGBT
individuals."It's not every day that you open your mailbox to find a letter
of gratitude, love, and support from the potential first female president
of the U.S. We felt so honored, touched, and downright humbled," Spitzer
and Thornton told The Huffington Post. "We are blown away that she is a
heartfelt supporter of the 'It Gets Better Project,' and is aware how
important their powerful message is. The organization does positive things
for many young people all over the world!"

The couple was especially moved by Clinton's well wishes for their upcoming
nuptials. Spitzer and Thornton told The Huffington Post they "hope she can
come celebrate our love and future with us and our loved ones," joining
another same-sex couple featured in the announcement video in inviting
Clinton to attend their wedding.

"For Ms. Clinton to thank us for being part of her video announcement and
to know that we are getting married [in June] is just unbelievable,"
Spitzer and Thornton said. "Simply amazing!! Like screaming out loud
amazing! We hope she can come and celebrate our love and future with us and
our loved ones! And we hope she uses her plus one wisely!"

According to NewNowNext, Spitzer and Thornton met four years ago while both
living in New York City. Did you miss the original announcement video
featuring the happy couple? Check it out below.

Q: How much of a factor will Hillary Clinton's gender be in the 2016
presidential race?
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/2016-hillary-clinton-gender-20150515>
// National Journal // Sarah Mimms – May 15, 2015

DEMOCRATS (82 VOTES)

A lot: 43%

Some: 48%

Very little: 8%

None: 1%

A lot

"Just because we had an historic barrier-breaking presidential candidate
the last two times doesn't make this any less significant."

"There is a huge constituency that wants to see the ultimate glass ceiling
broken."

"College campuses are really excited about her in large part because they
think it's time for a woman president."

"The GOP just can't help itself when it comes to women's issues, from pay
to health, and they are certain to become a gaffe-factory if she's the
nominee."

"Own it this time, Hill."

Some

"As a contrast against a mostly male Republican field, it will help, though
other factors are vastly more important."

"There are a couple generations of women ready for this ... and they will
be a force behind the candidate; will it be enough to offset the hate?"

"A contributing factor—more positive than negative—but doesn't replace her
need to present her own vision of the nation."

"There are voters that will absolutely vote for her based on her gender,
but it's more likely there are a lot more men that will vote against her
because she is a woman."

Very little

"The social-science research is very clear that the gender of the
candidates is not a predictor of the vote. The voters most excited about a
woman candidate are female Democrats, who would vote for whomever the
Democratic Party nominates."

REPUBLICANS (79 VOTES)

A lot: 46%

Some: 46%

Very little: 7%

None: 1%

A lot

"It's not a factor—it's the only factor."

"A lot if GOP nominates a white guy; none if they nominate a minority or a
woman."

"Breaking the glass ceiling is her strongest suit—if she were a man, this
would be a far different race."

"You can bet that the Clinton fortress will include arguing to vote against
her is to be anti-woman."

"If Bill Clinton had a brother with a lackluster record of achievement, a
penchant for secrecy, limited political skills, and low likability, he
would not be the Democrats' only option."

"If female voters turn on her, she's done."

"As Republicans tack harshly to the past, especially in support of
restrictions on reproduction rights and marriage equality, the country will
again likely view the election of a 'first' as a watershed moment for
America's future."

Some

"But not as much as she'd like."

"There's undoubtedly a segment of women [for whom] this is the deciding
factor."

"There's always a thirst for 'firsts,' but [Obama] has nearly quenched it."

"She's run before and been a major national player for 25 years. The
novelty has worn off."

"What if men decide to only vote for men? This whole premise is a bad road
but unfortunately part of the liberal narrative, and it works."

Very little

"It will get her some votes, but it will mostly be about her record as an
individual rather than her [as a] representative of a class. Most female
votes will be anti-Republican rather than pro-[Hillary]."

None

"Email servers are gender neutral."

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hillary’s Got A Friend: James Taylor Backs Clinton For President
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/14/hillarys-got-a-friend-james-taylor-backs-clinton-for-president/>
// Daily Caller // Kaitlan Collins - May 14, 2015

In an interview Thursday, James Taylor said he thinks Hillary Clinton is
the “public servant” who can bring the country together, and that he’s
backing her for president.

“Aside from the fact that she’s a woman running, she’s the right person,”
the 67-year-old said. “The whole point — black or white, male or female,
gay or straight, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist — it doesn’t matter
what these other connections are.”

He also said that Obama is his “favorite, favorite” president, and said he
had “a tough time” during the Bush-Cheney administration.

“I had a hard time accepting that that administration represented me
because I don’t think they did,” Taylor said. “I’ve been watching politics
since Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, and
Obama is my favorite, favorite president.”

"I am just thankful for every day that he’s in office. I am so proud that
he represents my country and I think he represents me — I think he
represents the America that I know.”

Taylor performed at the Democratic National Convention in 2012, and also
sang “America the Beautiful” at Obama’s second inauguration.

Hillary Clinton’s litmus test for Supreme Court nominees: a pledge to
overturn Citizens United
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/?postshare=2061431647221592>
// WaPo // Matea Gold and Anne Gearan - May 14, 2015

Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is
elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her
belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned,
according to people who heard her remarks.

Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and
unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered
the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party
financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the
Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those
present.

"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme
Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision,
said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the
private session.

If the make-up of the court does not change by 2017, four of the justices
will be 78 years of age or older by the time the next president is
inaugurated.

Clinton also reiterated her support for a constitutional amendment that
would overturn Citizens United, a long-shot effort that is nonetheless
popular among Democratic activists.

"She said she is going to do everything she can," the attendee said. "She
was very firm about this – that this Supreme Court decision is just a
disaster."

A campaign spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Clinton has made overhauling the current campaign finance system one of the
major planks of her campaign, even as she has tacitly endorsed the efforts
of two big-money super PACs working to help get her elected in 2016 --
Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record. Advisers have said that they
cannot reject such vehicles when they are being vigorously embraced by the
Republican field.

The former secretary of state spoke and took questions for about 45 minutes
in a converted warehouse on a pier in Brooklyn's Red Hook neighborhood,
with sweeping waterfront views of the Manhattan skyline and the Statue of
Liberty. The fundraisers on hand for the meeting -- a mix of longtime
Clinton backers and bundlers who played major roles in the campaigns of
President Obama -- had all raised at least $27,000 for her campaign.

In response to questions from the group, Clinton spoke about the need for
renewable energy and strongly endorsed Obama’s free community college plan.

She avoided taking a position on the controversial Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade accord, saying she first wants to see what comes out of
Congress.

Afterward, Clinton stayed and shook hands for 45 minutes. There was no
sense that old Clinton loyalists had higher ranking than newer supporters,
attendees said. “She spent time with every single person -- new friends and
old friends equally," said a second participant.

Hillary Clinton Enlists Bigger-Name Backers in Novel Ways
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/14/hillary-clinton-enlists-bigger-name-backers-in-novel-ways/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Politics&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman - May 14, 2015

In previous presidential election cycles, campaigns have sent out press
releases that screamed the news of endorsements received. In 2008, when
Hillary Rodham Clinton was the considered the early front-runner,
endorsements were a gauge of support used by reporters and others.

This time around, the press releases blaring about supporters have not come
to pass. But Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is approaching endorsements
differently. They’re not promoting support every time it hits — an act that
could be construed as adding to a sense of inevitability.

Instead, the campaign’s endorsers are focusing on organizing in their
states. In Minnesota, Gov. Mark Dayton has quietly endorsed Mrs. Clinton
but is focused on getting people to knock on doors and sign up supporters.
He hosted an organizing meeting on Monday night, where, according to
reports, he told people they “haven’t lived until you’ve gone door-knocking
in Iowa in January.”

The same was true in Ohio, where former Gov. Ted Strickland, a current
United States Senate candidate and a staunch supporter of Mrs. Clinton in
the 2008 campaign, has tried to rally activists and headlined organizing
meetings. So has Representative Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, former
Representative Russ Carnahan of Missouri, and officials in Massachusetts
and Rhode Island.

In Georgia, there was a kickoff event last week with some of Mrs. Clinton’s
supporters.

The goal is to mobilize her supporters, simultaneously building up support
in all 50 states but engaging people willing to visit the early-voting
states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to draw voters out early
next year in the caucuses and primaries.

The Brooklyn Democratic Party Has Endorsed Hillary Clinton
<http://observer.com/2015/05/the-brooklyn-democrat-party-has-endorsed-hillary-clinton/>
// Observer // Ross Barkan - May 14, 2015

The Brooklynite mayor may not be ready for Hillary, but the Brooklyn
Democratic machine sure is.

In a sudden decision last night, the Brooklyn Democratic Party’s executive
committee voted unanimously to endorse Hillary Clinton for president. There
was only one abstention.

The motion to take the vote was made by Lew Fidler, a Democratic district
leader and former city councilman.

“Proud to say it was my motion,” Mr. Fidler said in an email. “I think that
makes us the first county in!”

Indeed, no other county organization in the city has formerly endorsed Ms.
Clinton. The vote to back the former New York senator and secretary of
state was not initially planned, according to one attendee. The Democrats
had gathered at the United Progressive Democratic Club, the home club of
Assemblyman William Colton, in Bath Beach to discuss other matters.

But Ms. Fidler’s sudden motion was received warmly. Ms. Clinton, whose
campaign headquarters are in Downtown Brooklyn, is the unquestioned
front-runner for the Democratic nomination. She is expected to carry
heavily Democratic New York State.

The Kings County Democrats don’t have the clout it did decades ago, though
it remains the largest organization–in terms of the number of registered
Democrats it presides over–in America.

Still, the Democrats are spurning one of their own. Ms. Clinton’s only
primary challenge so far is from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a native
Brooklynite. Mr. Sanders grew up in Brooklyn and attended James Madison
High School, the alma mater of Hillary backer Sen. Charles Schumer.

After college, he moved to Vermont to begin his political career elsewhere.

Hillary Clinton Woos Donors Visiting Campaign Headquarters
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/hillary-clinton-woos-donors-visiting-campaign-headquarters-31053356>
// ABC News // Lis Lerer, Associated Press - May 14, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton promised her most loyal supporters Thursday she will
present a more authentic version of herself during her 2016 campaign for
president than she did eight years ago.

Clinton told a group of several hundred "Hillstarters," donors who have
raised at least $27,000 for her campaign, that she had learned from her
failed run in 2008.

Asked by one whether voters would see the Clinton who came to tears in a
New Hampshire restaurant when asked how she managed to stay upbeat, the
former secretary of state said she plans to find ways to show more of her
personal side.

"Hillary said, 'Well, that's really on me to make sure I get enough rest,
to make sure I think and reflect, and (that) I don't micromanage too
much,'" said former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, who attended the event at a
banquet hall in Brooklyn with views of the Statue of Liberty.

Bayh said he and other donors at the meeting had noticed a change in
Clinton since her previous run for the White House. "There's something in
some ways about being unsuccessful that can be liberating," Bayh said.
"She's embraced this, in a joyful spirit."

Clinton encouraged the group of donors to find others who had not yet given
to her campaign, Bayh said, but she didn't make a plug for them to give
money to Priorities Action USA, the super PAC backing her candidacy. Yet
Clinton also noted such outside groups were "sprouting up like mushrooms"
on the Republican side, he said.

Lunch was not on the day's itinerary — an effort by campaign manager Robby
Mook to demonstrate the campaign's frugal style to the people who will pay
for it. Bayh and the other donors got a series of briefings on polling,
strategy and communications, along with a tour of Clinton's campaign
headquarters.

There was no mention of the recent criticism of the Clinton Family
Foundation and the tens of millions of dollars in speaking fees collected
by former President Bill Clinton while his wife was secretary of state,
aside from pollster Joel Benenson's note that Clinton's numbers remain
steady despite a "couple tough news cycles."

There was also no discussion of her potential Republican opponents, whoses
support was described as "static" by Clinton's staff, Bayh said.

Clinton's stop at the fundraising event was her first visit to Brooklyn
since formally launching her campaign last month. She also spent time at
her campaign headquarters, where she spent an hour mingling with staff who
have recently joined her operation. Clinton told the dozens of new aides
that while winning is important, she also wants them to "have fun," said
spokesman Nick Merrill.

While in the neighborhood, she stopped at a pizza shop, a toy store and a
local nonprofit. She chatted with customers, ordered a salad and purchased
two rompers and a children's book for her granddaughter, Charlotte.

Next week, Clinton will return to more politically competitive terrain,
with stops planned in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Hey Brooklyn, Hillary Clinton has arrived
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-2016-election-brooklyn-visit-117967.html>
// Politico // Annie Karni - May 14, 2015

On her first trip to Brooklyn since declaring her candidacy, Hillary
Clinton bought two rompers and a children’s book and had a salad at a local
pizza shop.

Ahead of a finance meeting in Red Hook for Hillstarters — fundraisers who
raised $27,000 from 10 donors — Clinton made a visit to her campaign
headquarters at 1 Pierrepont Plaza, where the campaign staff currently
occupies one full floor of the building. (The campaign is expected to
eventually expand to two floors of rented space there.)

Clinton shook hands with staffers who had yet to meet her and reconnected
with some familiar faces from her previous campaigns. She told the group:
“It’s important to win, but it’s also important to have fun,” according to
spokesman Nick Merrill.

After about an hour of hand-shaking, Clinton took a short walking and
shopping tour of Brooklyn Heights.

She visited the toy store Area Kids, where she bought a romper, presumably
for her grandchild, and the local nonprofit Brooklyn Women’s Exchange Inc.,
where she bought a second romper and the children’s book “Simpson’s Sheep
Won’t Go To Sleep.” For lunch, she had a salad from Monty Q’s, a pizza
place.

Clinton was being filmed by a campaign operative and was accompanied by
longtime aide Huma Abedin and Merrill.

She arrived at the Red Hook finance meeting just after 3 p.m. in her
“Scooby” van and did not take questions from the media as she entered.

Hillary Clinton just had her first big outing in Brooklyn
<http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-shopping-in-brooklyn-2015-5>
// Business Insider // Colin Campbell and Hunter Walker - May 14, 2015

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dropped by at least two small
businesses near her campaign headquarters in Brooklyn, New York on Thursday
afternoon.

Employees who saw Clinton told Business Insider she purchased a salad, an
iced tea, and a dress for her granddaughter. Both of the businesses visited
by Clinton are located on Montague Street in Brooklyn Heights.

According to the New York Times' Maggie Haberman, who tweeted about the
walk, it was Clinton's first visit to the neighborhood near her new office
since she announced her presidential campaign last month. Clinton stopped
by the toy store Area Kids and the pizza place Monty Q's.

Clinton Santana, an employee at Area Kids, told Business Insider that
Clinton was accompanied by her top aide, Huma Abedin, and several
photographers.

"She was in here for about five to ten minutes," Santana said of Clinton.

According to Santana, while she was at Area, Clinton posed for a picture
with the staff and purchased a "Royal Flower Wrap Neck Dress" from
Nordstrom's "Tea Collection." The dress is sized for children from the ages
of 12 to 16 months. Santana said his co-worker informed him Clinton
purchased the dress for her granddaughter, Charlotte, who was born last
September.

At Monty Q's, an employee named Edmonda said Clinton "got a salad."

"No pizza for her, she couldn't have no pizza," Edmonda said.

Clinton also got a beverage.

"We had some fresh tea made, so she got one of those, an ice cold tea,"
Edmonda said.

The restaurant's staff were apparently quite pleased to meet Clinton.

"We were so excited to see her. ... She was very kind, very nice," Edmonda
said. "She actually asked the owner to take a picture with all the staff."

The Monty Q's staff may have gotten a picture with Clinton, but according
to Edmonda, the presidential candidate did not leave a tip. However,
Clinton rejected the restaurant's offer of a free meal.

"We offered her to get a free salad, but she wanted to pay for it, so she
had somebody pay for it," Edmonda explained.

During Clinton's walk on Montague Street, multiple people snapped pictures
of her and posted them to social media.

Hillary Clinton explores Brooklyn Heights neighborhood
<http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/05/8568115/hillary-clinton-explores-brooklyn-heights-neighborhood>
// Capital New York // Dana Rubinstein - May 14, 2015

On Thursday afternoon, a Brooklyn Heights pizzeria got an unannounced visit
from Hillary Clinton. She ordered a salad.

“We weren’t surprised,” said George Chamoun, the owner of Monty Q's, the
16-year-old brick oven pizzeria on Montague Street, just a few blocks from
Clinton’s One Pierrepont offices. "We figured she was going to be around.”

According to the Transport Workers Union, which has offices nearby and
shared a photo with Capital, Clinton arrived around 2:30 p.m.

Chamoun said she ordered a romaine lettuce salad known as “Fire and Spice”
which, according to the menu, retails for $7.50 and comes with grilled
chicken, black beans, corn, grape tomatoes, tortilla strips and a “spicy
cream poblano dressing.”

Chamoun offered to buy it for her. She declined. But she took pictures with
the staff and was, he said, “very nice.”

He also thinks she's got a "pretty presidential" background.

But that doesn't mean he’s voting for her, at least not yet.

“I’m on the fence right now,” said Chamoun, who wouldn’t say with which
party he’s registered. “There’s a lot of things that I would like to see
move another way before I could really vote for her.”

What are his concerns?

“The phone things and the text messages and the emailgate, that's bothering
a lot of people," he said."I don't think I'm the only one that's bothered
with it ... What's in there? Is there something that she’s hiding? Is there
something that the public she should know about?"

A spokesman for Clinton had no immediate comment.

Hillary Clinton adds third Chicago fundraiser: Hits hometown May 19, 20
<http://chicago.suntimes.com/lynn-sweet-politics/7/71/606033/hillary-clinton-adds-third-chicago-fundraiser-hits-hometown-may-19-20>
// Chicago Sun Times // Lynn Sweet - May 14, 2015

WASHINGTON – Not wanting to leave any campaign cash on the table,  2016
Democratic White House hopeful Hillary Clinton is adding a third fundraiser
to her Chicago schedule when she hits her hometown next week.

Manilow is a member of Chicago’s Crown family. A cousin Susan Crown,  is a
major fund-raiser for Jeb Bush.

The addition according to an invitation obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times:
A $2,700-per-person May 19 reception will be at the Chicago home of Barbara
Manilow, a longtime major donor and fund-raiser for President Barack Obama
and other Democrats.

Last week I reported Clinton comes home on May 20 for major fundraisers at
the homes of two longtime supporters, business executives Fred Eychaner and
J.B. Pritzker and his wife, M.K.

The invitations for those events, obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times, said
“Please join us for a conversation with Hillary Rodham Clinton in support
of Hillary for America.”

Jeremy Hallahan, the Illinois Finance Director for Hillary for America in
an e-mail to prospects about the added Manilow event said, “It is very
exciting to have our first Hillary event in Chicago in less than two weeks.
We had such a strong response, and spots are filing up so quickly that we
are adding another stop in Chicago! On Tuesday, May 19th we are adding an
additional reception with Hillary Clinton. If you or your friends cannot
make the 20th, please join us on the 19th!”

The events are the first Chicago visits for Clinton since she declared for
president last month.

The fundraiser at the home of Eychaner, one of the major Democratic donors
in the nation, is from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

J.B. Pritzker is a longtime Clinton backer. He was a major supporter and
fundraiser when Clinton ran the first time in 2008, even as his sister, now
Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, was the national finance chair for
President Barack Obama. The Pritzker event will run from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30
p.m.

The ticket price is $2,700 per person. Anyone who raises $27,000 becomes a
“Hillstarter.” Hosts of the event are being asked to raise $50,000.

The 270 is a reference to the number of electoral votes needed to become
president.

Clinton organizing meeting in Newton
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/05/14/clinton-organizing-meeting-newton/IgVPcZYHhmzS7zHN7HeE9I/story.html>
// Boston Globe // Frank Phillips - May 14, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign is moving quickly to get
Massachusetts activists behind her candidacy, a move some see as an attempt
to send a message to Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is under heavy pressure
from supporters across the country to jump into the Democratic race and
challenge Clinton.

The latest is a big get-together of pro-Hillary Democratic activists Sunday
in the liberal Newton-Brookline-Somerville-Cambridge nexus, a hotbed of
Warren-mania. The event will be at the American Legion Nonantum Post 440 in
Newton, a large venue for such an early event billed as grassroots
organizing.

The Warren folks dismiss the notion that the Clinton campaign-sponsored
get-together is designed to muscle the Massachusetts senator on her own
turf. For one, they insist Warren is not and will not be a presidential
candidate. That Clinton is doing this sort of field work across the
country, in almost every state, also undercuts the theory.

Still, Clinton’s foray into the home states of three Democratic long-shot
challengers — Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Martin O’Malley of Maryland,
and Bernie Sanders of Vermont — has underscored reports that she is leaving
nothing to chance in rounding up the party’s grassroots activists early.

Here in Massachusetts, her campaign has hired Erik Balsbaugh, an
experienced field organizer for her in 2008 and for John Kerry’s
presidential bid in 2004, to engage activitists in these early stages

Hillary Clinton books second trip to Iowa
<http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/05/14/hillary-clinton-iowa-trip/> //
USA Today // Jennifer Jacobs - May 14, 2015

A month after the debut Iowa visit of her 2016 presidential campaign,
Democrat Hillary Clinton will return to the first-in-the-nation voting
state next week.

Clinton will be in the state on Monday and Tuesday, spokeswoman Lily Adams
told Iowa reporters Wednesday night. Campaign aides didn’t release the
names of towns Clinton will visit, but said she will do small events
similar to her previous trip that will give voters one-on-one time with her
for questions and idea sharing.

On April 13, the leading Democratic presidential contender came straight to
Iowa after formally announcing her candidacy the day before. Instead of
flying in a private jet from her home state of New York, she rode in a van
nicknamed Scooby because it reminded her of the van in the 1970s TV cartoon
“Scooby Doo.”

The first official event of Clinton’s presidential campaign was in
Monticello, where she spelled out “four big fights” she wants to pursue —
create more jobs, strengthen families, get secret money out of politics and
keep the nation secure. She also said government aid for college costs and
economic fairness are among her priorities.

“I want to stand up and fight for people so they cannot just get by, but
they get ahead and stay ahead,” Clinton said.

Clinton’s campaign aides intentionally designed her three-day Iowa swing to
be a listening tour, staged in small, casual settings, mostly out of the
glare of press scrutiny. Her strategists said she will take a more humble
approach this time than during her unsuccessful 2008 presidential race,
casting the focus away from herself and onto ordinary Americans.

No candidate trip in the 2016 presidential cycle to date has drawn as much
attention in the traditional media or on social media, where people were
tracking her journey and guessing where she was going next.

In late April, Clinton penned a thank-you note to Iowans published in the
opinion section of The Des Moines Register. “I’ll be back soon. Thanks for
having me, Iowa,” she wrote.

Republicans responded to the news of Clinton’s upcoming Iowa visit by
bringing up controversies over Clinton’s use of a personal email server to
conduct U.S. State Department business out of the public eye, and donations
foreign governments made to the Clinton Foundation despite the conflict of
interest for the Clinton-led state department.

“Instead of addressing the concerns of everyday Americans, Hillary Clinton
continues to dodge the growing number of questions surrounding shady
foreign donations and her secret email server,” said Fred Brown, spokesman
for the Republican National Committee.

Hillary Clinton to return to NH on May 21
<http://www.wmur.com/politics/hillary-clinton-to-return-to-nh-on-may-21/33023984>
// WMUR // May 14, 2015

Hillary Clinton will be back in New Hampshire next week for her second
visit since announcing her candidacy for president in mid-April.

A Clinton campaign official told WMUR.com the Democratic presidential
frontrunner will be in the state on May 21, with details of the visit yet
to be disclosed. She will be in New Hampshire on the same day that former
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wraps up a two-day visit.

The Clinton campaign official said the events will be small-scale, similar
to those she has done on previous trips to New Hampshire and other states,
as part of the “ramp up” phase of the campaign.

According to the campaign, the events will be designed to give Granite
Staters the opportunity to ask her questions and share ideas.

Earlier Thursday, the Clinton campaign announced she will return to
first-caucus state Iowa on Monday and Tuesday, May 18 and 19. She has also
visited the early-voting states of Nevada recently and is slated to go to
South Carolina on May 27.

In Texas, Clinton Campaign Revs Up
<http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/13/in-texas-clinton-campaign-revs-up/>
// The Texas Tribune // Patrick Svitek - May 13, 2015

LLANO — The dozen or so Hillary Clinton supporters gathered here late
Tuesday had no illusions that ruby-red Texas would play a key role in
electing the next Democratic president. They acknowledged they may get sent
to other states to phone bank and block walk, and they were told —
repeatedly — not to expect Clinton's campaign to open a brick-and-mortar
outpost in the Lone Star State anytime soon.

Yet they held out hope that the former secretary of state could put up a
fight in Texas, where Democrats are desperately looking for a boost after
devastating losses in last year's statewide elections.

"She may not win this state," said Terry Adkins, a former union official
who recalls registering voters with the Clintons decades ago in the Rio
Grande Valley. "But I do believe she's going to really scare some
Republicans."

The meeting at the back of the Llano Public Library — held on a dreary
evening in the heart of the Hill Country, 90 minutes outside Texas' liberal
refuge of Austin — highlighted the Clinton campaign's first public efforts
to build an organization in a state that rejected President Obama by
double-digit margins in 2008 and 2012. The campaign is decisively
concentrating on the primary in Texas and elsewhere, reflective of a humble
approach to a presidential race in which Clinton has long been presumed as
the Democratic nominee.

Still, as they rally donors and volunteers, some Texas Democrats cannot
help but imagine a general election in which Clinton shakes the party out
of its statewide slump.

"I’m not giving up on the general election in Texas because I think she’s
the kind of candidate who could build on the work Battleground Texas and
other groups have done and make a credible showing," said Carrin Patman, a
Houston trial lawyer who is helping raise money for the campaign. "It may
sound quixotic, but I wouldn’t rule out her putting Texas in play in 2016.”

So far, the campaign's most visible outreach in Texas has centered on what
it calls "old-school organizing." It has dispatched a full-time paid
staffer to Texas through the end of May, part of a broader push to start
building a ground game in all 50 states. The staffer, Manfred Mecoy, has
Texas roots as a UT-Dallas graduate and Fort Worth native, and he comes to
the state with several years of organizing experience in North Carolina and
Ohio. His boss is Lance Orchid, who serves as one of four temporary
grassroots regional directors.

Mecoy is among the activists leading a series of so-called grassroots
organizing meetings this week — Tuesday in Llano and Fort Worth, Wednesday
in Austin and Thursday in Dallas. The gatherings are more or less serving
as listening sessions, with supporters getting the opportunity to weigh in
on what shape they think the campaign should take in Texas.

At the Llano meeting, for example, supporters gathered in a circle and
shared their answers to questions on a worksheet including "What national
issues do you believe are most important to Texans such as yourself?" and
"What presence do you think Hillary for America should have in Texas during
the primary election campaign?" The attendees, some eager to immediately
get involved in the campaign, were told to sit tight as the powers-that-be
chart a long-term plan for Texas.

Clinton allies in the state say the early organization shows the campaign
means it when it says it wants to earn every vote. They point out it is
unusual — if not unheard of — for a Democratic presidential campaign to
install a state-level organizer in a red state like Texas, let alone 10
months before the primary and without a serious opponent.

"She is taking nothing for granted," said Dallas attorney Regina Montoya,
noting that Clinton's operation is not assuming a general election berth.
"She is here to ensure she does well in the Texas primary."

"She's starting now, and I think that's why you see her working as hard as
she is and everyone else working as hard as they are," Montoya added.

As the campaign's organizing in Texas is ramping up, so is its finance
operation. Jennifer Ajluni, the former finance director of the Texas
Democratic Party, is overseeing the campaign's fundraising in Texas.
Meanwhile, Austin-based consultant Yaël Ouzillou is in charge of
fundraising in the South Central region that includes Texas. She played a
similar role on Clinton's 2008 campaign.

Right now, the campaign is focused on recruiting so-called "Hillstarters,"
donors who can raise $2,700 — the maximum limit for the primary — from 10
different people. On Tuesday, the campaign is sending national political
director Amanda Renteria and chief digital strategist Teddy Goff to Austin
to hold a private strategy session with current and prospective
Hillstarters.

A familiar cast of deep-pocketed Texans are expected to open their wallets
for the campaign and have already ponied up for Ready for Hillary. Houston
trial lawyers Steve and Amber Mostyn were among the founding members of the
group's national finance council, while its co-chairs include prominent
Democratic donors such as McAllen developer Alonzo Cantu, CarMax co-founder
Austin Ligon and Fort Worth investor Robert Patton, who co-owns the Los
Angeles Dodgers.

Aiding the Clinton campaign is the months-long efforts of Ready for
Hillary, which held fundraisers and public events across the state while
building a massive list of early backers of a Clinton campaign. Garry
Mauro, a former land commissioner who worked for Ready for Hillary in
Texas, recently said it ended up raising over $600,000 in the state and
signing up more than 200,000 volunteers.

"So we've got a good, solid base," Mauro said on The Ticket, the Texas
Tribune/KUT podcast on the 2016 presidential race. "It's the only campaign
I've ever been involved in — the day she announces, we've got 200,000
volunteers, you know, on our internet, ready to go, ready to put bumper
stickers on. So that's a nice head start."

For Texas Democrats, it remains an open question how the campaign will mesh
with the network of state-level groups working to turn the state blue,
especially as those groups find their footing after getting crushed up and
down the ballot in 2014. Battleground Texas Executive Director Jenn Brown
said in a statement Tuesday that it is "too soon to tell what things will
look like in Texas in 2016 or how Battleground Texas and its supporters
will interact with the president campaign."

Clinton's fans in Texas nonetheless see Battleground as an eventual partner
for the campaign. Some believe the benefits of its work last year will not
be evident until a presidential election cycle, when Democrats tend to turn
out more than they do in midterm elections.

On Tuesday night in Llano, Clinton backers were already floating their
expectations for Clinton's performance in the general election. John
Lightfoot, president of the Llano County Democratic Party Club, said any
prediction has to take into account the reality of Texas' solid-red
electorate.

"If we can get 30 or 35 percent [turnout] and if we can get a good 30 to 40
percent of that for Hillary," he said,"I think we've done a good job."

Democrats 2016: Sanders Now Clinton’s Chief Rival
<http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/democrats-2016-sanders-now-clintons-chief-rival/>
// University of Virginia, Center for Politics // Geoffrey Skelley - May
14, 2015

“Inevitable.” That’s the word often used to describe Hillary Clinton and
the 2016 Democratic nomination. Can anyone beat her? Anything’s possible,
but the odds appear quite low. Still, her most threatening intraparty
opposition could prove to be a man who isn’t even technically a Democrat
(yet, anyway): independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a
self-identified “democratic socialist.” We see him as a potential thorn in
Clinton’s side, and to reflect that, we are moving Sanders to the top of
the non-Clinton tier in our presidential rankings for Democrats.

Some progressive activists are still hoping Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
will get into the race. However, while she reportedly met with some members
of the “Draft Warren” movement in late April, it still seems very unlikely
that the Bay State senator will run. The idea of New York City Mayor Bill
de Blasio (D) running, and doing so credibly, is even harder to fathom than
a Warren candidacy: He’s only less than a year and a half into his first
term, and already he is controversial and has just a 44% job approval
rating (according to Tuesday’s Quinnipiac survey).

Sanders is in a position to fill the void to Clinton’s left, possibly
attracting voters who are skeptical of Clinton because of her ties to Wall
Street and her perceived hawkishness on foreign policy issues. Because of
his issue positions and personality, Sanders could be an attractive
candidate for liberals who want someone to press Clinton on topics like
income inequality, free trade, and her Senate vote in favor of authorizing
the Iraq War (although that vote is now more than a decade old).

On the issues, Sanders was the third-most liberal senator in the last
Congress, behind only Warren and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). His
presidential announcement speech highlighted his goal of creating “an
economy that works for all people rather than a small number of
billionaires” and denounced the role of money in politics, particularly the
post-Citizens United campaign finance system. While a member of the House
in 2002, Sanders voted against the Iraq War and is a leading opponent of
the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and other free trade deals. He has
also favored nixing the Keystone XL Pipeline project, a matter about which
Clinton has remained publicly undecided. These are all positions that will
win him support among progressive and labor groups.

But along with his policy views, Sanders’ personal characteristics may also
make him a potent “protest” option for liberals in the Democratic primary.
He is assertive and knows precisely what he believes in –and is unabashed
in expressing himself. Moreover, Sanders is unlikely to have delusions of
grandeur — he knows he isn’t going to be the presidential nominee — so he
has nothing to lose by pushing Clinton hard.

Looking back at past presidential campaigns, a point of comparison for
Sanders is Eugene McCarthy, the Democratic Minnesota senator and three-time
presidential candidate. McCarthy ran against President Lyndon Johnson in
the 1968 New Hampshire primary and stunned everyone by nearly defeating the
incumbent. The outcome spurred Sen. Robert F. Kennedy to announce his own
candidacy and led to Johnson’s stunning decision to not seek reelection.
Like Sanders, McCarthy had an independent streak, and in fact McCarthy ran
for the presidency in 1976 as an independent. Democrats are relieved that
Sanders has personally pledged not to bolt like McCarthy and play a Ralph
Nader-like role (a la 2000) in the 2016 general election campaign.

To some extent, Clinton may be okay with Sanders potentially becoming her
most serious opponent. Clinton has long known that someone would emerge to
make the Democratic primary battle at least a minimal contest for the media
to cover. Additionally, plenty of party activists in the early states want
some competition in the race. Why not have her main challenger be the very
liberal Sanders, someone who will lack the resources and standing to truly
threaten her? Clinton also knows that she will need the base to turn out
heavily in November 2016, so she has already moved to the left on certain
issues, most recently immigration. Whereas someone like ex-Gov. Martin
O’Malley (D-MD) fits the profile of a more serious challenger to Clinton
(or did at some point), Sanders is a senator from one of the smallest
states, is unknown to most Americans, and cannot defeat Clinton, barring
incredible unforeseen circumstances.

Speaking of O’Malley, his stock has tumbled in light of the recent events
in Baltimore, where he served as mayor prior to becoming governor of
Maryland. Criminal justice policies he implemented as mayor, such as
zero-tolerance policing, have come under fire from critics who believe they
contributed to the long-term problems undergirding the recent riots in
Charm City. O’Malley has said he would announce in Baltimore “if” he runs
for president, a very likely move at this point, but this location won’t
provide an ideal campaign backdrop. Although he has to own and defend his
record as mayor and governor if he’s to remain a credible candidate,
Baltimore’s unrest can and will be used against O’Malley. For the time
being, he is positioned behind Sanders in our rankings.

While we have shifted our Democratic rankings this week, we also have one
change on the Republican side of the ledger: Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI)
announced last week that he will not seek the 2016 GOP nomination for
president, meaning that we can again remove him from the Crystal Ball list.
We had actually taken Snyder out of our rankings weeks ago but brought him
back in our last Republican update because of numerous reports suggesting
he would run. But now that he’s explicitly said he won’t, “one tough nerd”
exits our rankings. That leaves a still-staggering 19 names on our
Republican list, which you can see here.

Hillary Clinton wants to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill
<http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-wants-to-put-harriet-tubman-on-the-20-bill-2015-5>
// Business Insider // Leslie Larson - May 14, 2015

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has added a new issue to her
presidential campaign platform: replacing President Andrew Jackson on the
$20 bill with abolitionist Harriet Tubman.

Clinton tweeted on Thursday in support of making Tubman the first female
face to grace printed US currency.

"Awesome, well deserved—and about time," she tweeted.

With the message, Clinton lent her support to Women on 20s, a movement
advocating for more female representation on US currency.

The movement was co-founded by Barbara Howard, who told Business Insider in
March that Jackson was a prime candidate for replacement given his "mixed
legacy" in support of the forced resettlement of Native Americans in the
1830s.

Tubman was selected in May from a public vote hosted by the group. She was
one of 15 famous female candidates under consideration.

Only deceased public figures are eligible to appear on currency, so Clinton
was not a nominee herself.

Howard, who had previously worked for Clinton, said in March she hoped
Clinton would become president.

"I would support her, but not necessarily on paper money it's very
important to honor those women in the past," she said.

Hillary Clinton tweets support for Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hillary-clinton-supports-harriet-tubman-20-bill-article-1.2222126>
// NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph - May 14, 2015

WASHINGTON —The woman who hopes to be the first female President wants to
ditch Andrew Jackson in favor of placing the first woman on a U.S. banknote
— Harriet Tubman.

“Harriet Tubman could be the first woman on the $20 bill. Awesome, well
deserved — and about time,” Clinton’s account tweeted Thursday afternoon.

Activists have been pushing to get a woman on the $20 bill to replace
Jackson and recently settled on Tubman over three other women after months
of online voting.

The push has been getting support, drawing recent praise from the White
House, and a close Clinton ally, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), recently
introduced legislation to ask the Treasury Department to convene a panel to
discuss putting a woman on the bill.

EXCLUSIVE: Bill Clinton’s travel schedule eyed for ties to Hillary's time
as secretary of state
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/exclusive-bubba-travel-schedule-eyed-ties-hill-article-1.2221467>
// NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph - May 14, 2015

A conservative group wants to see Bill Clinton’s datebook.

The organization Citizens United will release an open letter to the Clinton
Foundation, first shared with the Daily News, demanding his travel schedule.

They want to see when he was in countries on foundation business around the
same time then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the same places on
official government business.

“In light of the fact it’s been recently stated that President Clinton will
continue to be ‘completely focused right now on the foundation,’ not only
should the Clinton Foundation disclose all of President Clinton’s foreign
travel from this point forward, but also release details of his foreign
travel during Secretary Clinton’s time as secretary of state,” Citizens
United President David Bossie says in the letter to the Clinton
Foundation’s board chairman.

The letter points to the Clintons’ overlapping time in Colombia,
highlighted in “Clinton Cash,” a book by conservative author Peter
Schweizer, as an example of a potential conflict of interest.

Citizens United has long been a Clinton antagonist. And Bossie made it
clear that he’s looking to embarrass the Clintons with the letter, calling
the couple “hypocrites to the highest order.”

Bossie cut his teeth as a GOP congressional investigator into the Clintons’
finances during the 1990s, and the organization’s push to show an
anti-Hillary film spurred 2010 the Supreme Court decision that caused a
flood of outside money into the political system.

Clinton’s campaign declined to comment on the letter, deferring to the
Clinton Foundation, which didn’t respond to a request for comment.

'Clinton Cash' publisher corrects '7 or 8' inaccurate passages
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-cash-publisher-corrects-7-or-8-inaccurate-passages-117946.html>
// Politico// Annie Karnia - May 14, 2015

In trying to defuse the potential damage of the buzzy book “Clinton Cash:
The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped
Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” Hillary Clinton’s campaign and its allies
seized on factual errors identified in author Peter Schweizer’s reporting.

Now, at least for Kindle eBook readers, those passages with errors have
been deleted or edited in an updated version of the book.

Amazon on Tuesday blasted out an alert to purchasers of the book — which
investigates alleged connections between the Clinton Foundation donors and
Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department, and debuted at No. 2 on The
New York Times’ best-seller list for the week of May 24 — notifying them
that “significant revisions have been made.”

“An updated version of your past Kindle purchase … is now available,” reads
the email. “The updated version contains the following changes: Significant
revisions have been made.”

Schweizer corrected “seven or eight” passages that were revealed to be
inaccurate after the book was released, according to publisher
HarperCollins.

Among them, Schweizer says in the original version of the book that TD
Bank, a major shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline, paid Bill Clinton
for speeches and then said it would “begin selling its $1.6 billion worth
of shares in the massive but potentially still-born [sic] Keystone XL crude
pipeline project” after Hillary Clinton left office. But as his source on
the sale of TD Bank’s shares, Schweizer used a press release that was
revealed to be fake in 2013.

That passage has been removed from the most recent Kindle version of the
book.

Schweizer also appears to have edited a passage in which he claims Bill
Clinton was paid $200,000 per speech by Irish billionaire Denis O’Brien for
three speaking engagements he delivered in Ireland. The implication was
that, while Hillary Clinton’s State Department was giving O’Brien’s company
taxpayer money through the Haiti Mobile Money Initiative, “O’Brien was in
turn making money for the Clintons.”

But Clinton was not paid personally for those speeches, according to his
spokesman. And the Clinton Foundation was paid for just one of the three
speeches. The new version deletes any mention that Clinton was paid for
those speeches, and edited a claim that Clinton received $225,000 for a
speech in Jamaica sponsored in part by O’Brien’s company Digicel. Another
edit appears to have been made on the timing of a speech Clinton gave in
Jamaica, which was also paid for by O’Brien.

Schweizer’s publisher, HarperCollins, said there was nothing out of the
ordinary about the updates made to the Kindle version of the book.

“This is a routine notification that Amazon sends to previous version
purchasers whenever there is an updated file,” a HarperCollins spokesperson
said in a statement. “The changes that Amazon is referring to as
significant are actually quite minor. We made 7-8 factual corrections after
the first printing and fixed a technical issue regarding the endnotes. This
global fix may have made the changes appear more extensive than they were.”

Schweizer told ABC News last month that he planned to correct some errors
in his reporting that had come to light.

A Clinton campaign spokesman declined to comment.

'Clinton Cash' Author Slams Stephanopoulos, ABC News for 'Massive Breach of
Ethical Standards'
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-14/-clinton-cash-author-slams-stephanopoulos-abc-news-for-massive-breach-of-ethical-standards->
// Bloomberg // Joshua Green - May 14, 2015

When Peter Schweizer appeared on This Week on April 26 to promote his new
book about the Clintons, he got a skeptical grilling from host George
Stephanopoulos. One subject that wasn’t raised? The fact that
Stephanopoulous has personally contributed $50,000 to the Clinton
Foundation, as Politico reported Thursday morning.

With the ABC host’s donations suddenly in the spotlight, Schweizer feels he
got burned. “Really quite stunned by this,” he said in an e-mail. It's “a
massive breach of ethical standards. He fairly noted my four months working
as a speech writer for George W. Bush. But he didn't disclose this?”

Evidently not. In a statement, Stephanopoulos apologized. An ABC News
spokesman told Politico reporter Dylan Byers the network would not take
punitive action against its star host: “We accept his apology. It was an
honest mistake.”

On Thursday, HarperCollins, the publisher of Schweizer’s book, Clinton
Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses
Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, announced that it would make “7-8
factual corrections” to the e-book version. Asked to respond, Schweizer
said, “The corrections are all minor.”

George Stephanopoulos discloses $50,000 contribution to Clinton Foundation
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/george-stephanopoulos-discloses-contribution-to-clinton-207120.html#.VVSiYNO1lLc.twitter>
// Politico // Dylan Byers - May 14, 2015

ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos has given $50,000 to the
Clinton Foundation in recent years, charitable contributions that he did
not publicly disclose while reporting on the Clintons or their nonprofit
organization, the On Media blog has learned.

In both 2013 and 2014, Stephanopoulos made a $25,000 donation to the 501
nonprofit founded by former President Bill Clinton, the foundation's
records show. Stephanopoulos never disclosed this information to viewers,
even when interviewing author Peter Schweizer last month about his book
"Clinton Cash," which alleges that donations to the foundation may have
influenced some of Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state.

In a statement to the On Media blog on Thursday, Stephanopoulos apologized
and said that he should have disclosed the donations to ABC News and its
viewers.

"I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work
they’re doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care
about deeply," he said. "I thought that my contributions were a matter of
public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of
personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air
during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize."

Stephanopoulos is the chief anchor and chief political correspondent for
ABC News, as well as the co-anchor of ABC's "Good Morning America" and host
of "This Week," its Sunday morning public affairs program. Prior to joining
ABC News, he served as communications director and senior adviser for
policy and strategy to President Clinton. He also served as communications
director on Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign.

In its own statement on Thursday, ABC News said it was standing behind its
star anchor.

"As George has said, he made charitable donations to the Foundation to
support a cause he cares about deeply and believed his contributions were a
matter of public record," the network's statement read. "He should have
taken the extra step to notify us and our viewers during the recent news
reports about the Foundation. He’s admitted to an honest mistake and
apologized for that omission. We stand behind him."

ABC News later told the On Media blog that it would not take any punitive
action against Stephanopoulos: "We accept his apology," a spokesperson
said. "It was an honest mistake."

Sources with knowledge of Stephanopoulos' charitable giving said he gives
to dozens of charities every year and that the total sum of these annual
contributions is in the millions of dollars. Those sources said that the
Clinton Foundation contributions represent a very small percentage of the
total.

On the April 26 edition of "This Week," Stephanopoulos interviewed
Schweizer and challenged the author's assertions that Hillary Clinton may
have committed a crime because there was a "troubling pattern" between
donations to the foundation and Clinton's actions as secretary of state.

"We've done investigative work here at ABC News, found no proof of any kind
of direct action," the host told Schweizer. "An independent government
ethics expert, Bill Allison, of the Sunlight Foundation, wrote this. He
said, 'There's no smoking gun, no evidence that she changed the policy
based on donations to the foundation.'  No smoking gun."

Later in the interview, Stephanopoulos said, "I still haven't heard any
direct evidence, and you just said you had no evidence that she intervened
here." He also noted that other news organizations that used Schweizer's
research "haven't confirmed any evidence of any crime."

Among the more notable revelations to come out of Schweizer's research is
the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One, a former
Canadian mining company that was taken over by Russia in 2013 with U.S.
government approval. From 2009 through 2013, Uranium One’s chairman donated
$2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton has said that there is "not an inherent conflict of
interest" between the foundation donations and her decisions at the State
Department. Her campaign has consistently dismissed the accusations as
partisan attacks.

ABC anchor sorry for not disclosing Clinton donations
<http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/14/media/george-stephanopoulos-apology/index.html>
// CNN // May 14, 2015

George Stephanopoulos, the chief anchor of ABC News, apologized on Thursday
for not telling viewers or his bosses about $75,000 in recent donations to
the Clinton Foundation.

The revelations shocked many in the television news industry and prompted
stern reactions from a number of prominent Republicans. Within hours,
Stephanopoulos came out and said he would recuse himself from ABC's planned
Republican presidential primary debate, scheduled to take place next
February.

"I don't want to be a distraction," he told CNNMoney, "so I'm not going to
moderate that debate."

However, Stephanopoulos said, "I am going to continue to cover the 2016
campaign."

In a phone interview -- perhaps intended to stem the damage done by the
revelations -- Stephanopoulos called the donations a mistake and reiterated
his earlier apology.

Stephanopoulos was one of Bill Clinton's closest advisers during Clinton's
first term as president. He is now one of the most-respected and best-paid
anchors at ABC News.

The network is not taking any disciplinary action against him.

"He made charitable donations to the foundation to support a cause he cares
about deeply and believed his contributions were a matter of public
record," the network said in a Thursday morning statement.

"He should have taken the extra step to notify us and our viewers during
the recent news reports about the Foundation," the network continued. "He's
admitted to an honest mistake and apologized for that omission. We stand
behind him."

The existence of the donations was first reported by Politico and the
Washington Free Beacon on Thursday morning.

ABC initially said Stephanopoulos had donated a total of $50,000 to the
foundation, once in 2013 and once in 2014.

Later in the day, he said he'd forgotten about a third donation of $25,000,
back in 2012, so the total is actually $75,000.

All the donations were a matter of public record, and represented only a
small slice of the anchor's annual charitable giving.

In an initial statement of contrition on Thursday morning, Stephanopoulos
said he made the donations "in support of the work they're doing on global
AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply."

"I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record," he said.
"However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally
disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the
recent news stories about the foundation. I apologize."

After the initial news reports, two Republican candidates for president,
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, said they thought Stephanopoulos should not
moderate any 2016 debates.

A number of other Republicans went further and said he should not be
involved in any election coverage while Hillary Clinton is a candidate for
president.

Conn Carroll, the communications director for Senator Mike Lee, tweeted,
"I'm not letting my boss go on ABC until" Stephanopoulos "recuses himself
from all 2016 coverage."

As criticism mounted, Stephanopoulos said he regretted not just the lack of
disclosure, but the donations themselves.

"I gave the donations for the right reasons, for the best of intentions, to
support causes I believe in," he said in the phone interview. "In
retrospect, I realize that even though that falls within our guidelines, I
should have gone above and beyond that, just to avoid anything that would
even raise any possible appearance of a conflict."

"That's why it was a mistake," he said, "and that's why I'm sorry -- to our
viewers and to my colleagues."

With regards to his 2016 campaign coverage, he said, "I think I'll be able
to prove every single day that I do it with intelligence and fairness, just
as I've done for the last 17-plus years."

After stepping down from his White House post in 1996, Stephanopoulos
gradually became one of the best-known television news hosts in the United
States.

He is currently the co-host of ABC's most lucrative news program, "Good
Morning America," and the moderator of the Sunday morning public affairs
program "This Week."

Stephanopoulos said he did not recall whether any of his donations were
actively solicited by the foundation.

He said his only remaining relationship to the Clintons is a journalistic
one.

George Stephanopoulos donations to Clinton Foundation: Immediate crisis for
ABC News
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/05/14/george-stephanopoulos-donations-to-clinton-foundation-immediate-crisis-for-abc-news/>
// WaPo // Erik Wemple - May 14, 2015

ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos contributed a total of $50,000 to the
Clinton Foundation in 2013 and 2014, according to a report by Politico’s
Dylan Byers. The donations came in two tranches of $25,000, reported
Politico, citing foundation records.

How big a deal is this? Large: Stephanopoulos IS ABC News. Though he
doesn’t anchor “ABC World News Tonight,” he is the network’s chief anchor,
meaning that he fronts the network in breaking news situations — or just
when it matters. More: He is anchor of “Good Morning America” and of “This
Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

Now for the Clinton Foundation, the family charity of Bill, Hillary and
Chelsea Clinton. As numerous reports have shown in recent weeks, the
foundation sits at the crossroads of domestic and international power. Big
shots who donate to promote the foundation’s work in economic development,
global health and climate change may also be seeking influence in U.S.
politics.

A donation from Stephanopoulos to the Clinton Foundation in any amount
constitutes a scandal and an immediate crisis for ABC News. Though the
donations in 2013 and 2014 appear to have occurred after Hillary Clinton
left the State Department (in early 2013) and before she announced her
presidential run (weeks ago), come on: Her inevitability as a candidate for
the Democratic presidential nomination has been a Washington fact
throughout this period.

Now for the defenses. First, from Stephanopoulos:

I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work
they’re doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, a cause I care
about deeply. I thought that my contributions were all a matter of public
record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of
personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air
during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize.

And from ABC News:

As George has said, he made charitable donations to the Foundation to
support a cause he cares about deeply and believed his contributions were a
matter of public record. He should have taken the extra step to notify us
and our viewers during the recent news reports about the Foundation. He’s
admitted to an honest mistake and apologized for that omission. We stand
behind him.

Those statements are welcome acknowledgments that the donations are serious
business. Yet were they really an “honest mistake”? Another way of looking
at them is that they were an “honest expression of support” for the ruling
family of American Democratic politics. We trust that Stephanopoulos cares
about global AIDS prevention and deforestation, and a source familiar with
the situation says the donations constitute less than 1 percent of his
annual giving, though the Erik Wemple Blog would need to see his tax
returns to confirm such a figure.

Conflict-of-interest matters are an obsession of this blog, which views the
mixing of money and favors between TV personalities and special interests
as one of contemporary journalism’s most toxic pollutants. The problem with
Stephanopoulos’s $50,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation is that it
gives him a stake — even if it’s a small one — in the operations and
success of the charity. Like any donor, Stephanopoulos wants his money put
to good use and, all else being equal, wants the foundation to prosper as
it invests his money in good works.

Good journalism simply cannot tolerate such a stake. Stephanopoulos already
has a history with the Clintons, having served as Bill’s senior adviser for
policy and strategy. Those ties already had media critics — many of them
conservatives — wary of just how objective he could be in covering a
Clinton-colored political landscape. Now he has confirmed their wariness,
in perhaps the dumbest move by a major media figure in some time.

Does Stephanopoulos have the bona fides at this point to cover the
Clintons? Nah.

ABC News, however, isn’t budging. In a brief chat this morning, the Erik
Wemple Blog quizzed ABC News spokeswoman Heather Riley on whether the
network sees an ongoing conflict of interest. “We stand behind him,”
responded Riley. Can he objectively cover Hillary Clinton? “We stand behind
him,” responded Riley. We posed some other question, and Riley responded
again, “We stand behind him.”

The disclosures shed new light on a tough interview that Stephanopoulos
conducted recently with Peter Schweizer, the author of “Clinton Cash,” a
much-discussed book that pokes at the overlapping worlds of the Clinton
Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s purview as secretary of state from 2009 to
2013. Stephanopoulos grilled the guy, “How does your reporting show that
Hillary Clinton may be unfit for the presidency?” he asked, in kicking off
the session. Over nearly eight minutes, Stephanopoulos kept the heat on,
citing “no evidence at all” that Hillary Clinton was involved in a key
decision discussed in the Schweizer book and pursuing the author over
whether he’d briefed any Democrats about his book, as he did for
Republicans.

“As you know, the Democrats have said this is an indication of your
partisan interest. They say you used to work for President Bush as a
speechwriter, you’re funded by the Koch Brothers. How do you respond to
that?” asked Stephanopoulos — all the while sitting on his own interest in
the Clinton Foundation. Riley indicated that a note will be added to the
interview online to disclose the anchor’s contributions.

Perhaps Stephanopoulos’s best defense would be to mention that the Clinton
Foundation has developed some bipartisan muscles. Christopher Ruddy, the
former Clinton antagonist and boss of conservative media outlet Newsmax, is
a Clinton Foundation donor and fan. Bill Clinton welcomed New Jersey Gov.
Chris Christie for a 2013 chat at a Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) meeting
in Chicago. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney addressed CGI in
2012. But Stephanopoulos isn’t mounting this defense, so we won’t either.

George Stephanopoulos Interviewed Bill Clinton About CGI In 2013
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/katherinemiller/george-stephanopolous-interviewed-bill-clinton-about-cgi-in?utm_term=.ogEw5KjOZ#.cdq61LjVY>
// Buzzfeed News // Katherine Miller - May 14, 2015

George Stephanopoulos donated to the Clinton Foundation in 2013 — and he
interviewed President Bill Clinton about the foundation’s biggest project,
the Clinton Global Initiative.

On Thursday, after questions from the Washington Free Beacon about public
documents listing Stephanopoulos as a donor to the foundation,
Stephanopoulos apologized for not disclosing the $50,000 in donations in a
statement to Politico.

“I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work
they’re doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care
about deeply,” he said in the statement. “I thought that my contributions
were a matter of public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken
the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to
the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I
apologize.”

Stephanopoulos recently interviewed author Peter Schweizer about his book,
Clinton Cash, which investigates the activities of the foundation.

In September of 2013, the This Week anchor sat down with Clinton for an
interview that encompassed several topics, but included a three-minute
segment about CGI.

“In the meantime, (Hillary Clinton) has joined the Clinton Foundation,”
Stephanopoulos says in the introduction to that segment. “[And] of course,
at the Clinton Global Initiative, which brings philanthropists and CEOs
together with nonprofits to make concrete commitments aimed at some of the
world’s toughest problems. Almost 10 years in, they have leveraged billions
of dollars in assistance to more than 180 countries and we have talked to
President Clinton about that, too.”

The positive interview about the foundation is largely Clinton talking with
few questions.

Stephanopoulos asks Clinton about the percentage of entities that make
commitments that follow through (“Oh, it’s quite good,” Clinton says. “We
get detailed progress reports now on 60% of the commitments.”) and asks
Clinton to talk about a large-scale project for women entrepreneurs (“Is
that the project you’re most excited about?”).

A request for comment to ABC News about whether Stephanopoulos had donated
to the foundation before or after the interview was not immediately
returned.

George Stephanopoulos' 2016 Role Suddenly Less Certain Amid Criticism Over
Clinton Foundation Donations
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/george-stephanopoulos-clinton-foundation_n_7283920.html>
// Huffington Post // Michael Calderone and Sam Stein - May 14, 2015

UPDATE: Stephanopoulos told Politico that he will not moderate ABC News'
Republican debate in New Hampshire. "I think I've shown that I can moderate
debates fairly," he told Politico. "That said, I know there have been
questions made about moderating debates this year. I want to be sure I
don't deprive moderators or viewers of a good debate."

NEW YORK -- ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos' status as a
journalistic gatekeeper in the 2016 elections took a hit Thursday after it
was revealed that he gave $50,000 in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

The donations, which were sitting in plain view on the Clinton Foundation
website, had gone unnoticed until the conservative Washington Free Beacon
began asking questions Wednesday night. ABC News confirmed the donations to
Politico Thursday morning.

Stephanopoulos' ties to the Clintons aren't exactly state secrets. He
served as a top aide to former President Bill Clinton during Clinton's 1992
presidential campaign and his first term in the White House. But
Stephanopoulos carefully crafted a post-White House career as an objective
newsman, joining ABC News in 1997 as a political analyst and rising to the
top of the industry. He currently co-hosts “Good Morning America” and is
the host of the Sunday public affairs show "This Week." Up until Thursday,
he was the network’s most likely choice to moderate presidential primary
debates.

The donations now complicate Stephanopoulos' 2016 role, re-surfacing
Republicans' concerns that his pro-Clinton bias was latent rather than
expunged. For the campaigns and the Republican National Committee, which
already threatened to boycott networks that aired documentaries about
Hillary Clinton, it seems likely to prompt further complaints about
mainstream media's coverage of the 2016 Republican primary.

Kentucky Senator and Republican 2016 candidate Rand Paul told The New York
Times shortly after the news broke that Stephanopoulos shouldn't moderate
2016 debates.

“It’s impossible to divorce yourself from that, even if you try,” Paul told
The Times. “I just think it’s really, really hard because he’s been there,
so close to them, that there would be a conflict of interest if he tried to
be a moderator of any sort."

In a statement to The Huffington Post, Paul campaign spokesman Sergio Gor
said the candidate has "raised a red flag" in the past over Stephanopoulos'
role at ABC News and his moderating network-sponsored presidential debates.
Indeed, Paul suggested in 2013 that Stephanopoulos "colluded" with
Democrats when moderating a Republican debate the previous year; the ABC
anchor dismissed the charge.

"We have always believed that Stephanopoulos has a clear conflict of
interest when it comes to objective reporting," Gor said. "He would be wise
to recuse himself from political coverage with Hillary Clinton in the race."

Conn Carroll, communications director for Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah),
tweeted that he's not letting his boss go on ABC "unless Stephanopoulos
recuses himself from all 2016 coverage."

"I was surprised he was in the mix even prior to this," said one Republican
operative affiliated with a 2016 presidential campaign, who was not
authorized to speak publicly. "It is just tough. He works for the Clintons.
I’m not challenging his integrity. But there is a CYA [Cover Your Ass]
element to it. Why would you put him in the debate setting?"

In a statement, Stephanopoulos defended the donations, saying his intention
was to support the foundation’s work in global AIDS prevention and
deforestation.

“I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record,”
Stephanopoulos said, referring to their appearance on the foundation’s
website. “However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of
personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air
during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize.”

The biggest hit Stephanopoulos could suffer may stem from his failure to
reveal his own donations when interviewing conservative author Peter
Schweizer last month. In the interview about Schweizer's controversial
book, which claimed conflicts of interest stemming from foreign donations
to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State
and Bill Clinton’s lucrative paid speaking engagements, Stephanopoulos
challenged Schweizer’s assertions, telling the author that ABC News “found
no proof” Clinton gave preferential treatment to foundation donors while
leading the State Department.

Conservative sites like NewsBusters and Breitbart News criticized the
anchor’s handling of the interview. The latter, which argued that
Stephanopoulos should have disclosed that he used to work for Bill Clinton,
called him a “former Clinton aide” in its headline.

Jonathan Adler, writing two days later on The Washington Post's “Volokh
Conspiracy" blog, took Stephanopoulos to task for his work history, arguing
that Stephanopoulos should have disclosed his former employer when
questioning Schweizer about the author's former employers and their impact
on the reliability of Schweizer's reporting.

The disclosures Thursday now turn the spotlight on ABC News, which has
watched from the sidelines for months as rival NBC News faced a barrage of
negative stories resulting from the exaggerations of suspended anchor Brian
Williams and the resulting network shake-up. So far, ABC News is backing up
its star anchor and signaled in a statement that there will be no punitive
action coming.

"As George has said, he made charitable donations to the Foundation to
support a cause he cares about deeply and believed his contributions were a
matter of public record," a network spokeswoman said. "He should have taken
the extra step to notify us and our viewers during the recent news reports
about the Foundation. He’s admitted to an honest mistake and apologized for
that omission. We stand behind him."

Stephanopoulos did not respond to a request for comment and a spokeswoman
did not make him available for an interview.

Outside the Clinton orbit, Democrats adopted a wait-and-see approach,
content to let the episode play out without rendering judgement on
Stephanopoulos' ability to moderate a debate. An aide to former Maryland
Governor Martin O'Malley (D), who is considered a likely challenger to
Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, declined to comment on the
matter but said they weren't complaining, either.

Stephanopoulos has traversed these criticisms before, though not quite at
this level of scrutiny. His role in the 2012 Republican presidential
primary debates was criticized by conservative commentators who accused him
of leaning on "gotcha" questions, like one about birth control.
Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who will be asking questions during
CNN’s first Republican debate this fall, recently told HuffPost he won’t
bring up contraceptives -- a reference to Stephanopoulos' infamous question.

During an episode of Fox News' "The Five" in late March, host Eric Bolling
asked Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) if he thought it was "fair" for
Stephanopoulos to moderate a debate "given his time with the Clintons as a
spokesperson."

"I personally don't have a problem with George Stephanopoulos," Rubio
replied. "I dealt with him in his past, he's always been professional but
I'm well aware of his history in the past."

Two weeks later, Rubio announced his candidacy for president. The first
interview he gave was to Stephanopoulos.

Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Manager Interned for George Stephanopoulos
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clintons-campaign-manager-interned-for-george-stephanopoulos/>
// Free Beacon // Brent Scher - May 14, 2015

George Stephanopoulos thanked Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook
in the acknowledgement section of his 1999 tell-all memoir All Too Human.

Stephanopoulos’ book, described as “a new-generation political memoir” of a
man “who got his hands on the levers of awesome power at an early age,” was
written after he left the Clinton administration and returned to his alma
mater Columbia to be a visiting professor.

Mook was an undergrad student at Columbia during Stephanopoulos’ brief
tenure and was already politically active. He was a member of the College
Democrats and was active in Democratic politics in his home state of
Vermont.

Mook was also part of the team of interns who worked under Stephanopolous’
research assistant at Columbia, responsible for “reviewing thousands of
pages of public records and making sure I got my facts straight,” wrote
Stephanopolous.

Here is the excerpt from All Too Human where Mook is thanked:

Mook was part of Clinton’s failed 2008 campaign, running multiple state
campaigns. He would later run the successful Virginia gubernatorial
campaign for Clinton’s 2008 campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe.

The Washington Free Beacon discovered that Stephanopolous had donated
thousands to the Clinton Foundation and failed to disclose that fact during
ABC News’ coverage of controversy surrounding the foundation.

Questions have been raised as to whether Stephanopolous’ ties to the
Clintons make him unable to impartially report on the 2016 election.

Stephanopoulos has since apologized for his failure to disclose the
donations. He has also said that making the donations was a mistake and
that he will not be moderating ABC’s Republican debate.

Top members of the Clinton campaign hosted Stephanopoulos and other members
of the media for an off-the-record dinner in New York City just days before
the campaign was formally launched.

The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment on Mook’s
relationship with Stephanopoulos.

Trump gave at least $100K to Clinton Foundation
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/242088-trump-gave-at-least-100k-to-clinton-foundation>
// The Hill // Mark Hensch - May 14, 2015

New York real estate mogul Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka have
donated a combined total of at least $105,000 to the Clinton Foundation,
records show.

“Donald J. Trump” is listed on the foundation’s website as giving between
$100,000 and $250,000 to the charitable organization.

“Ivanka Trump,” meanwhile, is listed as a donor who gifted between $5,001
and $10,000 to the nonprofit.

“This list is comprised of those who made contributions or grants to
advance the work of any part of the Clinton Foundation, including the
Clinton Global Initiative, and indicates cumulative lifetime giving through
2014,” the website said.

The website does not specify when the Trumps donated, nor the exact amount
of their contributions.

Donald Trump, a possible 2016 GOP presidential candidate, has repeatedly
criticized Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for her lack of
transparency concerning the foundation.

“If this was a Republican sitting right there, this would absolutely be
considered illegal,” Trump said last month of the foundation’s activities
on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends.”

“This is about jail time; this isn’t about the voters,” he added.

The foundation’s records received new scrutiny on Thursday after ABC News
anchor George Stephanopoulos admitted he had donated a total of $50,000 to
the foundation as of 2014.

Stephanopoulos, an ex-political adviser for former President Bill Clinton,
gave $25,000 in 2013 and then again the following year.

“I thought my contributions were a matter of public record,” said
Stephanopoulos, who had not previously revealed his donations.

“However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally
disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the
recent news stories about the Foundation,” he added.

Several Republicans on Thursday urged ABC to bench Stephanopoulos for its
2016 campaign coverage due to the conflict of interest.

“It’s impossible to divorce yourself from that, even if you try,” Sen. Rand
Paul (R-Ky.), a 2016 GOP contender, told The New York Times. “I just think
it’s really, really hard because he’s been there, so close to them, that
there would be a conflict of interest if he tried to be a moderator of any
sort."

Author Peter Schweizer sparked interest in the Clinton Foundation’s
finances with his new book Clinton Cash earlier this month.

It alleges that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used her political
power to grant favors to foreign donors who contributed to the foundation
in return.

The Clinton family has denied any illicit activity involving the charitable
organization bearing their name.

OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE

Progressives’ looming challenge: Bill de Blasio, Elizabeth Warren,
inequality, and a stunning blind spot
<http://www.salon.com/2015/05/14/as_2016_looms_can_progressives_organize_or_at_least_get_out_of_their_own_way/>
// Salon // Joan Walsh - May 14, 2015

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio took his progressive agenda road show to
Washington Tuesday, where he was trailed by local and national reporters in
the fever grip of a narrative: How can de Blasio be a leader on national
issues when the problems of his city aren’t solved? What about the people
hit on the head with hammers in Union Square while the mayor was
gallivanting about on Tuesday? What about the carriage horses?

These were real questions put to de Blasio after a rather surreal event in
which progressive leaders endorsed an agenda to tackle income inequality in
early-May 90-degree heat, without any shade, just outside the Capitol. You
could see all the promise and all the contradictions of the progressive
movement in the sun-baked tableau. An actual story was on display, even as
reporters chased non-issues and their cherished narrative. Debate buzzed
around the overheated podium as dozens of Democratic Congress members,
labor leaders and civil rights activists declared their support for the
13-point “Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality” emblazoned on a
poster beside them.

De Blasio was flanked by big placards supporting debt-free college and
expanding Social Security, two demands that have rocketed to the top of the
progressive agenda thanks to strong movements behind them. But those issues
haven’t yet officially made the 13-point list.  A bigger omission was any
mention of criminal justice reform. Organizer Van Jones amiably grumbled
about the lack of an official agenda item as he caucused with concerned
friends, who seemed bewildered by the omission, though Jones wholeheartedly
endorsed the agenda when it was his turn to speak.

“We are going to go back to the coalition literally starting tomorrow and
add a couple of the pieces, obviously with the agreement of coalition
members, that people have said they thought would be very important,” de
Blasio promised the crowd. He’s going to have to.

Meanwhile, as the event got underway, Senate Democrats were thwarting
President Obama’s attempt to fast-track deliberation on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade accord, an issue that’s both energizing and dividing the
left, including the coalition behind de Blasio’s agenda. Labor leaders
railed against TPP from the podium; Rev. Al Sharpton, who supports the
pact, preached “unity, not unanimity,” and reminded the crowd that
left-wing infighting in 1968, the year Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was
assassinated, and a teenage Sharpton joined the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference, elected Richard Nixon.

The long day ended with a devastating Amtrak derailment outside
Philadelphia, killing at least seven people on a train that I was almost
aboard. (I caught the last train to New York.) I suppose that concentrated
my mind on this allegedly progressive moment.

The crisis couldn’t be more clear: Infrastructure used to be an easy,
bipartisan issue. Now, as a nation, we’ve gone from debating high speed
rail, to cutting funding for low-speed rail, to tolerating no-speed rail
this week along the Northeast Corridor, where de Blasio’s New York will
lose $100 million every day train travel is halted. News that the engineer
was going 100 miles an hour, way over the advised speed for that stretch of
track, doesn’t change the fact that too many antiquated stretches of track
require much less speed than is customary for train travel around the
world. Or that “positive train control” technology, which should have
already been installed, hadn’t been there. The tragedy ought to muzzle
reporters who robotically ask why New York’s mayor traveled to Washington,
not only to lobby for federal action but to rally a new political coalition
that can fix our broken politics.  But it probably won’t.

Progressives have a moment, all right, but are they up to it? My day with
de Blasio provided some answers, not all of them encouraging. The New York
mayor’s effort is widely perceived as an attempt to pull Hillary Clinton to
the left, in the absence of a strong primary challenger. (It got underway
before Sen. Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy, but Sanders, alone,
probably isn’t much threat to the front-runner.) The debate over its agenda
shows that progressives care, passionately, about the 2016 election, and
beyond. They believe they can drive the debate.

But first, they might have to get out of their own way. As the Obama era
comes to a close, they are still grappling with the issues of race, and not
always well. There are lessons here for Hillary Clinton, though maybe not
the ones de Blasio and allies intended.

* * *

My big day of progressive politicking began with a National Press Club
event to release a new report by the lefty-wonky Roosevelt Institute,
“Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy: An Agenda for Growth and
Shared Prosperity.” Roosevelt economist and Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz
called it “a big think,” and he’s right. The event was keynoted by Sen.
Elizabeth Warren and de Blasio. You could see many of the assets of 2015
progressive organizing on display.

For one thing, there’s rare bipartisan agreement that income inequality is
growing, and that it’s a problem, although Republicans continue to advance
only warmed-over Reaganism as a solution. There’s also growing recognition
among liberals that their efforts must go beyond tinkering at the margins
of the economy while venerating the allegedly “free” market. Markets aren’t
magic; they’re created by socially constructed rules. “Rewriting the Rules”
meticulously shows how the economic “rules” laid down by government in the
years after World War II deliberately spread prosperity. Then, starting in
the late ’70s, our rules began to concentrate it.

“If someone said in the 1980s, ‘we’re going to change the rules, and all
the income gains will go to the top,” nobody would have supported that,
Stiglitz told me after the event.  That’s why there’s an opening now to
“rewrite the rules,” in the Roosevelt Institute’s phrasing. “It wasn’t an
act of God,” de Blasio told the crowd. American political leaders made
political decisions to intensify income inequality; they can make different
ones.

A third boon to progressive politics is the fact that there’s an agenda
widely supported by liberals (and according to polls, by the general public
too). It involves efforts to shore up families with paid family leave and
early childhood programs; boosting pay by hiking the minimum wage and
strengthening labor rights, particularly the right to organize; and a range
of progressive taxation ideas, including eliminating lower rates for wealth
than work. Roosevelt’s agenda got a little bit into the weeds, but by
necessity; de Blasio’s stayed focused on broader demands.

Finally: these demands are bolstered by rising grass-roots movements.
There’s more on-the-ground activism — around fast-food workers’ wages, the
“Fight for $15” campaign, Wal-Mart workers’ rights — than I’ve seen on the
left in a long while. In their remarks at the Roosevelt event, both de
Blasio and Warren referenced the grass-roots energy as a resource
progressives must harness.

Yet I was surprised that neither referred to what might be the most vibrant
and important movement of all: the organizing around “Black Lives Matter”
and the effort to end the era of mass incarceration. De Blasio’s
Progressive Agenda didn’t mention criminal justice reform or anything
related to it; the Roosevelt Institute report, laudably, does include a
bullet point recommending “Reform the criminal justice system to reduce
incarceration rates,” but it’s one of 37 recommendations and easily missed
(mea culpa; in an earlier version of this post, I missed it). I’ve worked
on these issues my entire career, and I’ve got to say: Sometimes I’m amazed
at the white left’s blurry vision when it comes to race.

I asked de Blasio about that omission when we met briefly on Tuesday
afternoon.

“I think this agenda, and this coalition, is going to grow,” he told me.
“We have to connect the fact that income inequality is deeply connected to
mass incarceration, that racism underlies the lack of opportunity for men
of color. I think those two issues go naturally together and I’m going to
be putting a lot of time into them.”

But there was a lot of discontent with the omission from the 13-point
agenda when we got to the official event, which almost fell apart over the
controversy. Van Jones, rather admirably, fell on his sword when I asked
him about it by phone the next day. Like a lot of black progressives, he’s
been focused on the situation in Baltimore, in the wake of Freddie Gray’s
killing by police, and wasn’t entirely on top of the drafting of the agenda.

“I was one of the people who was at the initial Gracie Mansion event,” he
told me, carefully, on Wednesday afternoon. “In the drafting of the agenda,
I was not as attentive or involved as earlier, because of Baltimore. I
didn’t do my due diligence on the back end. I appreciate that the mayor
made a commitment to go back to all the parties on a ‘schools not jobs’
plank.” But I found myself wondering why the issue required a push from
Jones, anyway, given its centrality to the opportunity crisis in America.

Meanwhile, just yards away from the de Blasio convening, Obama lost a round
on the TPP. New York’s mayor stood squarely with the Massachusetts senator
on the issue. “The bottom line on trade is I couldn’t agree more with
Elizabeth Warren,” he told the crowd.

But there was an ugly parallel dust-up. Sen. Sherrod Brown – who’d attended
the inaugural meeting of de Blasio’s effort at New York’s Gracie Mansion in
early April, but wasn’t at the Capitol event – lamented the president’s
very personal attacks on Sen. Warren, suggesting they might even be a
little bit sexist. The president, Brown noted, has attacked Warren by her
first name, “when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps?”

I didn’t read Obama’s Warren comments as sexist – he regularly refers to
Vice President Biden as “Joe” — although I thought they were weirdly
personal and politically counter-productive. But I also didn’t read Brown’s
criticism of Obama as reflecting racial animus – but Obama die-hards online
did, with one perhaps parody Twitter account claiming the president had
been “Emmett Tilled” for allegedly mistreating a white woman.

It reminded me that the fault lines of the 2008 primary campaign still
exist, even as Democrats appear remarkably united, compared to the
fractious 2016 GOP field, which is currently embroiled in a dead end debate
about Iraq. (Poor Jeb.) And those fault lines weren’t closed, in any way,
by the omission of criminal justice reform from the de Blasio agenda.

* * *

The stillness at the center of this storm is, oddly, Hillary Clinton. Many
observers and even some participants see de Blasio’s project as an effort
to pull her left. Now that she’s in the race, she’s arguably to the left of
de Blasio’s agenda, given her recent policy statements calling for an end
to mass incarceration, and promising to protect even more undocumented
immigrants from deportation than are covered by Obama’s executive orders.

Pointing to the new divisions in the Democratic Party over trade, MSNBC’s
Luke Russert asked de Blasio whether he thought Clinton had to stand with
Warren on the TPP to win his group’s support. De Blasio ducked a direct
answer, even as he declared his own support for Warren’s stand.

I asked de Blasio if he could see any scenario in which he didn’t endorse
Clinton. “I don’t do hypotheticals,” he told me. When I laughed at that, he
added, “But I can say honestly, I’m optimistic…She gave the speech on
immigration, which I thought was great, the speech on criminal justice
reform I thought was great. I think we’re seeing a lot. I still want to
hear the core agenda for fighting income inequality, but this is a very
promising start.”

Part of me thinks the best thing de Blasio can do to advance “the core
agenda for fighting income inequality” is to be a great mayor of New York.
But I’m also sympathetic to both his genuine need to harness federal
support, in order to be a great mayor, and also to harness the impressive
populist energy that fueled his unlikely rise to Gracie Mansion.

Given the controversy roiling around him on Tuesday, de Blasio maintained
an enviable equanimity. In the end I found myself thinking he has the
temperament to play a role in harnessing the energy of the fractious left,
because he smiled and nodded his way through Tuesday’s event. He affably
fielded dumb media questions in the 90-degree heat, while things were even
hotter inside his own coalition, given the neglect of criminal justice
reform on his agenda. Still, I can’t help thinking: The man who won office
at least partly because he’s Dante’s father shouldn’t be struggling through
an unforced error around an issue of race.

Dems: Hillary Clinton must campaign more
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/politico-caucus-hillary-clinton-campaign-more-117981.html>
// Politico // James Hohmann and Katie Glueck – May 14, 2015

Four in 10 Democratic insiders in the early states warn that Hillary
Clinton is not spending enough time on the campaign trail, making her
vulnerable to possible challenges from the left and dampening the
enthusiasm of progressives who are already committed to her.

The POLITICO Caucus — our weekly bipartisan pulse-taking of the most
important activists, operatives and elected officials in Iowa and New
Hampshire — also finds Democrats almost evenly divided over whether Clinton
needs to take a firmer position on the trade battle that’s gripped
Washington this week, but many approve of Bill Clinton’s efforts to be a
more silent partner in his wife’s campaign.

Clinton will return to Iowa and New Hampshire next week, amidst an
aggressive fundraising swing. Her campaign said Thursday that the events
will again be small and relatively private.

But insiders are clamoring for the former secretary of state to do more
events that allow more voters to see her in person. There’s a pervasive
belief that her campaign stops need to feel more authentic and open in
order to fire up the base.

“She needs to step it up dramatically,” said a pro-Clinton Iowa Democrat,
who — like all 77 respondents — completed the questionnaire anonymously in
order to speak candidly.

“We have this need to feel well-loved every four years,” said an
uncommitted New Hampshire Democrat. “If other candidates begin to make
inroads, Clinton’s absence will be noted.”

Several Democrats said she should headline a rally or give a major speech
soon. One key Democrat in Iowa, where she finished third in 2008, explained
that “a big open-attendance event would go a long way because it would at
least let people actually see her” in person.

To escape the media scrum, a New Hampshire Democrat suggested Clinton show
up unannounced in the less populous North Country. “Drop in on breakfast at
a couple local spots, and then let word trickle out,” the uncommitted
activist said. “She can spend a few hours doing very normal, hassle-free
retail campaigning and then hold some kind of press avail later in the day.”

On the other hand, a lot of Democrats joked that their friends will never
be satisfied no matter how much time Hillary puts in on the ground. “There
is more concern out there among Democrats than I would have thought,” said
one in New Hampshire. “People feel freer to voice their concerns about the
Big Crash that everyone thinks will happen to her campaign.”

Some establishment Democrats think there’s little upside to mixing it up at
this stage, and they believe that the press is obsessed only with asking
gotcha questions. “The less time she can spend on the campaign trail, the
better,” said an uncommitted New Hampshire Democrat. “Events bring a lot of
unwelcome attacks,” said another. “She’s on the money trail now,” said a
pro-Clinton Democrat in Iowa. “There is time in the fall to wear out her
shoes.”

Even some who want her on the trail more note a massive influx of field
staff over the past month. “In Des Moines, I always see three or four of
them meeting for coffee at the Smokey Row coffee house,” said a Democrat,
referring to local hangout. “As a matter of fact, the O’Malley guy hangs
out there too!”

Seven in 10 Republicans said Clinton spends too little time campaigning.
“But when she does, she is so horrible, dull, scripted and phony that the
Hillary juggernaut should create plans to build a soundproof Rose Garden in
Brooklyn,” said a Granite Stater.

“Just about every other day I run into a Democrat who says, ‘Jeez, your
side is having all the fun,’” said an Iowan.

One-third of GOP insiders said she’s smart to limit her appearances.

“She has no credible opponents,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “She
could hibernate for the next 10 months and be totally absent from the
campaign trail. And still be fine.”

Here are eight other takeaways from this 14th edition of The POLITICO
Caucus:

Jeb’s fumbling of questions about Iraq reminds insiders of Bush-name
baggage.

It took until Thursday for Bush to clarify that, knowing now about
intelligence failures in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, authorized by
his brother, he would not have gone to war there. Earlier this week, he
dismissed that question as a “hypothetical” — a position that
three-quarters of Republican insiders called problematic.

Several insiders think the kerfuffle will make it harder for Bush to
distance himself from his brother, former President George W. Bush.

“Pretty bad given that he’s already battling the Bush fatigue and dynasty
issue,” said one New Hampshire Republican.

An uncommitted Iowa Republican added, “This would not be a big deal if he
had a different last name. But since his name is Bush, it’s another log on
the ‘Bush Fatigue’ fire.”

And a New Hampshire Republican aligned with a rival camp piled on: “It
reminds everyone that he has been, is, and will be in his brother’s shadow,
which not only raises policy concerns but also the specter of dynasty.”

The Iraq episode also raises questions about whether Jeb’s ready for
primetime.

Many insiders from both parties expressed disbelief that Bush wasn’t
better-prepared to answer questions about the war in Iraq.

“Take away whether you agree or disagree with his answer, hypothetical or
not, the fact that he is so incredibly unprepared for the spotlight is very
alarming,” said one Iowa Republican who supports another candidate. “As I
answer this survey, he has changed his position for a third time. Hello!?”

An unaffiliated Granite State Republican noted that New Hampshire is not a
particularly hawkish state, and that the unpopularity of the war in Iraq
cost Republicans a lot of New Hampshire seats, in Congress and the
statehouse, back in 2006 and 2008.

“If there was one topic Jeb Bush needed to have a good answer on during
this campaign, this was it,” the insider said. “More than anything, these
answers from Jeb this week were a reminder for Republicans about what they
disliked most about his brother.”

On the other side of the aisle, a New Hampshire Democrat aligned with
Clinton sniped, “He has handled talking about Iraq about as well as his
brother handled the actual war. Jeb Bush is the obvious frontrunner, and he
is stumbling out of the gate.”

Use W. only in doses, and generally with donors.

Most Republican insiders didn’t think Bush did himself any harm when he
recently called his brother his top adviser on U.S.-Israel policy (though
Democrats overwhelmingly did). But he should keep the references to his
brother to a minimum, they said, and the overwhelming answer to how the
former president could be helpful was through fundraising, preferably
behind closed doors.

“He’s a fool to use W for anything other than shaking money out of people,”
said one Iowa Republican aligned with another candidate.

A New Hampshire Democrat noted gleefully, “Is this even a question on the
Republican side? As a Democrat, I heartily endorse the idea of George W.
Bush coming to … campaign frequently for Jeb!”

But several respondents did note that the former president could be a
helpful voice, in private, as his brother seeks to court pro-Israel and
evangelical voters.

“Those voters who support Israel know that President Bush was a staunch,
unequivocating ally of the nation,” said one unaligned New Hampshire
Republican. “That Gov. Bush is taking his cues from him is a welcome
development especially since so many Jewish people believe that President
Obama is capitulating to anti-Israeli interests. For example, dispatching
him to smooth things over with Sheldon Adelson was a smart move.”

As for Bill, many Democrats also want him to keep a low profile.

Most insiders see Bill Clinton as an excellent speaker who can rally the
base and energize crowds. But for now, he should avoid overshadowing the
actual candidate by sticking largely to fundraisers and lower-key events,
they say.

“He needs to let Hillary get out more first and set the tone of her
campaign, talk about her messages and connect with voters,” said a New
Hampshire Democrat. “Once she establishes her campaign more widely, he
should sweep in on the latter half and campaign for her. He is an asset —
for sure — but people also want to hear about her and her ideas.”

Republicans, and some Democrats, noted that Bill Clinton has caused some
problems for the Clinton campaign in the way he’s handled questions about
donations to their family foundation. Staying out of the limelight for now,
some said, would help.

“He needs to be supportive and in the background,” an Iowa Democrat said.
“So far his comments have not helped, especially when questioned about the
Clinton Foundation.”

Several noted his ability, for better and worse, to go off-script.

“He is a huge asset to Secretary Clinton. But at the same time, his
likeability comes from his brilliance and ability to speak provocatively
and not without a little thrilling unpredictability,” said one New
Hampshire Democrat. “How do you solve a problem like Bill Clinton? He must
be putting quite few gray hairs on Robby Mook’s little head,” the insider
continued, referring to Clinton’s 35-year-old campaign manager.

Another New Hampshire Democrat called for fewer speeches and more retail:
“Put a loose leash on the Big Dog, but someone definitely needs to be
holding the leash.”

Democrats are divided over whether Hillary needs to take a firmer position
on trade.

About half of Democrats think Clinton must say outright whether she
supports the 12-nation Pacific trade deal and giving President Barack Obama
fast-track authority. She’s given nuanced answers that nod to both sides;
the White House has insisted that Clinton is on their side, and some
opponents of the deal have said that her silence shows she’s with them.

As the issue blew up on Capitol Hill this week, there’s increasing pressure
from both sides for Clinton to give a yes-or-no answer.

“Just days ago I would have said that most voters, even most base voters,
didn’t have [this] on their radar at all,” said a New Hampshire Democrat.
“Between media coverage, candidates scrambling to stake out policy
positions, and even the President sending desperate-sounding emails to try
to muster grassroots support, this issue is now on the front burner.”

“Democrats haven’t forgotten that her husband, who has been referred to as
‘Outsourcer-in-Chief,’ is held largely responsible for NAFTA and the
negative impacts of those trade agreements,” the Democrat added. “That puts
Hillary in a difficult place.”

Clinton allies argue that it’s unfair to say she hasn’t taken a position;
it’s just that she’s very carefully threaded the needle. Asked about the
Trans-Pacific Partnership recently in New Hampshire, for example, she said:
“Well, any trade deal has to produce jobs, and raise wages, and increase
prosperity and protect our security. And we have to do our part in making
sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive.”

“Nothing wrong with Hillary not cutting POTUS off at knees, while
expressing deep reservations,” said a New Hampshire Democrat.

“In Iowa, her base is probably divided on the issue,” added an Iowa
Democrat. “Rural communities tend to support trade deals, while organized
labor tends to oppose them.”

Seven in 10 Republicans said she cannot get away with not giving a more
definitive answer.

Backing up Obama on trade would hurt Hillary; the question is how badly.

There’s a sense among several leading Democratic activists in the early
states that Clinton standing with Obama might encourage Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) to reconsider running.

“Base voters would not want her to align herself with Obama on such a
conservative issue,” said an Iowa Democrat. “All trade bills have played
into the hands of conservatives in the past, and this one won’t be any
different.”

“She would lose a lot of support among the base,” said another Iowa
Democrat who backs her. “This would become a litmus test for many
Democratic activists, particularly organized labor. She needs to oppose it.”

“It would move a non-trivial amount of support to Bernie Sanders,” said a
New Hampshire Democrat.

Clinton boosters argue that the damage would be limited because these are
people who wouldn’t back her anyway.

“Progressives in Iowa that have already been reluctant to support her would
use this as a rallying cry,” said an Iowa Democrat who backs her. “I think
it wouldn’t lose her support but would make the opposition louder.”

“Anyone who would be pressing Hillary on this is likely already in the
Sanders/O’Malley/anti-Hillary faction, and they feel very awkward because
they were all primary supporters of President Obama over Hillary in 2008,”
added a New Hampshire Democrat.

Others pointed out that the last three Democratic governors of New
Hampshire were pretty openly pro-free trade. “Labor doesn’t have a big
footprint here, and the people who are ardently opposed to the president’s
trade agenda are unlikely to be big Clinton supporters to begin with,” said
a New Hampshire Democrat.

Despite the events of this week, the Republican base does not really care
about the trade fight.

This is the first huge, public intra-party fight in a while for Democrats,
but most Republican insiders said their base is not paying attention in the
early states.

“C’mon, there isn’t one voter in 100 who knows enough about these trade
deals to explain them to someone else,” said one in New Hampshire.

“It still feels like a D.C./Beltway/K Street issue,” said another.

“The isolationist, [Pat] Buchanan wing of the party is fervently dead-set
against it, but they are far outnumbered by those who favor it or don’t
care,” added an Iowa Republican.

Agricultural interests are big proponents of the measure, and Iowa exports
over $15 billion a year. But an Iowa Republican noted that fights over
trade seem abstract for many voters. “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is on the
low end with so many security-based concerns,” he said. “Trade is more
self-actualization to voters.”

Paul should seize the spotlight in the Patriot Act brawl.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has pledged to filibuster the reauthorization of the
Patriot Act as the Senate takes up the matter again — a good move for him,
at least in the more libertarian Granite State, insiders say. Nearly
three-quarters of both New Hampshire Republicans and Democrats say Paul’s
plan would help in their state.

“This is New Hampshire. Live Free or Die! Don’t tread on me, and leave my
phone records alone,” said one Granite State Democrat who said the
filibuster would be an asset.

Added an unaligned New Hampshire Republican: “It enhances his standing with
a vocal minority in a field with 19 candidates. To win New Hampshire you
only have to be able to count to 25 percent.”

Respondents from Iowa were more divided about whether the move would be
useful: nearly as many Iowa Republicans said it would help as said a
filibuster would hurt (less than one in 10 New Hampshire Republicans said
the same). On the other side of the aisle, nearly half of Iowa Democrats
said it would help; roughly one-tenth said it would hurt.

“He is supposed to already have the libertarian vote share his father got,”
said one Iowa Republican who aligns with another candidate. “He needs to
moderate his views on this so he can attract voters who are more worried
about national security.”

Bernie Sanders has picked a terrible argument against the TPP
<http://www.vox.com/2015/5/14/8606351/bernie-sanders-tpp-trade> // Vox //
Dylan Matthews - May 14, 2015

There are good reasons to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the big
Asian trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to finalize soon. I
lean against it, mostly because it could hurt poor countries left out of
the pact (notably Bangladesh and Cambodia), and because I think trade
liberalization should be happening globally through the WTO rather than in
piecemeal regional agreements.

But it's hard to sympathize with the arguments Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
put forward in his statement Tuesday, celebrating the Senate's rejection of
a bill that'd enable final approval of the pact without congressional
amendments:

A major reason for the decline of the American middle class and the
increase in wealth and income inequality in the United State is our trade
policies - NAFTA, CAFTA and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
This agreement would follow in the footsteps of those free trade agreements
which have forced American workers to compete against desperate and
low-wage workers around the world – including workers in Vietnam where the
minimum wage is 56-cents an hour.

Sanders is suggesting that TPP would be bad because it would force US
workers to compete with workers in Vietnam — implicitly, that it's bad
because it expands economic opportunity for poor workers in Vietnam at the
expense of significantly richer workers in the United States.

The factual basis for this claim is pretty dubious. Even economists who
think trade has significantly hurt US manufacturing workers tend to think
the damage is already done, and that future trade deals will involve
sectors of the economy in which the US does more exporting than importing
(namely, services and agriculture). Moreover, insofar as the deal would
advantage imports, that would lower prices for US consumers, particularly
poor and middle-class consumers for whom spending on manufactured goods and
clothes eats up a bigger share of income. And how much it expands
opportunity in Vietnam depends a lot on the specific "rules of origin" in
the deal.

But even if the deal did, on net, hurt American workers, Sanders is
implicitly arguing that it's worth impoverishing desperately poor people
abroad so that far richer people in the United States can be slightly
better off. I don't think Sanders bears any ill will toward
developing-world workers; he's consistently supported raising labor
standards abroad, and during the debate over CAFTA he explicitly stated
that he thought the deal would be a "disaster for the people of Central
America," as well as for the US.

But he's simply mistaken about what's best for the developing world.
"Forc[ing] American workers to compete against desperate and low-wage
workers around the world" is not just good for those "desperate and
low-wage workers"; it's actually a demand placed on developed countries by
the UN Millennium Development Goals, which call for "tariff- and quota-free
access for Least Developed Countries' exports." No members of the official
least developed countries list are actually part of TPP — they're even
poorer, and thus, on Sanders's logic, more dangerous as trading competition
to the US.

When you talk to development experts who focus on trade, like the Center
for Global Development's Kimberly Ann Elliott, the one point they press on
again and again is the need for DFQF — duty-free, quota-free — access to
rich countries' markets for exporters in least developed countries. There's
been progress on this front. Through the Everything but Arms program, the
European Union provides DFQF access to non-arms imports from least
developed countries. In 2005, rich countries in the WTO committed to
providing DFQF access to at least 97 percent of products. Through the
African Growth and Opportunity Act, the US provides duty-free (but not
quota-free) access to the US market for many sub-Saharan African nations.
But the goal of completely free exports from all least-developed countries
to all rich countries is still not reached, both because certain sensitive
products (particularly in agriculture) are exempted from its benefits and
because, in the US's case, many poor countries are left out of the deal.

A true anti-poverty trade agenda would be the exact opposite of what
Sanders wants. It would directly put US workers in competition with more —
and poorer — workers abroad. The effects on US workers would likely be
small, but even if they weren't, that trade is worth making. Fighting
desperate poverty in the developing world is more important than marginally
boosting the US middle class. And there are many, many ways to help the
American middle class that don't involve keeping the world's poorest people
in a state of total immiseration.

Is Bernie Sanders the Best Candidate on Climate Change?
<http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/bernie-sanders-greenest-presidential-candidate>
// Mother Jones // Ben Adler - May 14, 2015

The Democratic presidential primary race got its second major candidate
recently, and its first true climate hawk: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont,
self-described democratic socialist. Sanders has one of the strongest
climate change records in the Senate. In fact, according to rankings
released by Climate Hawks Vote, a new super PAC, Sanders was the No. 1
climate leader in the Senate for the 113th Congress that ended in January.

Climate Hawks Vote measures leadership, not just voting records, tabulating
actions like bills introduced, speeches given, and so forth. In the 112th
Congress, Sanders ranked third behind Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and
Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). In the last Congress, he edged out Whitehouse by one
point.

"Sanders is very much among the top leaders," says R.L. Miller, founder of
Climate Hawks Vote. "He has a record of really strong advocacy for solar in
particular." Miller notes that distributed solar, which enables everyone
with a solar panel to create their own energy instead of relying on a
monopolistic utility company, fits especially well with Sanders' democratic
socialist philosophy. It's bad for corporations and good for regular folks
who get to own the means of production.

Here are some of the highlights from Sanders' climate and clean energy
record:

In 2013, along with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sanders introduced the
Climate Protection Act, a fee-and-dividend bill. It would tax carbon and
methane emissions and rebate three-fifths of the revenue to citizens, then
invest the remainder in energy efficiency, clean energy, and climate
resiliency. The bill, of course, went nowhere (even if it had advanced in
the Democratic-controlled Senate, it would have been DOA in the
Republican-controlled House), but it shows that Sanders supports serious
solutions and wants to keep the conversation going.

Also in 2013, Sanders introduced the Residential Energy Savings Act to fund
financing programs that would help residents retrofit their homes for
energy efficiency. This bill didn't become law either.

In 2012, Sanders introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act, to get rid of
special tax deductions and credits for coal, oil, and gas producers. As he
wrote in Grist at the time, "It is immoral that some in Congress advocate
savage cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security while those same
people vote to preserve billions in tax breaks for ExxonMobil, the most
profitable corporation in America." The bill didn't pass.

In 2010, Sanders authored a bill to spread distributed solar throughout the
country, the very literally named "10 Million Solar Roofs & 10 Million
Gallons of Solar Hot Water Act." As Grist's David Roberts explained, it
would "provide rebates that cover up to half the cost of new systems, along
the lines of incentive programs in California and New Jersey." The bill
didn't pass.

In 2007, he cowrote with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) the Green Jobs
Act, which allocated funding for clean energy and energy efficiency
research and job training. This did pass, as part of a big 2007 energy bill.

Also in 2007, with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), he cosponsored the Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, to help states and local
governments pay for efficiency and clean energy programs. It was also
passed as part of the 2007 energy bill, and both the block grant program
and the green jobs program got a funding infusion from the 2009 stimulus
package.

So we know Sanders is dedicated to climate action and clean energy. Looking
forward, though, it's unclear how Sanders will differentiate his climate
and energy proposals from Clinton's. Clinton, like President Obama, firmly
supports regulating carbon emissions domestically and getting strong
international agreements to reduce emissions globally. While it is
certainly true that Sanders has made more of an issue of his support for
the same, it is not necessarily an issue on which Clinton needs to be
pushed leftward. Many climate hawks love the fee-and-dividend approach that
Sanders supports, but the truth is that no big climate-pricing bill will
pass in the next few years, no matter who's president, because the
Republicans will continue to control the House. And Clinton already
supports the kind of strong executive action that Obama is taking to curb
CO2 emissions from power plants.

One way Sanders could set himself apart as the greenest candidate would be
to propose clamping down on domestic fossil fuel extraction, especially on
federal lands and waters—something a president could move on without
congressional approval. Sanders has not spoken up about the extraction
issue in general, but he could call for a moratorium on fossil fuel leasing
offshore or on federal land. That would please climate activists, who are
already expressing concern that Clinton isn't committed to keeping dirty
fuel sources in the ground. "What we really need," says Miller, "is someone
to advocate for closing down the Powder River Basin"—an area in Montana and
Wyoming that's a huge source of coal mined from federal land—"but no one is
really willing to come out and say that, so instead they come out for
higher prices on coal leases. Sanders has not."

In an interview with the Washington Post's Greg Sargent, Sanders called for
a progressive climate agenda that includes a carbon tax and investments in
renewables, energy efficiency, and alternative transportation—but he made
no mention of restricting fossil fuel development. Here is what he offered:

A tax on carbon; a massive investment in solar, wind, geothermal; it would
be making sure that every home and building in this country is properly
winterized; it would be putting substantial money into rail, both passenger
and cargo, so we can move towards breaking our dependency on automobiles.
And it would be leading other countries around the world.

Bill McKibben, who founded 350.org and has led the fight to stop the
Keystone XL pipeline, says he is confident Sanders understands the need to
keep fossil fuels in the ground. Sanders has opposed Keystone, while
Clinton has avoided taking a position on it. "He's been the most consistent
and proactive voice in the entire Keystone fight," writes McKibben in an
email. "Everything that's been needed—from speeches on the floor to
legislation to demands that the State Department change its absurd review
process—he and his staff have done immediately and with a high degree of
professionalism…On climate stuff he's been the most aggressive voice in the
Senate, rivaled only by Sheldon Whitehouse. He understands it for the deep,
simple problem it is: that we can't keep burning this stuff." (Full
disclosure: McKibben is a member of Grist's board of directors.)

One area where Sanders indisputably differs from Clinton is trade. Clinton,
like her husband and Obama, has been an ardent supporter of free trade
agreements. Some environmentalists worry that these agreements—like NAFTA,
CAFTA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that is currently under
consideration—give polluting companies too much power to undermine
environmental regulations in signatory nations. As secretary of state,
Clinton supported the TPP, although as a candidate her campaign advisors
say she hasn't made up her mind on it. Sanders is one of the most skeptical
members of the Senate on trade agreements and he is currently helping to
lead the charge against the TPP.

To describe Sanders' challenge against Clinton as uphill would be too
generous. It's more like climbing Mt. Everest—without oxygen or a guide.
But by bringing attention to some of these issues, he may raise awareness
and draw Clinton out. Sanders' office declined to comment for this story,
citing an overwhelming number of interview requests following announcement
of his candidacy. That speaks to the megaphone a presidential campaign can
grant a candidate, especially in a nearly empty field. Sanders is sure to
use it for worthy causes. Will keeping fossil fuels in the ground be one of
them?

Democrats 2016: Sanders Now Clinton’s Chief Rival
<http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/democrats-2016-sanders-now-clintons-chief-rival/>
// Center for Politics // Geoffrey Skelley - May 14th, 2015

“Inevitable.” That’s the word often used to describe Hillary Clinton and
the 2016 Democratic nomination. Can anyone beat her? Anything’s possible,
but the odds appear quite low. Still, her most threatening intraparty
opposition could prove to be a man who isn’t even technically a Democrat
(yet, anyway): independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a
self-identified “democratic socialist.” We see him as a potential thorn in
Clinton’s side, and to reflect that, we are moving Sanders to the top of
the non-Clinton tier in our presidential rankings for Democrats.

Some progressive activists are still hoping Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
will get into the race. However, while she reportedly met with some members
of the “Draft Warren” movement in late April, it still seems very unlikely
that the Bay State senator will run. The idea of New York City Mayor Bill
de Blasio (D) running, and doing so credibly, is even harder to fathom than
a Warren candidacy: He’s only less than a year and a half into his first
term, and already he is controversial and has just a 44% job approval
rating (according to Tuesday’s Quinnipiac survey).

Sanders is in a position to fill the void to Clinton’s left, possibly
attracting voters who are skeptical of Clinton because of her ties to Wall
Street and her perceived hawkishness on foreign policy issues. Because of
his issue positions and personality, Sanders could be an attractive
candidate for liberals who want someone to press Clinton on topics like
income inequality, free trade, and her Senate vote in favor of authorizing
the Iraq War (although that vote is now more than a decade old).

On the issues, Sanders was the third-most liberal senator in the last
Congress, behind only Warren and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). His
presidential announcement speech highlighted his goal of creating “an
economy that works for all people rather than a small number of
billionaires” and denounced the role of money in politics, particularly the
post-Citizens United campaign finance system. While a member of the House
in 2002, Sanders voted against the Iraq War and is a leading opponent of
the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and other free trade deals. He has
also favored nixing the Keystone XL Pipeline project, a matter about which
Clinton has remained publicly undecided. These are all positions that will
win him support among progressive and labor groups.

But along with his policy views, Sanders’ personal characteristics may also
make him a potent “protest” option for liberals in the Democratic primary.
He is assertive and knows precisely what he believes in –and is unabashed
in expressing himself. Moreover, Sanders is unlikely to have delusions of
grandeur — he knows he isn’t going to be the presidential nominee — so he
has nothing to lose by pushing Clinton hard.

Looking back at past presidential campaigns, a point of comparison for
Sanders is Eugene McCarthy, the Democratic Minnesota senator and three-time
presidential candidate. McCarthy ran against President Lyndon Johnson in
the 1968 New Hampshire primary and stunned everyone by nearly defeating the
incumbent. The outcome spurred Sen. Robert F. Kennedy to announce his own
candidacy and led to Johnson’s stunning decision to not seek reelection.
Like Sanders, McCarthy had an independent streak, and in fact McCarthy ran
for the presidency in 1976 as an independent. Democrats are relieved that
Sanders has personally pledged not to bolt like McCarthy and play a Ralph
Nader-like role (a la 2000) in the 2016 general election campaign.

To some extent, Clinton may be okay with Sanders potentially becoming her
most serious opponent. Clinton has long known that someone would emerge to
make the Democratic primary battle at least a minimal contest for the media
to cover. Additionally, plenty of party activists in the early states want
some competition in the race. Why not have her main challenger be the very
liberal Sanders, someone who will lack the resources and standing to truly
threaten her? Clinton also knows that she will need the base to turn out
heavily in November 2016, so she has already moved to the left on certain
issues, most recently immigration. Whereas someone like ex-Gov. Martin
O’Malley (D-MD) fits the profile of a more serious challenger to Clinton
(or did at some point), Sanders is a senator from one of the smallest
states, is unknown to most Americans, and cannot defeat Clinton, barring
incredible unforeseen circumstances.

Speaking of O’Malley, his stock has tumbled in light of the recent events
in Baltimore, where he served as mayor prior to becoming governor of
Maryland. Criminal justice policies he implemented as mayor, such as
zero-tolerance policing, have come under fire from critics who believe they
contributed to the long-term problems undergirding the recent riots in
Charm City. O’Malley has said he would announce in Baltimore “if” he runs
for president, a very likely move at this point, but this location won’t
provide an ideal campaign backdrop. Although he has to own and defend his
record as mayor and governor if he’s to remain a credible candidate,
Baltimore’s unrest can and will be used against O’Malley. For the time
being, he is positioned behind Sanders in our rankings.

While we have shifted our Democratic rankings this week, we also have one
change on the Republican side of the ledger: Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI)
announced last week that he will not seek the 2016 GOP nomination for
president, meaning that we can again remove him from the Crystal Ball list.
We had actually taken Snyder out of our rankings weeks ago but brought him
back in our last Republican updatebecause of numerous reports suggesting he
would run. But now that he’s explicitly said he won’t, “one tough nerd”
exits our rankings. That leaves a still-staggering 19 names on our
Republican list.

O'Malley secured Baltimore headquarters for potential presidential bid
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-omalley-secured-office-space-for-potential-presidential-bid-20150514-story.html>
// Baltimore Sun // Erin Cox - May 14, 2015

Former governor Martin O'Malley on Friday will sign a lease for 7,200
square feet of office space across the street from Baltimore's Penn
Station, the latest signal he will launch a presidential bid based in the
city.

O'Malley plans to shutter the D.C. office of his political action
committee, O'Say Can You See, and move 40 workers into space at 1501 St.
Paul St. by the middle of next week, O'Malley spokeswoman Lis Smith said.

The historic Railway Express building, formerly a parcel post office, was
once was owned by the city and redeveloped under O’Malley’s tenure as
Baltimore mayor. It currently houses nonprofits, professional offices, an
architecture firm and loft apartments.

The lease, expected to be signed Friday, comes as O'Malley convenes
Thursday evening with longtime Maryland staffers and supporters to discuss
his imminent political plans. Aides said he is inclined to run for
president, but has not made a final decision.

O'Malley, who left office in January after two-terms as governor following
six years as Baltimore mayor, has toured early primary states, hired staff
there and pitched himself as a progressive alternative to dominant
Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

He has scheduled a May 30 announcement in Baltimore to reveal his political
plans. Any potential run for president, he has said, will focus on his
tenure in Baltimore.

If he chooses to run, he will face an uphill fight against Clinton, who
dominates polls where O'Malley barely registers. Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders is also in the race.

Presidential hopeful Martin O'Malley hails US role in controversial war
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/14/martin-omalley-hails-us-role-war-1812>
// The Guardian // Ben Jacobs - May 14, 2015

Another presidential candidate is waffling what he would do about a war of
choice launched by a previous administration that ended with mixed results.
But the war in question is not the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The past few news cycles have been dominated by Jeb Bush’s waffling on
Megyn Kelly’s question “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized
the invasion [of Iraq]?” in an interview on Monday night. Eventually Bush
conceded on Thursday that, in hindsight, “I would not have gone into Iraq”.

But the Iraq war is not the only war that the United States has initiated
in its 239-year history.

One likely 2016 presidential candidate, the former Maryland governor Martin
O’Malley is a well-known War of 1812 buff but, emulating Jeb Bush, he
refused to take a stand on whether, knowing what we know now, he would
support James Madison’s decision to declare war on Great Britain in 1812.

However, he was very happy with the way the war ended. O’Malley told the
Guardian in a statement: “Not sure I’d start it again but we would sure as
heck finish it again.”

The war began when the United States decided to respond to over a decade of
British provocations – which included impressment of American sailors,
support for Indian attacks on American settlements and restrictions on
American trade – with a declaration of war. But the war was greatly
controversial at the time and divided the country. Opponents of the war in
New England even contemplated secession in protest.

Although the war started badly for the United States, eventually after
American victories in Baltimore and in New Orleans, a peace agreement was
reached after two and a half years and British provocations against the
United States ceased. However, the United States failed in one of its key
war aims, the invasion and annexation of Canada.

While O’Malley’s statement is a dodge, it is in line with previous comments
about the war. In a 2014 interview with the Daily Beast, the then Maryland
governor said that while he believed the war was a win for the United
States but thought it “was not necessarily a golden moment” in American
history.

O’Malley Won’t Criticize Stephanopoulos Over Clinton Foundation Donation
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/14/omalley-wont-criticize-stephanopoulos-over-clinton-foundation-donation/>
// Daily Caller // Al Weaver - May 14, 2015

A spokeswoman for former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s signaled Thursday
that his impending presidential campaign isn’t prepared to make an issue
out of George Stephanopoulos’s $50,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation.

“We’ve always found him to be fair,” Lis Smith told The Daily Caller,
referring to the ABC News anchor and former Clinton White House spokesman.

According to The Washington Post, O’Malley will likely join the Democratic
primary against Hillary Clinton on May 30. He’s reportedly set to make the
announcement in Baltimore after having criss-crossed the early primary
states since January.

Stephanopoulos did not tell viewers of the donation when he interviewed
Peter Schweizer, the author of “Clinton Cash,” which suggests donations to
the Clinton Foundation and hefty speaking fees paid to Bill Clinton helped
influence decisions made by Hillary Clinton during her tenure at the State
Department.

O’who? What you should know about Hillary Clinton’s most serious challenger
<http://fusion.net/story/134901/martin-omalley-running-president-hillary-clinton-challenger/>
// Fusion // Brett LoGiurato – May 14, 2015

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is expected to announce at the end of
this month what most assumed he had been gearing up for: a challenge to
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for
president.

His aides told reporters who had traveled along for a trip through New
Hampshire on Thursday that he will likely tell donors and supporters in a
conference call that he is “inclined to run,” according to The Washington
Post. His announcement will likely come around May 30 in Baltimore, where
he served as mayor from 1999-2007.

Presidential speculation has followed O’Malley since 2012, when it wasn’t
yet clear if Clinton would seek the nomination. But despite about three
years of jostling during his tenure as Maryland governor, he’ll start well
behind Clinton in the race and without much name recognition.

Some of his most fervent “support” to date has come from the reliably
conservative Drudge Report, whose founder, Matt Drudge, is obviously pining
for a liberal challenger to Clinton as well. Upon the news on Thursday
O’Malley was getting ready to announce, The Drudge Report plastered a photo
of O’Malley, shirtless and in running gear, on its banner.

He also might start behind an unexpected competitor for attention, as well
— Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who announced late last
month that he’d seek the Democratic nomination for president. The challenge
for O’Malley, political strategists and political science professors said,
is to paint himself as an electable Bernie Sanders — and a more progressive
Hillary Clinton.

“He has absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain by running,” said
Stella Rouse, the assistant director of the Center for American Politics
and Citizenship at the University of Maryland, in an email. “He can play
the contrarian to Hillary, hopefully gain some publicity and support
(especially via the debates if he does well).”

But O’Malley, who always served as the presumed progressive alternative to
Clinton, might need to do some work to just attain that status again. It’s
been Sanders who has gained real momentum in polls since his announcement.

Sanders jumped from 6 percent of the Democratic primary vote in April to 13
percent in May, according to surveys from Public Policy Polling. He’s also
seen similar spikes in support in key states like New Hampshire, where a
poll found that at least one-third of the Democratic electorate was
cramming for a more progressive nominee — be it Sanders or Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Massachusetts). In that same poll, from the University of New
Hampshire, O’Malley was still stuck at the bottom with 2 percent.

Geoffrey Skelley, the associate editor of the University of Virginia Center
for Politics’ Crystal Ball, placed O’Malley behind Sanders in terms of
viability in the center’s newsletter on Thursday.

“Along with his policy views, Sanders’ personal characteristics may also
make him a potent ‘protest’ option for liberals in the Democratic primary,”
Skelley wrote. “He is assertive and knows precisely what he believes in —
and is unabashed in expressing himself.”

Rouse added: “He will have a tougher time carving out a spot to the left of
Hillary Clinton now that Bernie Sanders is in the race.”

Skelley described O’Malley as someone who “fits the profile of a more
serious challenger to Clinton (or did at some point).”

The unrest in Baltimore, where protests sprang up amid the death of a
25-year-old black man in police custody, hasn’t helped. Some of the tactics
O’Malley instituted as Baltimore’s mayor were criticized, and he found a
mixed reception after he came back to the city from an overseas trip. The
unrest rekindled a longstanding feud between O’Malley and David Simon,
author and creator of The Wire. (Tommy Carcetti, the politically
expeditious Baltimore mayor and Maryland governor in the show, is loosely
based on O’Malley, Simon has said.)

“O’Malley has a very steep hill to climb. First, he left the Maryland
governorship, pretty much with his tail between his legs. His approval
numbers were underwater at 41 percent,” Rouse said. “Second, the recent
Baltimore riots did not help O’Malley. While he thought he could garner
some positive publicity by ‘returning home,’ his policies of tough policing
when he was Mayor of Baltimore came under scrutiny.”

O’Malley has, however, become much more willing to challenge Clinton more
directly recently. He has come out against a trade deal that most liberal
Democrats oppose, as well as drawn a contrast and implied that she has
hedged on her support for the deal in light of political expediency.
Clinton helped craft the early stages of the deal as secretary of state,
but has said more recently that she needs to see the final parameters
before announcing her position.

Many progressives think he simply needs to get out his message to a wider
audience. On the stump, he often talks about his progressive record as
governor. He did the tax hikes on the wealthy. He did the minimum-wage
hike. The death penalty is gone in Maryland. Gay couples can marry.
Undocumented immigrants can qualify for in-state tuition. Health-care
reform in Maryland has real legs and is in the midst of a revolution.

But does that message have a place anymore?

Said Rouse: “I think his message will easily get drowned out and he will
have a tough time getting that message out there and gaining any campaign
traction.”

GOP

The Field Is Flat
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-cook-report/2016-gop-candidates-field-20150515>
// National Journal // Charlie Cook – May 15, 2015

The field for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination is as flat as any
in modern memory—pretty remarkable for a party that usually has a fight but
almost invariably ends up nominating whoever's turn it is. While nomination
trial-heat polling tells us very little this early, there are some poll
questions that are better measurements of at least where these candidates
are starting out, before the campaigning, debates, and advertising begin in
earnest.

An April 26 to April 30 NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll asked
Republican primary voters whether they could or could not see themselves
voting for each of 10 different potential candidates. Marco Rubio topped
the list, with 74 percent saying they could see themselves supporting him.
Second was Jeb Bush with 70 percent; Scott Walker was third with 61
percent; Rand Paul was fourth at 59 percent; Ted Cruz was fifth at 57
percent; and Mike Huckabee was sixth with 52 percent. So six candidates had
more than half of GOP primary voters open to voting for them. (Rick Perry,
Ben Carson, Chris Christie, and Carly Fiorina rounded out the group with
45, 39, 38, and 17 percent, respectively.)

A CBS News / New York Times poll from April 30 to May 3 took a similar
approach, asking whether the respondents would consider or not consider 14
different potential GOP candidates. Rubio led this list as well with 48
percent; Huckabee was second with 47 percent; Bush was third at 46 percent;
Cruz had 40 percent; Perry had 39 percent; Paul had 35 percent; Carson had
33 percent; Walker had 32 percent; Rick Santorum and Chris Christie both
had 27 percent; Bobby Jindal had 24 percent; John Kasich had 15 percent;
Lindsey Graham had 12 percent; and Fiorina had 11 percent.

Tightening the focus a little more, a March Pew Research survey of
Republican voters and GOP-leaning independents asked respondents whether
there was a "good chance," "some chance," or "no chance" that they would
vote for 10 different candidates. An astonishing seven different candidates
had between 21 and 23 percent of respondents saying "good chance": Bush,
Rubio, and Walker tied for first place with 23 percent, Huckabee and Cruz
were next with 22 percent, and Paul and Carson followed at 21 percent.
That's a very tight pack.

Expanding to those who had half or more of Republicans saying "good chance"
or "some chance," six potential candidates made the cut: Bush (64 percent),
Huckabee (61 percent), Paul (57 percent), Rubio (55 percent), Cruz (54
percent), and Perry (53 percent).

What also becomes apparent from reading these surveys is that even the most
scrupulously honest pollsters can get fairly different results based on
exactly what question they ask and what group they are polling. Looking at
Republicans only is one thing; including Republican-leaning independents
can bring a very different result. This matters because, in some states,
independents are allowed to vote in party primaries, and, in other states,
they cannot. National polls have a hard time accounting for this
discrepancy, particularly now that area codes don't necessarily indicate
where someone actually lives and votes.

The flatness of this field combined with a system awash in money—with just
a single billionaire able to keep a candidate in the race—should make for
an exceedingly volatile Republican campaign, one that is absolutely
impossible to predict.

*Pataki to Announce Decision on White House Run on May 28
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/pataki-announce-decision-white-house-run-28-31045837>
// AP – May 14, 2014 *

Former New York Gov. George Pataki will announce May 28 in New Hampshire
whether he intends to seek the Republican nomination for president, he said
Thursday.

He made the announcement on social media and the MSNBC show "Morning Joe."

"I have no doubt that when I lay my ideas out there and go through my
background and what I've been able to do, people will say this is a guy who
could lead our country well," Pataki said on MSNBC.

Pataki has made repeated visits to New Hampshire since saying in January he
was considering a White House campaign. He said then that the nation can't
risk electing another Democratic president. He has campaigned against the
Affordable Care Act and criticized President Barack Obama's decision to use
an executive order to offer protections against deportation to millions of
immigrants living in the country illegally.

Pataki, 69, flirted with running in 2008 and 2012 after serving as New
York's governors from 1995 to 2006. He has cited his electoral success in
the heavily Democratic state and ability to work across the aisle as
strengths.

"No one thought I had a chance," Pataki said. "So the odds don't deter me."

Since leaving office he has launched a consulting firm and joined
Chadbourne & Parke, a New York City-based law firm.

Silver State looks to play in 2016 election
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/14/politics/nevada-election-2016-jeb-bush/> //
CNN // Ashley Killough - May 14, 2015

Reno, Nevada (CNN)Jeb Bush has his eyes on Nevada -- a state that is aiming
to become a bigger player in presidential politics.

Bush's attention -- and that of the growing Republican field -- could
result in more competition here after much of the 2008 and 2012
presidential field ignored the state, despite its fourth-in-the-nation
nominating status.

Bush, who hopes to appeal to Nevada's ever-growing Hispanic voting bloc,
visited the state for the second time since March on Wednesday, just days
after hiring well-regarded strategists to run his Nevada operation.

His visit is among stops made by a throng of other White House hopefuls who
are hoping to seize momentum in a state dominated by Mitt Romney and Ron
Paul in the past two contests.

Nevada didn't become an early-voting state until 2008, so the past two
cycles have also been experimental -- and Republicans here will tell you
the caucuses didn't go so well. "Confusing" and "complicated" are two words
thrown around to describe the process. The state party is now pushing for a
primary instead in 2016.

Thanks to support from the state's Mormon population, Romney won more than
50% of the caucus vote in 2008 and 2012, while Paul struck a chord with the
state's more libertarian faction and won over a slate of delegates.

But with Romney off the ticket this cycle, Nevada's caucuses are wide open,
and White House hopefuls are making the Silver State a more significant
part of their calculation. Bush made Nevada his first early-state stop this
year when he road-tested his stump speech in March, before going on to
Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

"You're part of the big four in February. It's hugely important," Bush told
local reporters after he held a town hall in Reno on Wednesday morning.

During the event, Bush told the crowd of about 150 people that he "had a
blast" campaigning for his father in Nevada during the general elections.
But he was quickly corrected on his pronunciation of the state. Like many
out-of-staters, Bush pronounced the state's name "Nev-AH-da" at the top of
his speech.

"Nev-AD-a," members of the audience shouted out.

"Nev-AD-a," he repeated back. "Well, got that out of the way. Thank you."

Further signaling his interest, Bush hired two well-regarded Republican
operatives: Ryan Erwin, a top adviser to Nevada Rep. Joe Heck, who won
re-election last year in a swing district, and a strategist from Erwin's
firm, Scott Scheid.

The ground game in Nevada is certainly no cakewalk. While voters are
largely concentrated in the Las Vegas and Reno areas, a sizable portion of
Republican caucus-goers live in the rural areas of the sparsely populated
state that covers 110,000 square miles.

"It'll be interesting to see how the candidates play that strategy," said
David Damore, a political science professor at the University of Nevada,
Las Vegas. "If you advertise in Vegas, you're getting three-fourths of the
voters, but the most Republican parts of the state are the hardest to
reach."

For Bush, Nevada also provides a bit of a blank slate. The state's
presidential preference vote wasn't in play during the campaigns of his
father and brother, so there's no significant primary history for Bush to
compete with or live up to -- unlike in Iowa, New Hampshire and South
Carolina. (Since Nevada is a swing state, however, his father and brother
both competed here during the general elections.)

Also of note, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval is, like Bush, a big backer of
Common Core and can provide Bush with cover as he treads through strong
sentiments against the controversial testing standards. Sandoval endorsed
then-Gov. Rick Perry early on in the last cycle, but it's unclear whether
he'll choose a candidate this time around, given that he could run to
replace retiring Sen. Harry Reid on Capitol Hill.

The Nevada governor's support will nonetheless be courted.

Answering questions about whether Bush is considering Sandoval as a
potential running mate, Bush told reporters Wednesday that he's a "big fan"
of the governor.

"I enjoy our friendship," he said, but added, "It's way premature for
someone who is considering running to be talking about that."

And with the sixth-most populous Hispanic electorate in the country, Nevada
gives Bush further incentive to showcase his ties to the Hispanic
community. Bush and his wife, who's from Mexico, lived in Venezuela when
they were younger and now live in South Florida. Bush is fluent in Spanish
and stands by his unpopular push for a path to legal status for
undocumented workers.

While Bush meets resistance over his immigration proposal from Republican
primary voters in other early-voting states, Damore expects "he'll get a
pass" in Nevada because the issue is less of a fiery topic in the state,
where more than one-quarter of the population is Hispanic.

"Immigration is not an animating issue here like taxes or the scope of
government," Damore said.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who's also angling to compete for Hispanic
voters, lived in Las Vegas when he was younger and recently brought on
Nevada Lt. Gov. Mark Hutchison as his state chairman. The son of Cuban
immigrants, Rubio has said he still has family in Southern Nevada, where
his father worked as a bartender at the Sam's Town Hotel and his mother
worked as a housekeeper at the Imperial Palace hotel.

"We have great affection for Nevada," Rubio told the Las Vegas
Review-Journal when he visited the state in February during his book tour.
"We look forward to coming back many times."

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, however, has been perhaps the most organized on
the ground in Nevada, with an infrastructure that he in part inherited from
his father's presidential campaigns. While Romney snagged a majority of the
vote in the 2012 caucuses, Paul ultimately won more delegates, and they
protested loudly at the Republican National Convention later that year.

It's because of that situation that the state GOP chairman is now pushing
for Nevada to hold a primary instead of a caucus. "It was a total disaster
the way it was handled. It was an embarrassment for the state," Nevada GOP
Chairman Michael McDonald told the Washington Examiner.

A primary, however, could potentially dilute the pro-Paul activists who are
still organized at the caucus level and attract a broader pool of voters --
a setback for Paul but a potential benefit for candidates like Bush.

But Team Rand doesn't see it as a problem.

"Rand can and will compete in whatever selection process chosen by the
people of Nevada," said Doug Stafford, a top Paul adviser.

At the Bush town hall, one woman asked the former governor how he plans to
unite the divided party in Nevada. Bush said Republicans aren't always
going to agree with one another but that they need to focus on winning.

"We need to get back to 'How do you get to 50?'" he said. "My focus will be
on not turning back and getting into a food fight with people that might
not agree with me completely — put on your big boy pants and take it."

Other White House hopefuls have visited the state in part to court support
from Republican megadonor and casino titan Sheldon Adelson, who supported
Newt Gingrich and who's known for his staunch support of Israel. Last
month, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Perry flocked to the Republican Jewish
Coalition's spring meeting in Vegas.

In addition to his town hall in Reno on Wednesday, Bush headlined the Clark
County Republican Party's Lincoln Day dinner at the Orleans Hotel in Las
Vegas. Ben Carson was also in town on Wednesday night to headline a dinner
that raises money for Opportunity Village, a nonprofit that helps people
with intellectual disabilities.

"This time, I think we're going to be hugely competitive," said Aaron Sims,
who's running for mayor of Carson City. "You're going to see a lot more of
the percentage of the vote being divided among these candidates."

Meet the College Democrat Who Told Jeb Bush: ‘Your Brother Created ISIS’
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-college-democrat-told-jeb-bush-brother-created/story?id=31041091>
// ABC News // Alana Abramson - May 14, 2015

Jeb Bush found himself on defense after his town hall meeting in Reno,
Nevada, Wednesday after a young voter told him, “Your brother created ISIS.”

Ivy Ziedrich, a 19-year-old student at University of Nevada who said she
was a registered Democrat, approached Bush after the event and told the
likely presidential candidate he was wrong about the origins of the terror
group:

“You stated that ISIS was created because we don't have enough presence and
we've been pulling out of the Middle East. However, the threat of ISIS was
created by the Iraqi coalition authority, which ousted the entire
government of Iraq. It was when 30,000 individuals who are part of the
Iraqi military were forced out. They had no employment, they had no income,
yet they were left with access to all the same arms and weapons. Your
brother created ISIS!”

Bush, the former Florida governor and likely Republican presidential
candidate, unsuccessfully tried to interject. When he reached out, Ziedrich
snapped back: “You don't need to be pedantic to me sir. You could just
answer my question.”

“We respectfully disagree,” Bush said, explaining his view that more
American troops in Iraq would have prevented ISIS from forming.

“So look, we can rewrite history all you want, but the simple fact is that
we're in a much more unstable place because America pulled back,” he told
Ziedrich.

Ziedrich said she is a member of the Young Democrats at her university,
although in an interview with ABC News Wednesday she said she was not
speaking as a representative of the group. She said she likes to attend
political events across the ideological spectrum so she can be as informed
as possible. She said she did not intend to come across as hostile in her
exchange with Bush, which occurred after the town hall meeting had
concluded. She added that she respects Bush as a politician.

“I think he’s telling the truth as he understands it,” Ziedrich said in a
telephone interview. “I think it’s important when we have people in
positions of authority we demand a dialogue and accountability.”

She added: “I see his response as a lack of perspective. We deserve more
than this as voters.”

Will Ziedrich make an appearance at similar events?

“If there are other town halls here, and if any presidential candidate
comes to an open event, I would love to attend,” she told ABC News.

Jeb Bush Reverses Himself: ‘I Would Not Have Gone Into Iraq’
<http://time.com/3859074/jeb-bush-iraq/> // TIME // Zeke J. Miller - May
14, 2015

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush sought to turn the page on a week of terrible
press coverage Thursday, telling a group of Arizona voters that knowing
what is known now, he would not have launched the 2003 Iraq War.

“Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone
into Iraq,” Bush said, in reference to his greatest liability—the unpopular
war launched by his brother, former President George W. Bush.

It was the latest turn in a tumultuous week that began with an interview
with Fox News host Megyn Kelly on Saturday in which he said he would have
supported going to war, even knowing that the Iraqi government did not
possess weapons of mass destruction. “My mind kind of calculated it
differently,” Bush later explained, saying he misheard Kelly’s question.

On Wednesday, Bush dodged the same question Kelly asked him days earlier,
saying he wouldn’t answer “hypotheticals” and that the question did a
“disservice” to the memories of the 4,491 American war dead.

But that didn’t put the questions to rest, Bush’s Republican opponents
lined up to criticize him for the comments, while Democrats gleefully used
the opportunity to tie him to his brother.

“If we knew then what we know now and I were the President of the United
States, I wouldn’t have gone to war,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told
CNN Tuesday. Sen. Rand Paul told the Associated Press that Bush’s comments
represent “a real problem if he can’t articulate what he would have done
differently.”

“Knowing what we know now, of course we wouldn’t go into Iraq,” Sen. Ted
Cruz told The Hill.

Sen. Marco Rubio went even further in an interview Wednesday at the Council
on Foreign Relations. “Not only would I have not been in favor of it,
President Bush would not have been in favor of it. He said so,” he said.

Bush’s reversal may put the controversy to rest temporarily, but it only
further highlights the challenges the entire Republican field with respect
to talking about the conflict.

In a gaggle with reporters after his remarks, Bush maintained that the war
was “worth it” for the families of the war dead.

“It was worth it for those families,” he said. “It was worth it for the
people that made major sacrifices. In 2008 Iraq was stable. It was fragile,
but it was stable. It was because of the heroic efforts of a lot of people.
And re-litigating this and going through hypotheticals I think does no good
to them.”

Bush said that after the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater
Syria (ISIS), the U.S. must “re-engage” in Iraq beyond what President Obama
has done.

“I think we need to re-engage and do it in a more forceful way,” Bush said.
“The president is very reluctant for whatever reason to make a clear
commitment that we should have kept 5,000, 10,000 troops there.”

He acknowledged that there has been success countering ISIS since Obama
ordered airstrikes and deployed trainers to assist Iraqi forces last year,
but said more has to be done. “We can’t do it by drones. We have to be
there to train the military and to do the things that are being done right
now. And I believe that if we had stayed the course in that, if we do, we
will be successful.”

Why Jeb Bush Had to Ditch Dubya
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/14/why-jeb-had-to-ditch-dubya.html>
// The Daily Beast // Matt Lewis - May 14, 2015

George W. Bush was able to successfully show us where he split with his
dad. The future of Jeb’s candidacy depends on his ability to pull off a
similar trick.

A while back, my friend and boss, Tucker Carlson, refused to condemn his
brother for some inappropriate comments that were accidentally made public.
“You know what, if my brother committed a mass murder, I would not
criticize him in public,” Carlson later explained. “He’s my brother.
Period. Under no circumstances will I criticize my family in public—ever.
That’s the rule, and I’m not breaking it.”

As an only child, I can’t fully identify with this fraternal loyalty. But I
respect the hell out of it. It’s a dangerous world, and if your brother
doesn’t have your back, who will? But there are consequences to adhering to
this sort of code. And right now, Jeb Bush is finding out that his
reluctance to publicly criticize and break with his brother could
potentially doom his presidential bid.

On Thursday he finally pulled the trigger and stated the obvious: No, he
now says, he wouldn’t have invaded Iraq given what we know now. It was an
important moment in his campaign. It was also flat-footed—his fourth answer
to the question in a week—and probably didn’t go far enough. But it had to
be said.

In the last 48 hours or so, we’ve seen Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Marco
Rubio, Ben Carson, and John Kasich all say that—knowing what we know
now—the war was a mistake. And, of course, Rand Paul has been pushing this
line all along (without need of the “knowing what we know now” caveat). Jeb
lagged far behind the rest of the field on what should have been an easy
question.

But of course—because the man who ordered the invasion was his brother—Jeb
finds himself in a unique situation. And so, he spent several news cycles
failing to adequately answer a serous question about what might be the most
important foreign policy decision of the early 21st century.

Jeb’s “I’m my own man” act was, of course, never going to fly. Not without
proof. And it wouldn’t have flown for Dubya, either, even though his
father—the last Republican president (you always have to distance yourself
from the last guy)—wasn’t as much of an albatross in 2000 as W. is today.
In fact, a big part of the reason Dubya succeeded is that he broke with his
dad, who still had a toxic reputation on the right, what with the tax hike
and the disdain for “voodoo economics” and the losing to Bill Clinton.

Poppy made his bones in the GOP as a pro-choice moderate, an ally of Nixon
and Ford; George W. ran as the personification of the religious right.

In all theatre, including politics, the first rule is show, don’t tell. And
George W. Bush didn’t just tell us he was different; he showed us he was
different. He spoke differently. He wasn’t a WASP from the northeast; he
was a born-again evangelical from Texas. “There is a higher father that I
appeal to,” he once told Bob Woodward. Poppy made his bones in the GOP as a
pro-choice moderate, an ally of Nixon and Ford; George W. ran as the
personification of the religious right.

And guess what? It worked. George W. Bush managed to get elected and,
unlike his dad, re-elected. In one fell swoop, Dubya avenged his father’s
defeat at the hands of Bill Clinton—by simultaneously disowning his father.
Jeb’s reluctance to make a similar break with his brother’s legacy cost him
dearly this week, and despite his comments on Thursday, it will dog him for
months.

Granted, what Dubya pulled off was a difficult trick. Despite sending the
aforementioned signals to everyone that he would be more like Reagan than
his own old man, he never completely threw Poppy under the bus. In fact, it
was pretty clear that he loved his dad, even as he surrounded himself with
Poppy’s old enemies like Don Rumsfeld. And then, just as he would do what
his dad couldn’t do electorally, he would also finish the job in Baghdad.

Not to play Maureen Dowd pop psychologist here, but how much of the last
few decades can be explained by the psychological need to avenge George
H.W. Bush’s presidency—not by means of revisionist history, but by means of
reliving it … getting it right this time?

The irony, of course, is that 41 did a good job of winding down the Cold
War and effectively neutering Saddam. As you’ll recall, after H.W. Bush
managed to assemble an impressive coalition, and refused to get bogged down
in some quagmire. But no good deed goes unpunished. He wins a war, and some
lecherous hillbilly from Arkansas takes his job? And to add insult to
injury, Saddam tried to have Poppy assassinated.

So here you have this interesting psychology whereby George W. Bush is
willing to publicly distance himself from dear old dad, do things dad
wouldn’t approve of, in order to avenge him. This would be fascinating
enough, were it not for John Ellis Bush.

Another weird twist to this story is that Jeb, always the favorite son, is
probably more like 41 than 43 in temperament and outlook. And maybe that
means that, had Jeb been elected president in 2000, instead of his brother,
he wouldn’t have gotten us involved in the Iraq War, while he
simultaneously lacks the killer instinct to tell us that. Maybe—just as 41
had the governing skills, but lacked the political instincts that might
have made him a two-term president—Jeb Bush is just too decent a guy to get
elected.

But here’s the bottom line: Jeb has to really distance himself from his
brother, albeit in some respectable manner, if he wants to be president. He
needs us to show us how he’s different, what he’d do differently, and where
he and his brother diverge on issues both foreign and domestic. Where does
he stand on the bailouts, the massive growth in government spending, the
Medicare expansion, and all the other facets of the Bush presidency that
still anger conservatives? He has to make a break with all that if he wants
to make it to the nomination and, ultimately, the White House.

This insanely difficult choice—whether to stay with his brother or leave
him behind—will largely define Jeb’s candidacy. The Bushes have always
prized loyalty, but for Jeb, absolute loyalty to his brother—and winning
the presidency—might be mutually exclusive. Some presidents would run over
their own mother if that’s what it takes to win an election. What is Jeb
willing to say about his brother’s policies—if push comes to shove?

Rubio shows his prowess at CFR
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/05/14/rubio-shows-his-prowess-at-cfr/>
// WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – May 14, 2015

Appearing at the Council on Foreign Relations for a speech (hyped a tad too
much) billed as introducing his “doctrine,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) gave
a strong but not novel address on military strength, the U.S. economy and
moral clarity. His strongest passage came with regard to the third:

In recent years, the ideals that have long formed the backbone of American
foreign policy – a passionate defense of human rights, the strong support
of democratic principles, and the protection of the sovereignty of our
allies – have been replaced by, at best, caution, and at worst, outright
willingness to betray those values for the expediency of negotiations with
repressive regimes.

This is not only morally wrong, it is contrary to our interests. Because
wherever freedom and human rights spread, partners for our nation are born.
But whenever our foreign policy comes unhinged from its moral purpose, it
weakens global stability and forms cracks in our national resolve.

In this century, we must restore America’s willingness to think big – to
state boldly what we stand for and why it is right. Just as Reagan never
flinched in his criticisms of the Soviet Union’s political and economic
repressions, we must never shy away from demanding that China allow true
freedom for its 1.3 billion people. Nor should we hesitate in calling the
source of atrocities in the Middle East by its real name – radical Islam.

As president, I will support the spread of economic and political freedom,
reinforce our alliances, resist efforts by large powers to subjugate their
smaller neighbors, maintain a robust commitment to transparent and
effective foreign assistance programs, and advance the rights of the
vulnerable – including women and the religious minorities that are so often
persecuted – so that the afflicted peoples of the world know the truth: the
American people hear their cries, see their suffering, and most of all,
desire their freedom.

It was a refreshing change from the false choice (really, pandering to the
far right) between national interest OR human rights posed by candidates
like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). As Rubio said, defending human rights is in
our national interest.

The most impressive part of Rubio’s appearance, by leaps and bounds, was
the Q&A. He ignored moderator Charlie Rose’s posturing and distracted
glances, his feigned astonishment that anyone could find the Iran deal a
bad idea and his inept efforts to interject his opinions. Rubio calmly
responded to tough questions on everything from Guantanamo (if you take up
arms to kill Americans, we have the right to take you off the battlefield)
to his fundamental difference with the president (President Obama sees the
United States as the cause of friction and unrest in the world) to Iraq
(unlike Jeb Bush, he crisply said he would not have gone to war if he had
known about the absence of WMDs and neither would George W. Bush) to his
criticisms of Hillary Clinton (Russian reset, allowing Libya to fall into
chaos) to his view of the two-state solution (it’s the ideal but
circumstances now do allow for it). He has substantive knowledge at a level
of detail only Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) among the other contenders
possesses, but he is also able to speak with clarity and purpose. You know
where he stands and why, and he is an effective and civil persuader, even
if you don’t always agree.

Rubio clearly passes the knowledge test on foreign policy and aces the
“creative domestic policy ideas” part of the extended job interview with
the voters (that’s what an election is, after all). If he keeps giving
performances like this, he may very well overcome worries about his youth
and lack of executive experience. As to the latter, he’d do well to not
just show off his knowledge but relate something about his life that
demonstrates the sort of decision-making skill, tenacity, sound judgment
and refusal to bend to conventional wisdom we expect in a president.
Nevertheless, other presidential hopefuls should watch out: He’s likely to
catch them trying to fudge their way through the debates. They had better
come prepared.

Like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio Has Evolved on Iraq Question
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeb-bush-marco-rubio-evolved-iraq-question/story?id=31044232>
// ABC News // Erin Dooley - May 14, 2015

Over the course of the last few days, likely Republican presidential
candidate Jeb Bush has showcased an evolving position on whether he would
have authorized the invasion of Iraq in 2003 "knowing what we know now"
about faulty intelligence at the time.

But, as it turns out, it is also a question that has vexed one of possible
rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

Jeb Bush: 3 Days, 4 Different Answers About Iraq

Why Jeb Bush Isn't Keeping Marco Rubio Out of the 2016 Race

Asked on Wednesday whether he would have supported the invasion of Iraq in
2003 had he known the country did not possess weapons of mass destruction,
Rubio added his voice to the chorus of Republican presidential hopefuls who
have said "no" this week.

"Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President Bush would not
have been in favor of it -- and he said so," Rubio told Charlie Rose after
a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

"I don't think the Congress would have voted in favor of the authorization"
had they not relied on faulty intelligence, he added.

But Rubio's comments this week appear to differ from his assertions on Fox
News' "The Five" in March.

When asked a somewhat different question: Whether it was "a mistake to go
to war in Iraq," Rubio responded, "no, I don't believe it was."

"The world is a better place because Saddam Hussein doesn't run Iraq," he
said. "We don't know what the world would look like if Saddam Hussein was
still there. But I doubt it would look better ... it would be worse, or
just as bad for different reasons."

His response this March was very similar to what Rubio said during a
Florida U.S. Senate debate in October 2010.

Asked by the moderators whether America was "safer and better off for
having gone to war in Iraq," Rubio answered: "I think the answer ultimately
is yes. First of all, the world is better off because Saddam Hussein is no
longer in charge in Iraq."

Rubio's allies argue that the senator's comments don't actually contradict
one another. Condemning the war's justifications and appreciating its
outcomes are not mutually exclusive, they say.

Meanwhile, Bush -- who has not yet declared his candidacy but is expected
to do in the near future -- has answered the question five different ways
in just four days.

When asked in an interview that aired on Monday by Fox News' Megyn Kelly:
"Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion" of Iraq
in 2003, Bush initially responded: "I would have and so would have Hillary
Clinton, just to remind everybody, and so would almost everybody that was
confronted with the intelligence they got."

Subsequently, Bush said he misheard the initial question. And at a town
hall meeting in Arizona on Thursday, he came full circle.

"If we're all supposed to answer hypotheticals," Bush said, "I would not,
have engaged, I would not have gone into Iraq."

UPDATE: In an interview a New Hampshire radio station Thursday evening,
Rubio clarified that he has been answering “two separate questions.”

“The first is if, what I was asked yesterday by Charlie Rose, is if you
knew that there weren't weapons of mass destruction, would you have gone
forward? And the answer is no one would have,” he said on New Hampshire Now.

“If you believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that they could
have passed on to terrorists; that they could have used to massacre their
people and start a regional arms race - you absolutely have to to do that,”
he added.

“We still would have had to deal with Saddam Hussein, but obviously would
have done so differently. The Presidents don't get that luxury. The
President has to act on what he is told at the time,” he said. “And so it
was not a mistake in the sense that the President made the right decision
based on what he believed and had reason to believe, at that time.”

An Open Letter To Marco Rubio: I Am Ashamed I Ever Worked On Your Behalf
<http://www.westernjournalism.com/an-open-letter-to-marco-rubio-i-am-ashamed-i-ever-worked-on-your-behalf/>
// Western Journalism // KrisAnne Hall - May 14, 2015

Mr. Rubio,

I have read your opinion piece published on May 10, 2015. I understand that
this is your opinion, but I am puzzled how you can hold these opinions and
still claim to be conservative member of a party that claims to be
supporting the Constitution.

Specifically, you claim that the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act are essential to the protection of our “national security”
and that we must continue these clear violations of our 4th Amendment and
our Right to Liberty to keep us “safe.” To the contrary, with these
“permissible” intrusions, we have seen a massive increase in power of
government in general and the power of the executive in particular,
increased control over the people, and a decreased respect for the Rights
of the people throughout America. Faisal Shahzad, the Boston Bombing, and
the Garland Shooting are clear examples of when the government was
continually monitoring these “terrorists” and still allowed the violence to
occur; so tell me again how critical it is to do away with the 4th
amendment?

You claim that “Bulk metadata includes phone numbers, the time and duration
of calls — nothing else. No content of any phone calls is collected.”  You
contradict your own claims in the very next sentence: “The government is
not listening to your phone calls or recording them unless you are a
terrorist or talking to a terrorist outside the United States.” (emphasis
mine)  What you are truly telling America is that the government IS
listening to our phone calls AND recording them–but “trust us, it’s only
when we think you are a terrorist.”  I’m sorry, sir; I cannot garner that
much trust for my government–and you should not suggest you expect it.  May
I remind you that on two separate occasions, the DHS and DoD have declared
the definition of “terrorist” to be so broad as to include many within the
Republican party!

“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those
groups, movements, and adherents that are…rejecting federal authority in
favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority
entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”  This report
also claims “return of military veterans…could lead to the potential
emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying
out violent attacks."  DHS Office of Intelligence & Analysis Assessment
April 7, 2009

“Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate
messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’
rights, and how to make the world a better place.” January 2013, DoD
Training on Extremism

Knowing that these are the OFFICIAL definitions of a “terrorist,” how can
you possibly expect Americans to trust this government with such a gross
violation of our Liberties?

Your statement that “Despite recent court rulings, this program has not
been found unconstitutional, and the courts have not ordered a halt to the
program” is disingenuous at best and borders on complete propaganda.
Production of just one case contrary to your claims shows your dishonesty.
I will give three:

On March 15, 2013, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston declared that the
Patriot Act section 2709 “violates the First Amendment and the separation
of powers principle…The government is therefore enjoined from issuing NSLs
under 2709 or from enforcing the nondisclosure provision in this or any
other case.”

On December 16, 2013, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon entered “an order
that bars the Government from collecting, as a part of the NSA’s Bulk
Telephony Metadata Program, any telephony metadata associated with their
personal Verizon accounts and (2) requires the Government to destroy any
such metadata in its possession that was collected through the bulk
collection program.”

On May 7, 2015, a three judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Sack and
Lynch, along with District Judge Broderick, ruled that the National
Security Agency program that is systematically collecting Americans’ phone
records in bulk is illegal, stating that “the telephone metadata program
exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized and therefore violates §
215.”

In these three court cases, we have seen that actions taken under the
Patriot Act have been deemed unconstitutional and illegal, bulk metadata
collection has been ordered to a halt, and the National Security Agency’s
exercise of section 215 of the Patriot Act has been deemed illegal.

Mr. Rubio, you then try to justify these false claims by clarifying that
“In fact, this program has been found legal and constitutional by at least
15 federal judges serving on the FISA Court on 35 occasions.” This is
simply more propaganda intended to deceive the public. Who are the FISA
Courts?

They are federal courts appointed by the federal government whose only job
is to review “applications submitted by the United States Government for
approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other
investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes.”

“Most of the Court’s work is conducted ex parte as required by statute, and
due to the need to protect classified national security information.”

Consideration of the Constitution is secondary to national security needs.
(See Rule 5(a))

So let’s get this straight, Mr. Rubio: you expect the American people to be
comforted by the fact that 15 federal judges, appointed by the federal
government, whose rules and procedures by definition place national
security over the Rights of the people, and whose judgments are held in
secret with no accountability, have determined the government’s actions to
be legal?  Tell me again how you believe in the bedrock principles of
America. One of your flowery speeches quoting the founders while you pander
to real conservatives who haven’t figured out who you are should do nicely.

You claim that “There is not a single documented case of abuse of this
program.”  Not a single “documented” case of abuse in a system shrouded in
secrecy, hidden by “national security” claims, conducted ex parte,
protected with gag orders? Wow! That indeed is impressive. I would find
your argument more credible if you simply start yelling, “I AM OZ; pay no
attention to that man behind the curtain, you young whippersnapper!”

Your Alinsky-like use of threats of future violence puts you in dubious
company, to say the least. Don’t you guys get tired of trotting out some
boogeyman to scare the people into trading Liberty for a false sense of
security?  Every attack that gets through your vaunted dragnet is used by
you as proof that we need to sacrifice more and more liberty. Somehow, we
are supposed to believe that the reason some nutjob blows something up is
that the people are too free!  Your opinion (demonstrated by your rhetoric)
that the Constitution is outdated, that the founders were ignorant fools,
is the very thing I labor to combat every day. I am ashamed of ever having
worked on your behalf. You have been a sincere disappointment to say the
least.

Here are some words that you, Mr. Rubio, should take to heart: “The very
word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a
people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret
oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of
excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the
dangers which are cited to justify it.”  John F. Kennedy

You, sir, are a cheerleader for the very thing JFK wisely warned Americans
to guard against. I don’t care whether you call yourself Senator or
President; your used car sales pitch for security is not worth my son’s
Liberty. And you, sir, ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Sincerely,

KrisAnne Hall

The small surprises in Marco Rubio’s big foreign policy speech
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/14/the-small-surprises-in-marco-rubios-big-foreign-policy-speech/>
// WaPo // Daniel W. Drezner - May 14, 2015

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has migrated from sorta sounding like a hawk to
really sounding like a hawk over the past four years. And his big speech
Wednesday at the Council on Foreign Relations was about as neoconservative
as a foreign policy speech could get.

How neoconservative was it? He hit all of the neocon erogenous zones:
bashing the Iran deal, bashing China, bashing terrorism, supporting Israel,
emphasizing the need for American leadership and so forth. The full text of
his speech actually capitalized the phrase “American Strength” all nine
times it appeared, like it was a special status that either American
Express or American Airlines was rolling out.

So if you like neoconservative foreign policy, you should be very happy
with Rubio’s speech; if you don’t like it, you should be very scared.

So that was the Big Takeaway. But the other, not-completely-neocon-y notes
in Rubio’s speech also stood out to me. In particular:

1) Rubio’s emphasis on foreign economic policy. In articulating why foreign
policy mattered, Rubio said flat out, “The prosperity of our people now
depends on their ability to interact freely and safely in the international
marketplace…. Today, as never before, foreign policy is domestic policy.”

It this boilerplate? A little. But it’s boilerplate that’s been noticeably
lacking from other GOP presidential candidates. Rubio used this point to
support the Trans Pacific Partnership while attacking Hillary Clinton for
her squeamishness regarding that trade deal.

Also interesting was Rubio’s second pillar, the protection of the American
economy in a globalized world:

As president, I will use American power to oppose any violations of
international waters, airspace, cyberspace, or outer space. This includes
the economic disruption caused when one country invades another, as well as
the chaos caused by disruptions in chokepoints such as the South China Sea
or the Strait of Hormuz.

Russia, China, Iran, or any other nation that attempts to block global
commerce will know to expect a response from my administration.

This “protecting the global commons” plank makes some sense, and it’s
conceptually sensible and politically smart to lump together Iranian
activity in the Straits of Hormuz with Russian and Chinese cyberattacks.

What makes much less sense is the implication that either Russia or China
has an interest in blocking global commerce (in fact, if you want to get
technical about it, it’s the United States and European Union that are
currently blocking Russia from much of the global economy). And the precise
way to “use American power” seems important to flesh out.

Still, as a first principle goes, it’s OK.

2) Rubio’s approach to Russia in 2016 is somewhat more sober than Romney in
2012. Republicans are fond of claiming Romney’s strategic acumen with
respect to Russia. And it’s not like Rubio thinks Vladimir Putin is a big
pussycat. But when asked a softball question about Russia during the Q&A,
Rubio’s take was — wait for it — sober.

He pointed out that Putin wanted Russia to be a great power on a par with
China or the United States, but that this was economically impossible,
particularly after the imposition of U.S.-EU sanctions. Instead, Putin’s
actions in Ukraine and the rest of the near-abroad were compensating for
his economic weakness.

Again, this isn’t shocking news to anyone paying attention. But given the
GOP’s man-crush on Putin over the past year, it’s comforting to hear a
clear-eyed, non-hyperbolic assessment of Russia’s actual strengths and
weaknesses from a Republican.

3) Rubio is genuinely interested in foreign policy.

As Yahoo’s Meredith Shiner noted, “the question-and-answer session after
Rubio’s address to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York provided an
even more interesting glimpse into the thinking of a candidate.”

The glimpse I got was of someone who was genuinely interested in foreign
affairs. I didn’t agree with a ton of what he said, but his responses on
Syria and Cuba suggested that he did have a clear and consistent worldview.

I wrote something about Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) a few months ago that
applies to the entire GOP field, “This isn’t about whether Walker should
profess a more dovish or hawkish foreign policy posture. This is whether he
wants to sound like a smart hawk or a dumb hawk.”

Rubio’s a hawk — like the rest of the GOP potentials. He’s a hawk who has
made the occasional gaffe. But he’s not dumb, and unlike most of the rest
of the GOP field, he does not need to play catch-up on foreign affairs. And
given the importance that national security will play in the GOP primary,
that is a decided advantage for the senator from Florida.

Ted Cruz: I Won Those Purple Hearts!
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/15/ted-cruz-ask-me-for-a-purple-heart.html>
// The Daily Beast // Patricia Murphy – May 15, 2015

The senator claims on the campaign trail that he was the reason the Fort
Hood soldiers shot in a 2009 attack were awarded Purple Hearts. Why that’s
stretching the truth just a tad.

Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential stump speech electrifies conservative crowds
with a cocktail of growls, whispers, warnings of impending doom, and at
least one claim of personal accomplishment so powerful, it often brings
many in the audience to their feet.

“Just a few weeks ago, I was down in Fort Hood, where the soldiers who were
shot by Nidal Hasan were finally, finally, finally awarded the Purple
Heart,” Cruz told activists last weekend at the conservative Freedom Forum
in Greenville, S.C. “I’ll tell you the reason those Purple Hearts were
awarded. I was very proud last year to introduce legislation in the Senate
to mandate that the Pentagon award those Purple Hearts.”

Cruz rightly pointed out that for years, the Obama administration had
classified the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Tex., by Army Maj. Nidal Hasan
as a “workplace violence” incident rather than as a terrorist attack,
though Hasan’s rampage came after he had been in contact with al Qaeda
leader Anwar al-Awlaki. Hasan’s shooting spree left 13 dead and 32 wounded,
including dozens of military personnel who were deemed ineligible for the
Purple Heart because of the Pentagon’s classification of the attack as not
combat-related.

At the end of 2014, Congress passed a bill requiring the Pentagon to
reclassify the 2009 attack, and the Fort Hood victims were indeed awarded
the Purple Heart.

But Cruz voted not once but twice against the Pentagon authorization bill
that changed the Purple Heart policy. A Cruz spokesman told the Dallas
Morning News that Cruz voted against the bill over an issue unrelated to
the Fort Hood shootings but that “he would have found another way to get it
done” had the bill had not passed. “Supporting one amendment certainly does
not mean a senator is obligated to support the entire bill.”

And although Cruz played an important role on the Senate Armed Services
Committee at last year, the credit for changing the Pentagon’s
long-standing policy belongs to at least a dozen senators and members of
Congress who had pushed the issue relentlessly for years before Cruz ever
arrived in the Senate.

“The claim nonetheless omits what Lieberman, Cornyn and others had done to
get the ball to the one-yard line.”

It was Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), not Cruz, who originally introduced
legislation to award the Purple Heart to the Fort Hood victims in 2009.
Cornyn’s bill coincided with a similar bill from Rep. John Carter (R-TX),
whose district includes much of Fort Hood. Cornyn and Carter would
introduce their bills again in 2011 and 2013. Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX),
Frank Wolf (R-VA), and Peter King (R-NY) all pushed the matter in their own
committees.

Rep. Michael McCaul, another Texas Republican and the chairman of the House
Homeland Security Committee, held hearings on the matter. Sen. Joe
Lieberman (I/D-CT), the former chairman of the Senate Homeland Security
Committee, did the same and commissioned a months-long investigation into
the causes of the Fort Hood attack.

Lieberman introduced a bill of his own, along with Cornyn, in 2012 to
mandate that the Pentagon change its criteria for awarding the Purple Heart
that would include the Fort Hood victims. In 2014, Sen. John Boozman, a
Republican from Arkansas who is also on the Armed Services Committee, wrote
legislation similar to Cruz’s to mandate that the Pentagon award Purple
Hearts to victims of a similar shooting at a Little Rock military
recruiting center in 2009.

Neal Sher, a lead attorney for the Fort Hood victims and their families who
sued the Pentagon over the policy, said the reclassification was the result
of efforts by multiple offices for multiple years on and off Capitol Hill.

“Cruz was instrumental, Cornyn was instrumental, the Texas House
delegation, McCaul, Carter, Williams, were all instrumental,” said Sher.
“It took years, years. The administration and the Pentagon were opposing it
every step of the way. It took an act of Congress to get them to change
their tune.”

A staffer who worked on the issue agreed that Cruz did play an important
part in the final result for the families, but “the claim nonetheless omits
what Lieberman, Cornyn and others had done to get the ball to the one-yard
line. In other words, ‘the reason those Purple Hearts were awarded’ phrase
is true but insufficient. “

It’s not the first time Cruz has claimed credit for something on the
campaign trail that has raised eyebrows back in Washington.

Cruz ran into a buzz saw with Sen. John McCain last month after the Texas
senator told a New Hampshire audience that he had been pressing McCain to
hold congressional hearings to allow members of the military to carry
personal firearms on military bases. Cruz suggested that McCain had yet to
respond.

McCain said Cruz had never spoken with him about it at all.

“Ask him how he communicated with me because I’d be very interested. Who
knows what I’m missing?” McCain said to a group of reporters in the
Capitol, according to The Hill. “Maybe it was through some medium that I’m
not familiar with. Maybe bouncing it off the ozone layer, for all I know.
There’s a lot of holes in the ozone layer, so maybe it wasn’t the ozone
layer that he bounced it off of. Maybe it was through hand telegraph, maybe
sign language, who knows?”

Cruz later acknowledged he “may have misspoken” about his outreach to
McCain. Cruz’s office did not respond to requests for comment on his Fort
Hood remarks.

Chris Christie shrugs off doubts, hires two top campaign aides
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/chris-christie-hires-tom-dickens-hayden-stone-117972.html>
// Politico // Alex Isenstadt – May 14, 2015

Charts with budget data hang on a wall, in background, as New Jersey Gov.
Chris Christie addresses a gathering at a town hall meeting, Wednesday,
March 4, 2015, in Fair Lawn, N.J. Christie spoke about his proposed budget
for the upcoming fiscal year, and also said that the state would have to
raise taxes to afford paying a court-mandated amount into the pension
system for public sector employees. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

AP Photo

Despite sagging poll numbers and lingering fallout from the Bridgegate
scandal, Chris Christie continues to take steps to run for president in
2016.

The New Jersey governor has made two new hires for his prospective
campaign, bringing on Tom Dickens to serve as his national field director
and Hayden Stone to be his national director of data and analytics,
according to a source familiar with the moves.

Christie has maintained a high profile in the two weeks since two of former
top aides were indicted for their roles in the George Washington Bridge
scandal, returning to the campaign trail and to the media circuit. Last
weekend, Christie traveled to New Hampshire — a state seen as critical to
his 2016 prospects — where he told an audience that he was done apologizing
for the episode and that he was moving on. This week, he sat for an
interview with CNN, where he tweaked former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for his
fumbled answers on whether he supported the Iraq war invasion.

On Friday morning, Christie will headline a Georgia Republican Party
breakfast.

Behind the scenes, he has continued to build out his campaign team in
anticipation of a possible launch in early summer. Dickens most recently
served as the deputy national victory director for the Republican National
Committee during the 2014 midterms and before that was political director
on Christie’s successful 2013 reelection bid. Stone served as a data and
field staffer for the RNC during the midterms and before that as a
political director for the Colorado Republican Party.

The two will join the rest of Christie’s political team, which has been
working for Christie’s political action committee, Leadership Matters for
America. The organization has office space in Morristown, N.J.

It was also recently announced that Tucker Martin, a past spokesman for
former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, will work for a super PAC that’s been
set up to support Christie’s would-be candidacy.

Rick Santorum Says He’s Baffled by Jeb Bush on Iraq
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/14/rick-santorum-says-hes-baffled-by-jeb-bush-on-iraq/>
// NYT – First Draft // Mike Barbaro – May 14, 2015

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz — Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania who
delivered a surprisingly strong performance in the 2012 presidential
campaign and may run again in 2016, said Thursday he was baffled by Jeb
Bush’s handling this week of a question about the 2003 war in Iraq.

“I don’t know how that was a hard question,” Mr. Santorum said at a
Republican National Committee meeting here.

At one point, Mr. Santorum suggested that Mr. Bush might not be entirely
ready for the campaign. “If you are not prepared for it, I think we’ve seen
in the past, you are not going to do very, very well. This is a long
process.”

Mr. Santorum said he was confused about why Mr. Bush, the former governor
of Florida, took so long to backtrack on remarks suggesting that he would
have authorized the Iraqi invasion even if he knew about the intelligence
failures at the time. Mr. Bush later said he had misunderstood the
question, then said he would not answer hypothetical questions.

On Thursday, Mr. Bush finally said that he would not have authorized the
invasion had he known about the intelligence failures.

Mr. Santorum seemed disappointed.

“I’ve been asked that question a hundred times,” he said. “The answer is
pretty clear. The information was not correct and, while there was some
things that were true, I don’t think nearly the weight to require us to go
to war. Everybody accepts that now.”

Mr. Santorum concluded with a bit of a dig at Mr. Bush.

“I don’t know how anyone could look at that question and not — his brother
even said in his own book that he would have done something differently,”
Mr Santorum said.

TOP NEWS

DOMESTIC

Russ Feingold Running For Senate In 2016
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/russ-feingold-senate_n_7279800.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067>
// Huffington Post // Amanda Terkel - May 14, 2015

WASHINGTON -- Progressive Democrat Russ Feingold announced Thursday that he
will run for Senate in 2016, hoping to win back the seat he lost six years
ago.

Feingold made his announcement in a video that was provided in advance to
The Huffington Post. In it, he cites issues near and dear to his heart,
like taking on corporations and big money in politics, as his justification
for running.

"People tell me all the time that our politics and Washington are broken.
And that multi-millionaires, billionaires and big corporations are calling
the shots," Feingold says in the video. "They especially say this about the
U.S. Senate, and it’s hard not to agree. But what are we going to do? Get
rid of the Senate?

“Actually, no one I’ve listened to says we should throw in the towel and
give up -- and I don’t think that either," he adds. "Instead, let’s fight
together for change. That means helping to bring back to the U.S. Senate
strong independence, bipartisanship and honesty."

The race will be a rematch between Feingold and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.),
who defeated him during the tea party wave of 2010. Feingold ran what was
widely considered to be a lackluster race that year, and many Democrats
have stressed that 2016 needs to be different.

But there are several factors working in Feingold's favor this time around:
Democratic turnout tends to spike in presidential election years, and
recent polls have underscored that Johnson is one of the most vulnerable
sitting GOP senators.

A Marquette Law School poll released in mid-April found Feingold leading
Johnson by 16 points in a hypothetical match-up, and a March poll by Public
Policy Polling found Feingold ahead of Johnson by 9 points.

Johnson brushed off the poll results during an interview last month,
saying, "I'm not worried about it. I'll leave other people to do the
evaluation. I think it's pretty much meaningless at this point in time."

A longtime opponent of special interests in politics, Feingold co-authored
the landmark campaign finance law that the Supreme Court gutted in 2010's
Citizens United decision.

Feingold was also known for staking out sometimes lonely positions on
national security. In 2001, he was the only senator to vote against the
Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the federal government's surveillance
powers. He was also one of the 23 senators who voted against the war in
Iraq.

After his Senate loss, Feingold started Progressives United, a group
dedicated to combating corporations' influence on the political system.
From July 2013 until March 2015, he served as the State Department's
special envoy for the Great Lakes Region of Africa.

Anticipating a tough race, Republicans began attacking Feingold even before
he announced he was running. The Wisconsin GOP launched a website called
RadicalRussFeingold.com and told reporters that he has a "voting record of
supporting one disastrous policy after another."

Senate, in Reversal, Begins Debate on Trade Authority
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/business/senate-vote-currency-manipulation-fast-track-trade.html?smid=tw-share&gwh=228869BF502A0021B3E36BF0F22669FA&gwt=pay>
// NYT // Jonathan Weisman - May 14, 2015

WASHINGTON — Two days after Democratic senators blocked it, the Senate
easily voted on Thursday to begin debating legislation to grant the
president accelerated negotiating power to complete an expansive trade
accord with 11 other nations on the Pacific Rim.

The 65-33 vote came two hours after senators gave broad approval to
legislation that cracks down on countries that the United States says
manipulate their currency rates, putting bipartisan pressure on House
leaders to take up a measure that President Obama argues could scuttle
delicate Pacific trade talks.

The trade votes on Thursday were starkly different from the first effort to
take up the issue on Tuesday. Then, Senate Democrats united against even
considering so-called trade promotion authority, rebuking their own
president and holding out for assurances that tough trade enforcement
provisions be attached to that authority.

What they got instead was a compromise to allow the currency provision to
come to a vote in a separate bill that now faces an uphill climb. Even if a
bipartisan majority can pressure Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio to allow a
House vote, the White House has expressed opposition. A formal White House
statement of policy on Thursday, however, stopped short of a veto threat.

“Under our plan, the Senate will avoid the poison pills that had been
floated in favor of the very type of bipartisan approach we’ve been
advocating for all along,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the
majority leader, said. “It allows senators to express themselves without
endangering more American trade jobs for the people we represent.”

House GOP partly funds Obama police camera initiative after recent deaths
<http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/05/14/house-gop-partly-funds-obama-police-camera-initiative>
// US News // Andrew Taylor, Associated Press - May 14, 2015

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's request for police body cameras
and new community policing initiatives would be partially funded under
legislation advanced Thursday by Republicans controlling the House.
Lawmakers also moved to slash legal aid for the poor.

The actions follow violence sparked by the recent deaths of black men at
the hands of law enforcement in Baltimore, South Carolina and Ferguson,
Missouri, that focused attention on police conduct and distrust between
minority communities and the officers assigned to protect them.

Most of the $50 million fund to improve police-community relations next
year would go to grants to states to assess and improve their justice
systems. The amount is about one-third of what Obama asked for in February,
according to a panel Democratic aide. Some $15 million would go to help
local police departments buy body cameras that would record interactions
with the public, half of Obama's request.

The developments came as a House panel gave initial approval to a $51
billion measure funding the Justice and Commerce departments and science
programs under the umbrella of NASA and other agencies.

Thursday's legislation covers the budget year beginning in October.

The bill is caught in an ongoing battle over agency budgets between the
GOP-controlled House and Senate and Obama and his Democratic allies. Tight
spending "caps" imposed under so-called sequestration are forcing
Republicans to, on average, freeze domestic agency budgets at current
levels. But they've evaded a freeze on the military by using war accounts
as a special resource to give the Pentagon a 7 percent, $38 billion
increase.

The bill's author, Republican Rep. John Culberson of Texas, went after a
series of familiar GOP targets. The Legal Service Corporation, which gives
legal aid to the poor, would bear a $75 million cut, or about 20 percent. A
grant program for hiring local police would be eliminated, while increases
for the upcoming decennial Census would be shortchanged.

Culberson acknowledged that many of the cuts would be reversed if more
funding is made available by a budget deal later this year, and he praised
the new community policing initiative as a step toward "doing everything we
can to restore the bond of trust that has to exist between police officers
and local citizens." He said that state officials will determine who can
get access to videos from body cameras, and he warned that the federal
government won't take on the expensive job of helping pay for storing them.

Culberson's legislation would award NASA, important to his Houston-area
district, a $519 million budget increase, a 3 percent hike that raises its
budget to $18.5 billion.

Amtrak Says Shortfalls and Rules Delayed Its Safety System
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/us/amtrak-says-it-was-just-months-away-from-installing-safety-system.html>
// NYT // Michael Shear – May 14, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Amtrak train that derailed in Philadelphia on Tuesday
night was equipped with an automatic speed control system that officials
say could have prevented the wreck, which killed eight passengers and
injured hundreds. But the system, which was tantalizingly close to being
operational, was delayed by budgetary shortfalls, technical hurdles and
bureaucratic rules, officials said Thursday.

In 2008, Congress ordered the installation of what are known as positive
train control systems, which can detect an out-of-control, speeding train
and automatically slow it down. But because lawmakers failed to provide the
railroads access to the wireless frequencies required to make the system
work, Amtrak was forced to negotiate for airwaves owned by private
companies that are often used in mobile broadband.

Officials said Amtrak had made installation of the congressionally mandated
safety system a priority and was ahead of most other railroads around the
country.

But the railroad struggled for four years to buy the rights to airwaves in
the Northeast Corridor that would have allowed them to turn the system on.

 “The transponders were on the tracks,” said one person who attended a
Thursday morning briefing for congressional staff members. “But they also
said they weren’t operational, because of this ongoing spectrum issue.”

Despite the delays, the system may have been just months from being
operational when Northeast Regional Train No. 188 careered into a sharp
curve at over 100 miles per hour, twice the posted speed, and hurtled off
the tracks Tuesday night. The Federal Communications Commission had
approved Amtrak’s application for the purchase of wireless spectrum from an
entity called Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on March 5, clearing the way
for final tests on the system, a spokeswoman for the commission said.

If the system had been operational, “there wouldn’t have been this
accident,” said Representative Robert A. Brady, Democrat of Pennsylvania.

Since the crash, Amtrak has come under sharp questioning about why positive
train control was not already in operation. Addressing those concerns in a
news conference Thursday, Joseph H. Boardman, Amtrak’s chief executive,
confirmed that the system was close to the testing phase, adding that he
expected that the technology would be operational throughout the Northeast
Corridor by the end of the year.

“We’re very close to being able to cut it in,” Mr. Boardman said. “We’ve
got to do testing on MHz radios. We will complete this by the end of the
year.”

Mayor Michael A. Nutter of Philadelphia said Thursday that the remains of
an eighth victim of the Amtrak derailment had been found and that all
passengers had been accounted for.

Questions about the technology surfaced just hours after the crash when
Robert L. Sumwalt, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board,
which is investigating the crash, said positive train control would have
prevented the accident. The safety board said the train had been traveling
at 106 miles per hour. On Thursday, the board said the train had
accelerated rapidly just before it hit the turn.

Positive train control refers to a system of software and hardware
technology, including radio transponders, antennas, locomotive and track
equipment, that communicate real-time information about train speed and
location to engineers and train dispatchers.

The technology is supposed to prevent accidents like head-on collisions or
derailments caused by excessive speed by alerting operators about a
potential danger, such as an object on the tracks or dangerous curve, and
stopping the train automatically if needed.

The crash spotlighted other possible shortcomings in Amtrak’s safety
system, officials said. The stretch of track where Train 188 crashed
heading north was equipped with an older automatic braking system, but only
on the southbound side, an official briefed on the investigation said. Some
senior Amtrak officials did not become aware that the braking system had
not been installed on the northbound side until after the train derailed.

A spokeswoman for the railroad said Thursday that the decision not to
install the system on the northbound stretch of track had been made in the
1990s and reflected the maximum allowable speeds in each direction. Trains
approaching Philadelphia from New York can travel as fast as 110 miles per
hour, Amtrak said, and face a steeper decrease in allowable speed heading
into the curve than trains traveling from Philadelphia toward New York.

The train’s speed was normal until minutes before it derailed.

OPEN Map

In addition, Train 188 was equipped with a second safety system designed to
ring buzzers and bells in the engine’s cabin if the engineer does not touch
the steering panel for a short period, people briefed on the investigation
said. The system, which is intended to prevent crashes when engineers doze
off or become distracted, is supposed to stop the train automatically if
the engineer does not touch the steering panel after the alarms have
sounded.

But officials did not explain in the congressional briefing whether the
buzzers were operational on Train No. 188 or why they would not have
stopped the train before the accident, according to two people who attended.

Still, several federal officials and safety experts defended Amtrak’s
record. Many pointed out that the railroads was one of the few in the
United States that were on schedule to meet a federal deadline to have
positive train control technology operational before the end of the year.

“Amtrak has been in a leadership role on this,” said Mark Rosenker, a
former chairman of the safety board. “They were talking about positive
train control when I was at the board.”

Railroads other than Amtrak, particularly freight railroads, have been much
slower to implement these systems, citing the technological challenges,
shortages in equipment and the availability of radio spectrum, among other
issues.

“The sad irony in this accident is that Amtrak is further along than almost
anybody in reaching their deployment of positive train control,” said
Joseph C. Szabo, a former administrator of the Federal Railroad
Administration. “They have been very steady and very committed. So much has
been done.”

Edward R. Hamberger, chief executive of the Association of American
Railroads, said railroads would not complete the installation of all
systems for positive train control until the end of 2018. After that, he
estimated, it will take about two years to test that all components of the
system work together correctly.

To date, he said, railroads have installed the technology on about 8,200
miles of tracks, out of 60,000 miles where the technology is federally
required. At the end of last year, about 15 percent of locomotives were
fully equipped, and railroads had installed about 56 percent of the track
systems.

Railroad officials said Thursday that installation of the safety system on
tracks across the country was also hampered for more than a year by
longstanding F.C.C. rules that required environmental and preservation
reviews before the safety system’s antennas could be installed in historic
areas or near tribal lands.

But officials at the F.C.C. said those reviews, which were relaxed at the
behest of members of Congress in 2014, were not specifically responsible
for Amtrak delays along the largely urban Northeast Corridor because new
antennas were not required in that region.

Representatives Jeff Denham and Bill Shuster urged rail safety reform on
Wednesday in a Transportation Committee meeting the day after a deadly
Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia.

By AP on Publish Date May 13, 2015. Photo by Associated Press.

Kim Hart, a spokeswoman for the commission, said the delays in approving
installation of the antennas for the safety system are now largely gone.
She said new procedures allow the commission to accept applications for up
to 1,400 antennas from railroad companies every two weeks,

The commission also defended its handling of Amtrak’s petition to acquire
wireless frequencies, asserting that it had taken Amtrak three years to
negotiate the purchase and that the commission had approved the deal within
days.

Money has also been an issue in implementing positive train control.

The Federal Railroad Administration has calculated the cost of the system
at $52,000 per mile of track. The railroads have put a total price tag of
more than $9 billion on the system and said they have spent $5.2 billion so
far. One of the biggest problems is that the system needs to be
interoperable, meaning that communication is necessary between equipment
used by different railroads, even if the railroads use different types of
equipment.

The Federal Railroad Administration twice sought extra funding from
Congress to finance the technology for Amtrak and other commuter rails. A
first request for $825 million was ignored. A second request for extra
funding was made this year for the 2016 budget as part of the Department of
Transportation’s Grow America budget.

“Clearly, one of the hurdles that Amtrak has and the commuter rail industry
has is that this is very expensive technology,” Mr. Szabo said. “It was
never funded. The failure to invest in Amtrak’s capital program clearly has
been a hindrance in more timely deployment. The way to make public rail a
priority would be with public funding.”

On Capitol Hill, House Speaker John A. Boehner angrily rejected a
suggestion that Republican funding decisions contributed to the accident.

“That’s a stupid question,” he snapped at a reporter. “Adequate funds were
there, no money’s been cut from rail safety, and the House passed a bill
earlier this spring to reauthorize Amtrak and authorize a lot of these
programs.”

House passes Iran review bill, sending it to Obama’s desk for signature
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-passes-iran-review-bill-sending-it-to-obamas-desk-for-signature/2015/05/14/fcb7567e-fa6d-11e4-9030-b4732caefe81_story.html?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394>
// WaPo // Paul Kane - May 14, 2015

The House gave overwhelming approval Thursday to create a congressional
review of the potential nuclear power deal with Iran, sending the bill to
the White House for President Obama’s signature as he heads into the final
weeks of negotiations with the Islamic state.

Following a similar lopsided roll call last week in the Senate, the House’s
400-to-25 vote concluded months of tense talks between congressional
leaders and administration officials over what degree of oversight Congress
would have if Obama finalizes a deal with Iranian leaders to assure their
nuclear program shift into military use.

Obama agreed to the slightly modified version drafted by Sen. Bob Corker
(R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, after three
months of negotiations led a large number of Democrats to support the plan.

“In a show of bipartisanship that is often too rare today in Washington,
Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate now have sent a
strong message that the American people – through their elected
representatives – must have a voice on any final nuclear deal with Iran,”
Corker said in a statement after Thursday’s House vote.

If Obama finalizes a pact with Tehran, this legislation grants Congress 30
days to review the nuclear deal. Obama could waive sanctions against Tehran
that were imposed by the executive branch but must leave in place sanctions
that Congress previously drafted.

If the House and the Senate disapprove of the Iran deal, including
overcoming a possible presidential veto, then Obama must leave in place
those congressionally mandated sanctions. Any other outcome in Congress
would allow Obama to go ahead with implementing all aspects of any nuclear
deal.

A bloc of House conservatives were angered when GOP leaders placed the
legislation on the fast-track calendar that prohibited any amendments,
leading 19 Republicans to vote against the Corker bill. Six Democrats who
want Obama to have a free hand in his deal-making also opposed the bill.

Senate conservatives nearly derailed the legislation with similar efforts
to amend the bill, which Corker maneuvered against because that would have
lost most Democratic support and drawn a presidential veto.

In the end, those supporting Obama’s effort to reach a deal and those
opposing it largely approved of some congressional review. “It is a true
bipartisan compromise that will give Congress the opportunity to review and
play an active role in evaluating any agreement with Iran,” Rep. Adam Smith
(D-Wash.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said.

“The bipartisan legislation the House passed today is the only way Congress
will have that opportunity,” House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who
opposes Obama’s effort, said in a statement.

INTERNATIONAL

Defying U.S., Colombia Halts Aerial Spraying of Crops Used to Make Cocaine
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/world/americas/colombia-halts-us-backed-spraying-of-illegal-coca-crops.html>
// NYT // William Neuman  - May 14, 2015

Two planes fumigated fields of coca, the basis for cocaine, in Colombia in
2006. Some fear the chemical causes cancer. Credit Fernando
Vergara/Associated Press

BOGOTÁ, Colombia — The government of Colombia on Thursday night rejected a
major tool in the American-backed antidrug campaign — ordering a halt to
the aerial spraying of the country’s vast illegal plantings of coca, the
crop used to make cocaine, citing concerns that the spray causes cancer.

The decision ends a program that has continued for more than two decades,
raising questions about the viability of long-accepted strategies in the
war on drugs in the region.

Colombia is one of the closest allies of the United States in Latin America
and its most stalwart partner on antidrug policy, but the change of
strategy has the potential to add a new element of tension to the
relationship.

Just last week, American officials warned that the amount of land used to
grow coca in Colombia grew by 39 percent last year as aerial spraying to
kill or stunt the crop, already a contentious issue here, declined.

“The folks who run counternarcotics never want to give up any of their
tools, and there are pockets of discontent inside the U.S. government with
this decision,” said Adam Isacson, a senior associate of the Washington
Office on Latin America, a research group.

“Colombia and the United States have been in lock step on a hard-line
approach” in how to fight drug trafficking, he added. “It’s the first time
there’s been light between the two countries on what the strategy should
be, in recent memory.”

The decision to halt the spraying, which was backed by President Juan
Manuel Santos, came after an agency of the World Health Organization
declared in March that the herbicide used here, a chemical called
glyphosate, probably causes cancer in humans.

The chemical, the active ingredient in the popular weedkiller Roundup, is
the most widely used herbicide in the world. Colombian officials have said
that a previous Supreme Court ruling in their country called for an end to
the spraying if health concerns involving the chemical were found.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency has determined that there
is a “lack of convincing e vidence” to consider it a cancer risk to humans.

Before Thursday’s decision, the United States had pressed the Colombian
government to continue the spraying program. The American ambassador in
Bogotá, Kevin Whitaker, published an op-ed article in El Tiempo, one of the
country’s main newspapers, over the weekend, defending the program.

But he has also stressed that Colombia’s decision would not harm diplomatic
relations.

“This is their sovereign decision to make, and we will respect that and we
will continue to use the tools that are available to us, as Colombia wishes
us to do, to continue to be a partner with them in this fight,” Mr.
Whitaker said in an interview a day before the decision was taken.

“We have lots of tools to help Colombia address the problem of
transnational crime and narco-trafficking.”

He said that includes providing intelligence on drug traffickers,
encouraging farmers to grow other crops, intercepting drug shipments,
focusing on shutting down drug labs and supporting efforts to pull up and
destroy coca plants by hand.

Thursday’s decision involved only the use of the herbicide in the coca
spraying program. The government has not moved to ban use of the herbicide
by farmers who grow legal crops and use it to kill weeds.

The spraying program was steeped in controversy even before the declaration
was made in March by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Colombia is the only coca-producing country that uses airplanes to spray
and kill the crop. The other major producers, Peru and Bolivia, have
shunned spraying.

Critics of spraying in Colombia said that it was harmful to the health of
rural residents and that it caused environmental damage.

The spraying also alienated the poor farmers who have often felt that they
had little choice but to grow coca to feed their families.

But opponents of the spraying ban have argued that ending spraying could
lead to a boom in cocaine production and favor traffickers and rebel groups
like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which depends on
the drug trade for much of its financing and has advocated an end to
spraying.

They have also pointed out that one alternative, eradicating plants by
hand, is dangerous because it involves sending troops and workers into
areas controlled by traffickers and guerrilla troops. Many eradication
workers have been killed and wounded by land mines or in armed
confrontations in drug-growing areas.

Spraying with glyphosate began in the 1990s on a small scale and by the
early 2000s it was established as a crucial aspect of Plan Colombia, a
multibillion dollar push by the United States to aid in fighting rebel
groups and drug traffickers in the country.

It reached its peak in 2006, when more than 405,000 acres were sprayed,
according to data compiled for the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy.

But aerial spraying has fallen sharply over the last two years, even as
coca plantings jumped. Last year, 137,000 acres were sprayed, while the
amount of land planted with coca increased to 276,758 acres in Colombia,
compared with 198,919 acres the previous year.

Daniel Mejía, the director of the Center for Security and Drug Studies, a
research group in Bogotá, said that spraying was inefficient and
counterproductive.

“I would recommend attacking the links in the chain of drug trafficking,
the labs where cocaine is processed, the large shipments of chemicals,
which is really where the hard drug trafficking is, where organized crime
is,” Mr. Mejía said. “It has been shown that attacking the farmers doesn’t
work.”

Rafael Nieto, a former vice-minister of justice, questioned the rationale
behind halting spraying, saying that more eradication workers would be put
at risk.

“If the spraying is stopped, the income of the drug traffickers, the
criminal gangs and the guerrillas will go up substantially and so will the
number of dead and wounded,” Mr. Nieto said. “Coca and cocaine production
would also go up, and there would be more addicts and more people will die.”

The impact of the decision on the peace talks underway between the
government and the FARC are uncertain. Some critics of the decision say
that it removes a critical element of pressure on the group that could help
push it toward a deal to lay down its arms.

The two sides have reached a preliminary deal on cooperating to fight drug
trafficking, which would go into effect if an overall peace deal is
reached. It calls for the government to work with rural communities to help
them grow legal crops and increase government services in those areas. It
says that spraying could be used only as a last resort.

 On Monday, the government said that the armed forces had raided 63 illegal
mines operated by the FARC to extract gold and other minerals. It said
shutting down the mines would take away millions of dollars in monthly
income for the group.

Ancient Ruins at Palmyra Are Endangered by ISIS Advance in Syria
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/world/middleeast/ancient-ruins-at-palmyra-are-endangered-by-isis-advance-in-syria.html>
// NYT // Anne Barnard and Hwaida Saad - May 14, 2015

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Islamic State militants advanced to the outskirts of the
Syrian town of Palmyra on Thursday, putting the extremist group within
striking distance of some of the world’s most magnificent antiquities.

That raised fears that the ancient city of Palmyra, with its complex of
columns, tombs and ancient temples dating to the first century A.D., could
be looted or destroyed. Militants from the Islamic State, also known as
ISIS or ISIL, have already destroyed large parts of ancient sites at
Nimrud, Hatra and Nineveh in Iraq. Islamic State leaders denounce
pre-Islamic art and architecture as idolatrous even as they sell smaller,
more portable artifacts to finance their violent rampage through the region.

The fighting on Thursday took place little more than a mile from the city’s
grand 2,000-year-old ruins, which stand as the crossroad of Greek, Roman,
Persian and Islamic cultures.

People in Palmyra described a state of anxiety and chaos, with residents
trying to flee the northern neighborhoods. Shelling could be heard in the
background as they spoke over Skype. According to residents and one
government soldier, fighting elsewhere, scores of soldiers and
pro-government militiamen fighting in the east and north of the town had
been killed by Islamic State fighters since Monday.

“People are scared, staying home, we’re hearing loud noises outside but we
don’t know what’s happening,” said Mohammad, who runs an antiques shop near
the gates of the ancient ruins and who asked to be identified only by his
first name to protect his safety. “If the roads were safe, we would leave
the town, but pray for us, and pray for peace.”

The soldier and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group
based in Britain, said that civilians had also been killed, some of them
beheaded, in the town of Soukhna several miles outside Palmyra.

Maamoun Abdulkarim, Syria’s director of antiquities, said that the
treasures of Palmyra, a Unesco World Heritage site, were in serious danger.
“If I.S. enters Palmyra, it will spell its destruction,” Mr. Abdulkarim
told Agence France-Presse. “If the ancient city falls, it will be an
international catastrophe.”

The advance on Palmyra, also known as Tadur, gave the Islamic State more
control over the highway from the town to the eastern province of Deir
al-Zour and parts of a sprawling gas field. It comes at a time when the
government of President Bashar al-Assad has faced new challenges in the
seemingly implacable civil war. A coalition of rival insurgent groups
recently wrested the northern provincial capital of Idlib from government
control.

The soldier, who asked not to be named for fear of government reprisals,
had served with a Syrian government unit in Palmyra and said his comrades,
trapped in Sukhna, called him when they were attacked.

“I could feel the fear in their voice,” he said. “They told me they ran out
of ammunition.”

He said he later saw some of his fellow soldiers’ identification cards
posted online by Islamic State fighters who participated in the battle.

Khaled al-Homsi, an antigovernment activist who monitors damage and looting
of antiquities in Palmyra, said the sites had been threatened and damaged
by fighters from all sides of the Syrian conflict.

Mr. Homsi, who uses a pseudonym to protect his safety, said that in the
past two weeks, officials in Palmyra had removed the smaller artifacts from
the state antiquities museum, apparently in preparation for a possible
militant onslaught, but they had not warned residents to leave.

“People are already losing faith in the government; if they gave such a
warning it would be even worse,” he said.

Mr. Homsi said that on Thursday he saw two government airstrikes hit near
the medieval citadel that sits on an outcropping above the ancient city.

Nidal, an employee of the antiquities museum in Palmyra, which is within
sight of the citadel, said in a brief phone interview that the citadel was
unharmed. “I’m not leaving the museum,” he said.

Migrants From Myanmar, Shunned by Malaysia, Are Spotted Adrift in Andaman
Sea
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/world/asia/burmese-rohingya-bangladeshi-migrants-andaman-sea.html?ref=world&_r=0>
// NYT // Thomas Fuller and Joe Cochrane - May 14, 2015

IN THE ANDAMAN SEA OFF THAILAND — A wooden fishing boat carrying several
hundred desperate migrants from Myanmar was spotted adrift in the Andaman
Sea between Thailand and Malaysia on Thursday, part of an exodus in which
thousands of people have taken to the sea in recent weeks with no country
willing to take them in.

Cries of “Please help us! I have no water!” rose from the boat as a vessel
carrying journalists approached. “Please give me water!”

The green and red fishing boat, packed with men, women and children
squatting on the deck with only plastic tarps to protect them from the sun,
had been turned away by the Malaysian authorities on Wednesday, passengers
said.

They said that they had been on the boat for three months, and that the
boat’s captain and crew had abandoned them six days ago. Ten passengers
died during the voyage, and their bodies were thrown overboard, the
passengers said.

“I am very hungry,” said a 15-year-old boy, Mohamed Siraj, who said he was
from western Myanmar. “Quickly help us please.”

It was unclear Thursday whether they would receive that help, however,
despite the presence of a Thai Navy vessel, which arrived after being
alerted to the boat’s presence by The New York Times.

Instead, the presence of an estimated 6,000 to 20,000 migrants at sea,
fleeing ethnic persecution in Myanmar and poverty in Bangladesh, has
created a crisis across the region, with countries pointing fingers at one
another and declining to take responsibility themselves.

Most of the migrants were thought to be headed to Malaysia, but after more
than 1,500 came ashore in Malaysia and Indonesia in the last week, both
countries declared their intention to turn away any more boats carrying
migrants.

Thai officials have not articulated an official policy since the crisis
began, beyond convening a regional conference to discuss the problem this
month. Thailand is not known to have allowed any of the migrants to land
there.

The Indonesian Navy turned away a boat with thousands of passengers on
Tuesday, urging it on to Malaysia, while the Malaysian authorities turned
away two boats with a total of at least 800 passengers on Wednesday.

The Thai naval vessel that approached the migrant ship here on Thursday
kept its distance, with its commander, Lt. Cmdr. Veerapong Nakprasit,
saying the migrants had “entered illegally.” At one point, the Thai sailors
tossed packages of instant noodles to the boat, though the migrants
appeared to have no means to cook them.

“What we have now is a game of maritime Ping-Pong,” said Joe Lowry, a
spokesman for the International Organization for Migration in Bangkok.
“It’s maritime Ping-Pong with human life. What’s the endgame? I don’t want
to be too overdramatic, but if these people aren’t treated and brought to
shore soon, we are going to have a boat full of corpses.”

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has asked
regional governments to conduct search and rescue operations to no avail.
“It’s a potential humanitarian disaster,” said Jeffrey Savage, a senior
protection officer with the agency.

Many of the migrants are believed to have been abandoned by their
traffickers with little food or water.

Indonesia’s chief military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Fuad Basya, said Thursday
that the military would “push back any boat that wants to enter Indonesian
waters without permission, including those of boat people like the
Rohingya.”

After Malaysian officials turned back a boat with about 500 people off
Penang Island on Wednesday, Deputy Home Minister Wan Junaidi said, “What do
you expect us to do?”

“We have been very nice to the people who broke into our border,” he told
The Associated Press. “We have treated them humanely, but they cannot be
flooding our shores like this. We have to send the right message that they
are not welcome here.”

Malaysian officials reached by The Times on Thursday declined to comment.

Tens of thousands of Rohingya, a stateless Muslim ethnic group, have fled
Myanmar over the last several years, most going to Malaysia or Bangladesh.
But the exodus over the last few weeks seemed to have caught everyone by
surprise.

There is no single reason for the spike in departures from Myanmar and
Bangladesh, said Chris Lewa, coordinator of the Arakan Project, a human
rights group that tracks migration in the Andaman Sea. For the Rohingya, an
accumulation of setbacks has taken a toll, she said, including the
tightening of fishing permits, which has hit the Rohingya monetarily and
nutritionally, and the government’s insistence that its one million
Rohingya residents are not citizens.

“It’s a combination of things,” Ms. Lewa said. “Their lives have become
worse and worse.”

The fact that so many are at sea at once, however, may be in part an
unintended consequence of the Thai crackdown on human trafficking. After
the discovery of a mass grave this month believed to contain the bodies of
33 Burmese and Bangladeshi migrants, officials raided several smuggling
camps in southern Thailand and charged dozens of police officers and senior
officials with being complicit in the trade.

The camps were way stations where migrants were often detained in
prisonlike conditions until they or their family could pay smugglers for
passage to Malaysia. As horrid as those camps were, without them, the
migrants have been stuck at sea, their traffickers afraid to set foot in
Thailand.

“Their business model has been interrupted by the operations in Thailand,”
Mr. Lowry said. “They will be back eventually — smuggling in trafficking is
very lucrative — but they are waiting for now.”

Migrants generally pay about $1,800 each for passage to Malaysia, along
with the promise of a job when they arrive, Ms. Lewa said.

But they are frequently shaken down for more payments along the way, and
many never make it to Malaysia, a Muslim country that until recently had
tacitly allowed the backdoor migration of Muslims from Myanmar and
Bangladesh.

Interviews with passengers aboard a boat that washed ashore on the northern
tip of Sumatra Island, Indonesia, on Sunday provided a glimpse of the
brutal conditions they faced at sea and the desperation that drove them to
make the risky voyage.

Passengers told of waiting on the boat for months before it sailed because
the smugglers wanted to pack it as full as possible with paying passengers.

Most were forced to remain beneath deck in the hold, squatting no more than
an inch from the person in front of them. Every other day, they were fed
bits of rice and noodles and small amounts of water. A hole in the floor,
opening directly into the ocean, served as a toilet.

The passengers prayed or talked quietly, their whispers broken by the
occasional sound of others vomiting from seasickness.

“There was no singing, only crying,” said Muhammed Kashim, a 44-year-old
Bangladeshi.

Seven days into the voyage, the ship’s Thai captain abruptly stopped the
vessel at sea, they said. The next day, gunmen arrived on a speedboat,
boarded the ship and robbed migrants of their valuables.

The captain and crew fled with the gunmen, abandoning the ship.

Mahammed Hashim, 25, a Rohingya from the Kyauktaw District in Rakhine
State, said the risks of traveling in a rickety wooden ship with little
food or water were less than those of remaining in Myanmar.

“We assumed that danger would come, but there was no other way,” he said.
“We were living in a country that is more dangerous than the sea.”

They were lucky. A day later, the boat grounded in Indonesia, whose policy
is not to turn back ships once they have made landfall.

The 584 passengers, including 59 children and 86 women, five of them
pregnant, will have the opportunity to apply for refugee status with the
United Nations refugee agency, a process that is expected to take months.
For now, they are being housed at a government compound in Paya Bateung, in
Aceh Province, where they sleep on concrete floors but have blankets, food
and water.

The Rohingya, effectively stateless, have a reasonable chance at asylum.
But the 208 Bangladeshis in the group will probably be considered economic
migrants who, denied the right to work in Indonesia, will eventually choose
to return home, Mr. Savage of the United Nations said.

Mahammed Jahangir Hussein, a 32-year-old Bangladeshi, said that was not an
option. His father sold a house and farmland to raise the $3,250 he paid
for the voyage and a promised job in Malaysia.

“If the Indonesian government says we cannot work, all the men here are
saying, ‘Let’s work in another country,’ ” he said. “There’s nothing back
home for us.”

Asked about his future, he waved his arms toward the migrants gathered
around him and up at the scruffy concrete building he had just moved into.

“This is my future,” he said.

OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS

End Immigration Detention
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/opinion/end-immigration-detention.html>
// NYT // Editorial Board – May 15, 2015

Of all the malfunctioning parts in the country’s broken-down immigration
machinery, probably the most indefensible is the detention system.

This is the vast network of jails and prisons where suspected immigration
violators are held while awaiting a hearing and possible deportation.
Immigrant detainees are not criminal defendants or convicts serving
sentences. They are locked up merely because the government wants to make
sure they show up in immigration court.

Detention is intended to help enforce the law, but, in practice, the system
breeds cruelty and harm, and squanders taxpayer money. It denies its
victims due process of law, punishing them far beyond the scale of any
offense. It shatters families and traumatizes children. As a system of mass
incarceration — particularly of women and children fleeing persecution in
Central America — it is immoral.

The director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, Sarah Saldaña,
on Wednesday announced a set of reforms to the family detention system.
Federal officials do this from time to time after advocates and journalists
expose — as they have for years — the abuses within detention walls. Ms.
Saldaña says she wants the “optimal level of care” for detainees, and so
she will create a committee and give lawyers more working space to meet
with clients, among other things.

But committees and cubicles won’t touch the heart of the problem. It’s time
to end mass detention, particularly of families. Shut the system down, and
replace it with something better.

A powerful case for ending immigration detention, along with an array of
alternatives, is made in a new report from the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops and the Center for Migration Studies. It traces how the
system has grown immense, from housing 85,000 detainees in 1995 to more
than 440,000 in 2013. There are many reasons for this growth, including
state and local immigration crackdowns, federal dragnet programs like
Secure Communities and the flood of money from Congress to the private
prison operators that have profited so fruitfully from immigrant
criminalization. The system has gotten more sprawling and scandal-prone,
but reforms don’t stick. The notorious Hutto family detention center in
Texas, where children went to classes in prison scrubs, stopped housing
families. But the surge of families at the border seeking refuge last year
created a political crisis and led the department to resurrect family
detention, with new centers with thousands of prison beds for mothers and
children.

The report points out that the detention system has become an enormous
funnel for the crushingly overburdened, underfunded immigration courts,
which receive a meager $300 million from Congress each year, one-sixtieth
of what ICE and Customs and Border Protection get. By the end of March,
nearly 442,000 cases were pending before immigration judges, with an
average case waiting 599 days to be heard, and delays in some courts of
more than two years. This is not efficiency or due process.

Ending mass detention would not mean allowing unauthorized immigrants to
disappear. Supervised or conditional release, ankle bracelets and other
monitoring technologies, plus community-based support with intensive case
management, can work together to make the system more humane. But neither
Congress nor the Homeland Security Department has embraced these
approaches, which would be far cheaper than locking people up.

No one can expect such reforms soon from Congress, which by law requires
the Department of Homeland Security to maintain, at all times, 34,000
detention beds, no matter the need. But the problem has to be acknowledged:
the inhumanity and wasted expense of imprisoning people who could be
working and providing for their families. The American immigration system
should reflect our values. The detention system does not do that.

O’Malley Tells Friends He’s Leaning Toward Running for President
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/05/14/omalley-tells-friends-hes-leaning-toward-running-for-president/>
// WSJ // Laura Meckler – May 14, 2015

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley told close friends and supporters
Thursday night that he is inclined to run for president, spreading the news
in a series of calls Thursday night, according to someone on one of the
calls.

He also told them that he would be making an announcement about his plans
on May 30 in Baltimore. An aide said the same earlier Thursday.

His calls Thursday included former staff as well as close friends and
supporters.

“He said that he is inclined to run for president, and that if he does,
needs the support of all his longtime friends and supporters,” according to
the person on the call.

This person said he also highlighted “great challenges” facing the nation,
particularly economic challenges, and said he would bring “new leadership,
progressive values and [a] record of getting results.”

Mr. O’Malley has certainly been acting like a candidate. He was in the
early voting state of New Hampshire on Wednesday meeting shaking hands at a
diner, touring a business incubator, raising money for local Democrats and
meeting with supporters at a house party.

He would face an uphill challenge. The clear frontrunner for the Democratic
nomination is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Mr. O’Malley
registers far behind her in the polls. He has tried to distinguish himself
as an accomplished leader who would bring a “new perspective” he says
voters want in Washington.

Hillary Clinton’s got Beyonce. And that’s important.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-got-beyonce-and-thats-important/>
// WaPo // Hunter Schwarz - May 14, 2015

Hillary Clinton hasn't always had the best relationship with Hollywood and
celebrities; in 2008, many of them backed Obama. But more and more, they're
lining up behind her for 2016.

Among the attendees at star-studded fundraising events for her in Manhattan
on Wednesday, according to Bloomberg: Beyonce, Sharon Osbourne, Meghan
Trainor, and fundraiser co-host L.A. Reid. There were also a lot of other
people who are wealthy but whose names you don't read in People magazine.

Reid tweeted a photo of himself speaking next to Clinton.

And a Beyonce fan account tweeted a photo it said was of the singer at the
fundraiser.

Wednesday's events follow a trickle of other Hollywood supporters who've
come out for Clinton. A handful of celebrities voiced their support for her
when she announced her candidacy, Mary-Kate and Ashley attended an April
fundraiser, and some big-name Hollywood decision makers who were for Obama
in 2008 have committed to her already.

There will eventually be more -- it's only May 2015 -- but there's no
getting around the fact that there's less enthusiasm for her than there was
for Obama. As one anonymous donor told Politico: "[T]here is such a lack of
enthusiasm for Hillary, it's really kind of stunning." But Clinton might
not need to be too concerned. She's leading in the polls over any potential
Democratic threats by a wide margin, and although Hollywood might not be
that stoked for her, they're starting to show up.

Reid summed it up in his tweet: "No need to be idealistic when you already
know what works."

Entertainment industry Democrats might be lukewarm to Clinton now, but when
it comes down to it, they'd rather have her over any of the possible
Republican candidates. And until anyone looks like they can actually beat
Clinton for the Democratic nomination -- someone like O'Malley -- the money
and support will likely flow to the frontrunner.

If nothing else, the key for Clinton is making sure Hollywood doesn't get
behind someone else -- building his or her profile and campaign coffers. In
that sense, getting Beyonce is a pretty important step.

Hillary’s Got A Friend: James Taylor Backs Clinton For President
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/14/hillarys-got-a-friend-james-taylor-backs-clinton-for-president/>
// The Daily Caller // Kaitlan Collins – May 14, 2015

In an interview Thursday, James Taylor said he thinks Hillary Clinton is
the “public servant” who can bring the country together, and that he’s
backing her for president.

“Aside from the fact that she’s a woman running, she’s the right person,”
the 67-year-old said. “The whole point — black or white, male or female,
gay or straight, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist — it doesn’t matter
what these other connections are.”

He also said that Obama is his “favorite, favorite” president, and said he
had “a tough time” during the Bush-Cheney administration.

“I had a hard time accepting that that administration represented me
because I don’t think they did,” Taylor said. “I’ve been watching politics
since Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, and
Obama is my favorite, favorite president.”

“I am just thankful for every day that he’s in office. I am so proud that
he represents my country and I think he represents me — I think he
represents the America that I know.”

Taylor performed at the Democratic National Convention in 2012, and also
sang “America the Beautiful” at Obama’s second inauguration.

Time for candidate Clinton to step up on trade
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/time-for-candidate-clinton-to-step-up-on-trade/2015/05/14/8f5a97d0-fa81-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html>
// WaPo // David Ignatius – May 14, 2015

President Obama, so often cool and cautious in his language, gave a
full-throated roar on trade last week, saying thatSen. Elizabeth Warren was
“ absolutely wrong ” in her criticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and
that “her arguments don’t stand the test of fact and scrutiny .”

I think Obama is right about the TPP, but there’s a larger point here about
leadership. Governing is a contact sport. Presidents don’t accomplish great
deeds without fighting for them. Often, that includes confronting
rebellious members of their own party. And Obama’s tough stance seemed to
have succeeded Thursday, as the Senate overcame a Democratic revolt and
passed key bills to enable the TPP.

Modern presidents, from Lyndon Johnson to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton,
have won big legislative victories when they similarly played political
hardball. That’s something Obama has learned late in his presidency, but
this toughness is visible now on issues that matter to his legacy, such as
the Iran nuclear deal, Cuba and free trade. He’s ready to roll opponents,
even if they’re his friends.

Which raises a question: What does Hillary Clinton believe about the
Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Iran nuclear deal? You would assume that
she’s supportive because she helped get both agreements started. But she
has been a study in reticence — a trimmer checking the political winds,
rather than a leader.

Clinton had it right in her memoir, “Hard Choices,” published last year:
“The TPP won’t be perfect . . . but its higher standards, if implemented
and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers.” Is Clinton
really running so scared from Warren that she’s ready to disown economic
policies she helped shape? Does she think that running against Obama’s
economic record will be good politics?

Clinton should put away the waffle iron when it comes to the Iran deal,
too. As secretary of state, she launched the secret channel in Oman that
passed the message that Iran could enrich uranium if it agreed to tight
controls on its nuclear program. Her experience with such secret diplomacy
is one reason she’s a compelling candidate. But she has been stinting in
her comments so far about the Iran pact.

The progressive rebellion against Obama on the TPP is mystifying, not least
because the factual basis for challenging the deal seems so thin. Labor is
arguing that the agreement will be a job-sucking repeat of the North
American Free Trade Agreement. But the TPP would actually fix many of the
weak labor and environmental provisions of NAFTA, imposing tougher
standards for Canada and Mexico as well as the other signatories of the
12-nation agreement.

A recent study by Jay Chittooran for Third Way, a centrist think tank,
noted that the TPP, like the 17 other U.S. trade deals negotiated since
NAFTA, includes “wide-ranging, and enforceable labor protections.” An
alternative future, in which the TPP fails and China writes the rules for
its Asian trading partners, would effectively mean “non-existent or watered
down labor standards,” he wrote.

Warren’s stance, too, is puzzling. She has focused on the TPP’s use of an
arcane mediation provision known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or
ISDS. Though it has been part of investment agreements for decades, Warren
claims ISDS gives “a special break to giant corporations.” But a recent
study by Gary Clyde Hufbauer for the Peterson Institute for International
Economics noted that firms have won only 29 percent of arbitrations under a
system similar to ISDS that the World Bank has used since 1996.

But it’s Clinton’s rope-a-dope approach to the TPP that deserves most
attention, because it highlights her vulnerability as a candidate. Her
caution conveys the sense that she’s running because she wants to get
elected, rather than as the exponent of a set of beliefs. Critics have
argued that Clinton, similarly, sought to play by a special set of rules in
her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state and in
the Clinton Foundation’s harvest of contributions from foreigners.

“I’ve run my last election,” Obama said a week ago. “The only reason I do
something is because I think it’s good for American workers and the
American people and the American economy.”

Clinton is still running, but she could take a political lesson from Obama.
She needs to be a fighter. Avoiding the issues will only reinforce the
sense that she is a hollow candidate. She should be taking credit for the
good provisions in the TPP, not hedging her bets. She may be ready to run,
but is she ready to lead?

George Stephanopoulos Gave to the Clinton Foundation. So What?
<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/stephanopoulos-gave-to-foundation-so-what.html>
// NY Mag // Jonathan Chait - May 14, 2015

ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos disclosed today that he has donated
$50,000* to the Clinton Foundation. Everybody agrees this is terrible.
Stephanopoulos has apologized and ABC has accepted his apology. Republicans
believe his gestures of abjection have not gone far enough. Rand Paul
proposes that Stephanopoulos recuse himself from moderating the 2016
presidential debates. Senator Mike Lee, through his spokesman, demands that
he recuse himself from all 2016 coverage. Clinton Cash” author Peter
Schweizer calls it a “massive ethical breach.”

But … why? Paul accuses Stephanopoulos of harboring a “conflict of
interest.” But donating money to a charitable foundation is not an
interest. His money is gone regardless of what happens to Clinton’s
presidential campaign. It’s true that some donors have an incentive to use
the Foundation to get close to the Clintons in a way that might benefit
their business interests. And yes, as I’ve argued, the Clintons have
handled those conflict-of-interest problems really poorly. But none of
those problems reflects poorly on Stephanopoulos. The mere fact that a
donation might come with an ulterior motive does not taint all donations.
If Stephanopoulos needed some angle to get in the room with the Clintons,
donating to their foundation would not be the way to do it.

In the absence of a material conflict, is there some symbolic conflict? It
is hard to imagine what. The Clinton Foundation has taken on nefarious
connotations owing to conflict-of-interest problems that don’t implicate
Stephanopoulos. But it is, after all, a charity. It used to have
non-partisan overtones.In the heat of the 2012 election, Mitt Romney spoke
at the Clinton Global Initiative. News Corporation Foundation and Donald
Trump, for goodness sake, donated to it.

Stephanopoulos’s defense — that he just wanted to donate to the
Foundation’s work on AIDS prevention and deforestation — seems 100 percent
persuasive. He is the victim of the ethical taint of the Clintons’ poorly
handled business dealings, combined with an underlying right-wing suspicion
of the liberal media, but what his critics have yet to produce is a
coherent case against him.

Stephanopoulos’ Clinton Donations Not the ‘Scandal’ Everyone Wants It to Be
<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stephanopoulos-clinton-donations-not-the-scandal-everyone-wants-it-to-be/>
// Mediatite // Matt Wilstein - May 14, 2015

It’s 2015 and suddenly everyone is shocked that ABC News’ Chief Anchor
George Stephanopoulos has a unique relationship with the Clintons. Hours
after news broke that Stephanopoulos, who spent four years in the Bill
Clinton White House as a senior adviser, made a $50,000 $75,000 donation to
the Clinton Foundation over the course of the past three years,
conservatives are already calling for him to be suspended — if not outright
fired from his dual roles as host of Good Morning America and This Week.
But how bad is Stephanopoulos’ supposed offense really?

Bad enough that Stephanopoulos decided to publicly apologize for failing to
disclose the donations, especially given his aggressive interview with
Clinton Cash author Peter Schweitzer last month, in a statement that has
been appended to relevant ABC News stories online:

I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work
they’re doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, a cause I care
about deeply. I thought that my contributions were all a matter of public
record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of
personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air
during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize.

He then told Politico that “in retrospect” he “probably shouldn’t have”
made the donations at all and said he would recuse himself from moderating
ABC News’ 2016 GOP debate.

But not bad enough that ABC News is not firmly standing behind him with a
supportive statement of its own:

As George has said, he made charitable donations to the Foundation to
support a cause he cares about deeply and believed his contributions were a
matter of public record. He should have taken the extra step to notify us
and our viewers during the recent news reports about the Foundation. He’s
admitted to an honest mistake and apologized for that omission. We stand
behind him.

For many conservative politicians and commentators, along with a handful of
left-leaning media critics, the “honest mistake” excuse is not enough.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has indicated that he is no longer interested in
engaging with Stephanopoulos in any way. Sites like Breitbart and The Daily
Caller are predictably jumping all over the story in an attempt to “expose”
Stephanopoulos’ pro-Clinton bias once and for all. And even the Washington
Post’s Erik Wemple has declared that Stephanopoulos no longer has the “bona
fides” to cover the Clintons at all.

Some, like Mediaite’s Joe Concha, are pointing to Keith Olbermann‘s 2010
suspension from MSNBC for making far smaller donations to Democratic
congressional campaigns as precedent for punishment in this case. But there
is a big difference between political donations and charitable ones, even
if the charity in question as the name Clinton attached to it.

It seems abundantly clear that had Stephanopoulos been donating to Hillary
Clinton’s campaign while serving as ABC’s chief anchor, that would have
been highly inappropriate. But, as various commentators from all side of
the political spectrum have been asking this morning, what is so wrong with
giving money to an organization that does an immense amount of good around
the world in areas like climate change and global health?

Yes, as Stephanopoulos readily admitted, he made a mistake by not
disclosing the donations. But, despite the anchor’s newfound regrets,
everyone should be able to agree that it was that lack of overt
transparency — and not the donations themselves — that constituted the
mistake. Now that everything is out in the open, it should not prevent him
from doing his job, which includes providing coverage of Hillary Clinton
and the 2016 presidential race.

Ultimately, Stephanopoulos’ donations are not a “scandal” in the same way
the entire premise of Schweitzer’s Clinton Cash is not a “scandal.” One can
argue that certain people have given money to the Clinton Foundation with
the expectation that they will receive something of political value from
the Clintons in return. And, in fact, Stephanopoulos himself argued that is
something “you have to be careful of” in an interview with Jon Stewart last
month. But there has been no evidence to prove that is true, as,
ironically, Stephanopoulos got Schweitzer to admit on air.

Similarly, you can expect to hear a lot of arguments from conservatives
that because Stephanopoulos gave money to the Clinton Foundation, he cannot
possibly be an impartial figure in the 2016 race. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY),
for instance, was the first to say he doesn’t want the ABC anchor
moderating any GOP debates. But frankly, because of his existing history
with the Clintons, wouldn’t you expect him and others to say that anyway?
There is no reason why giving money to help the global effort to fight AIDS
should change anything now.

By the way, you know who else donated at least $500,000 to the Clinton
Foundation in recent years? The News Corporation Foundation. And if you
think Fox News is going to start disclosing that fact on a regular basis
(as Howard Kurtz did earlier this year), let alone stop reporting about
Hillary Clinton, don’t hold your breath.

Hillary Rodham Clinton Ups the Super PAC Ante
<http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/hillary-rodham-clinton-ups-the-super-pac-ante/>
// NYT // Francis Clines – May 14, 2015

For all the candidates’ grand promises, it turns out the most creative area
of the presidential contest so far has been the strategic rush to shift
costly campaign duties from budget-tight headquarters to an armada of new
super PACs. These groups are free to raise unlimited funds from big-check
writers shopping for influence while supposedly operating independent of
their candidates. It sounds like a neat trick, and legions of campaign
lawyers are working on pulling it off.

Jeb Bush, the Republican frontrunner in sheer money raising, signaled the
mushrooming role of the super PAC last month when his strategists indicated
they were ready to shift key campaign functions from the central
headquarters, where donations are tighter, to their “independent” Right to
Rise super PAC for which Mr. Bush has already been raising tens of millions
of dollars.

Not to be outspent, the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton made clear last
week that she would end her arms-length remove from her “independent” super
PAC, Priorities USA Action, and personally court affluent donors at its
V.I.P. fund raisers where political clout is the commodity. Clinton
campaigners appeared to raise the stakes even higher this week by
announcing they would be working closely with a new super PAC created from
their existing rapid-response political defense operation, Correct the
Record.

The attraction for all these chess moves is the huge amounts of money that
super PACs can raise, courtesy of court decisions equating unlimited
corporate and union political money with free speech. Traditional campaigns
are still limited to $2,700 per donor in the primaries plus another $2,700
in the general election. But super PACs are cornucopias whose supposed
independence from their candidates seems an increasing fiction with each
new gambit.

Independent campaign watchdog organizations make a strong case that super
PACs are violating the law outright by having candidates’ close aides run
coordinated operations. Partisan lawyers expert in election law — a major
boutique industry in Washington — are on call to justify their latest
twists or attack those of their rivals. In the case of the new Clinton
political defense super PAC, for example, Clintonites say they will stay
within existing law that exempts from regulation any message content posted
for free on the Internet, as opposed to paid political ads which the super
PAC says it will avoid. Even so, critics instantly questioned whether super
PAC staffers will be working for nothing. If they are paid, they could
violate the Internet exemption.

Any chance of settling such arcane issues and enforcing clear super PAC
rules in behalf of the voters diminishes with each new 7-figure donation.
The Federal Election Commission, the supposed referee of the campaign, has
become dysfunctional, making it easier for super PACs to move ever more
dominantly into the race.

New Neighbor Hillary Clinton Shops and Dines in Brooklyn Heights
<http://brooklynheightsblog.com/archives/74633> // BK Heights Blog //
Claude Scales – May 14,2015

Presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton (center, in green) visited the
Brooklyn Women’s Exchange today, and posed for this photo with, left to
right: volunteers Lisa, Vanessa and Cindy and manager Elizabeth. Another
volunteer, Kristin, gave her a tour of the shop, and said, “She loved our
shop and what we do here. She used the term ‘it takes a village’ to
describe some of what we do.”

According to Politico Hillary bought a romper and a book, Simpson’s Sheep
Won’t Go To Sleep, for her granddaughter, Charlotte, at the Exchange. She
bought another romper at Area Kids on Montague Street, and had a salad for
lunch at MontyQ’s.

-- 
*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.