Subject: H4A News Clips 5.25.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 09:16:45 -0400
List-Id: <hrcrapid.googlegroups.com>

*H4A Press Clips*

*May 25, 2015*

*SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS*

Today Hillary Clinton will march in the Memorial Day parade in Chappaqua,
NY. CNN does a profile of the campaign strategy including Clinton
continuing her tradition of marching in the parade with President Clinton.

The campaign announced plans for Wednesday's trip to South Carolina
including Hillary Clinton giving the keynote address at the third annual
2015 Day in Blue. Clinton will also hold a roundtable discussion with
minority small business owners and make brief remarks to the S.C. House and
Senate Democratic caucuses.

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

*TODAY’S KEY
STORIES...................................................................................
**2*

*A Memorial Day test for Hillary Clinton* // CNN // John King - May 24,
2015.................................. 2

*Hillary Clinton to speak at S.C. Democratic women’s event in Columbia* //
The State // Jamie Self - May 24,
2015..................................................................................................................................................
5

*HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE..........................................................................
**6*

*Clinton’s full embrace of immigration* // MSNBC // Amanda Sakuma - May 24,
2015...................... 6

*Clinton, Secret Service go way back* // TH Online // William Garbe -May
24, 2015 - May 24, 2015... 8

*'16 race feeds Benghazi talk* // Boston Globe // Owen Boss - May 24,
2015.................................... 10

*Clinton campaign strategy catching flak* // Sentinel Source // Anita Kumar
- May 24, 2015............ 11

*Sliver of Clinton Emails Hint at Lingering Political Trouble* // Real
Clear Politics // Lisa Lerer, Matthew Lee & Jack Gillum - May 24,
2015.........................................................................................................
12

*8 things we learned from the Clinton emails* // Washington Examiner //
Sarah Westwood - May 23, 2015       14

*Possible Clinton running mate decries Benghazi ‘witch hunt’* // The Hill
// Devin Henry - May 24, 2015          17

*Clinton inevitable? Really?* // Miami Herald // Editorial Board - May 23,
2015............................. 18

*Can Hillary Clinton Keep it Cool?* // Elle // Sarah Lindig - May 24,
2015....................................... 19

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE............................................ **20*

*Hillary: hiding in plain sight* // Baltimore Sun // Jules Witcover – May
25, 2015.......................... 20

*If Hillary Falters, Why Not Joe?* // Real Clear Politics // Carl M. Cannon
- May 24, 2015................ 21

*Sanders opens presidential campaign headquarters in downtown BTV* // WPTZ
// Stewart Ledbettr - May 24,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
24

*Bernie Sanders Is Over Social Media Gaffe Stories* // Bloomberg // Ali
Elkin -May 24, 2015........... 24

*Step aside, Bernie Sanders has a big week* // Washington Times // Jennifer
Harper - May 24, 2015 25

*Bill de Blasio: The Boring Progressive* // American Thinker // David
Lawrence - May 24, 2015...... 26

*GOP................................................................................................................
**28*

*Carly Fiorina Talks, Iowa Swoons, as Polls Shrug* // NYT // Amy Chozick -
May 24, 2015................ 28

*Ohio Gov. John Kasich edges closer to 2016 run* // Washington Times // Tom
Howell Jr. - May 24, 2015           30

*Perry Seeks to Win Over Iowa, One Handshake at a Time* // RCP // Catherine
Lucey & Steve Peoples- May 24,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
31

*Huckabee: Distrust of government at new high* // The Hill // Mark Hensch -
May 24, 2015........... 33

*Huckabee suggests government should have a warrant before spying* // MSNBC
// Aliyah Frumin - May 24,
2015................................................................................................................................................
34

*Mike Huckabee on Fox News Sunday* // Fox News // May 24,
2015.............................................. 35

*When Huckabee Also Wanted Us To Forgive Mel Gibson* // The Daily Beast //
Aswain Suebsaeng -  May 24,
2015................................................................................................................................................
39

*Jeb Bush having new mansion built for him on family compound in Maine:
report* // Daily News // Adam Edelman - May 24,
2015............................................................................................................
40

*Christie's curse-fest, and how the media blew it* // Star Ledger // Tom
Moran - May 24, 2015........ 41

*Can Feingold come back from defeat?* // Milwaukee Journal Sentinel //
Craig Gilbert - May 23, 2015 43

*The road to the White House* // The Tampa Tribune // Blaise Ingooglia -
May 23, 2015................ 46

*TOP
NEWS......................................................................................................
**47*

*DOMESTIC..................................................................................................
**47*

*Two dead as south-central U.S. storms force evacuations* // Reuters // Jim
Forsyth - May 24, 2015 47

*Here are the cities that need a $15 minimum wage the most* // Fortune //
Claire Zillman - May 24, 2015         48

*GM: Criminal charges likely in ignition case* // Fortune // Stephen Gandel
- May 24, 2015............ 50

*John Nash dies in car accident leaving behind incredible legacy: 6
remarkable life lessons* // True Jersey // Ann Brasco - May 24,
2015................................................................................................................
50

*INTERNATIONAL.......................................................................................
**53*

*Defense Secretary Ash Carter: Iraqis lack ‘will to fight’* // MSNBC //
Aliyah Frumin - May 24, 2015 53

*Vote serves as beacon of hope for those still facing oppression* // Irish
Times // Dennis Staunton - May 24,
2015................................................................................................................................................
54

*Women activists cross DMZ between North and South Korea* // CNN // Jethro
Mullen - May 24, 2015               56

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS.................................................................
**58*

*The Center Needs a Voice* // WaPo // David Ignatius - May 22,
2015............................................ 58

*Who's going 'Iowa heavy,' 'Iowa light'* // Des Moines Register // Jennifer
Jacobs - May 25, 2015... 59

*Welcome, candidates: Some answers, please* // TH Online // Editorial Board
- May 24, 2015........ 61

*Fusion Media Aims at Millennials, but Struggles to Find Its Identity* //
NYT // Ravi Somaiya - May 24, 2015  63

*Only Capitalism Can Save the Planet* // The Daily Beast // Eleanor Clift -
May 23, 2015................ 66

*ISIS rises, the economy falters, and Obama’s legacy falls apart* // NY
Post // John Podhoretz - May 23, 2015  68

*The Making of a Great Ex-President* // NYT // Justin S. Vaugh - May 23,
2015.............................. 71

*MISCELLANEOUS..........................................................................................
**74*

*N.H. political veterans talk about what it takes to throw a good campaign
event* // Concord Monitor // Casey McDermott - May 24,
2015.........................................................................................................
74

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES*

*A Memorial Day test for Hillary Clinton*
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/24/politics/ip-hillary-clinton-test/>* // CNN
// John King - May 24, 2015*

Jitters about Jeb, some praise for Rick Perry, the meaning of Hillary
Clinton's holiday weekend parade march and some coming Democratic
competition filled our Sunday trip around the "Inside Politics" table.
Plus, a take from conversations with a couple dozen younger voters that was
both interesting and a bit depressing.

1. Hillary's hometown parade & a test of 2016 style

Memorial Day parades are a popular place to find politicians this holiday
weekend, whether one is running for sheriff or president. Count Hillary
Clinton among those marching, and it is both a familiar stroll for her and
perhaps a glimpse at her style as she moves past early events that have
been carefully scripted.

Maggie Haberman of The New York Times reminded us that Secretary Clinton --
formerly Senator Clinton -- has walked in her local New York parade before
and gotten a great reception. Perhaps there's a tad more scrutiny this time
because she is back in the running for president -- and because she is
about to enter a somewhat new phase of the 2016 effort -- including the big
official rollout rally.

"There has not been a sense of great energy around her candidacy so far,"
said Haberman. "So that is one thing to keep an eye on."

"So far, she's keeping these events small. They're doing it for a reason,
but you lose something when you do it that way and they need to really kind
of galvanize and mobilize people."

2. The summer of Bernie?

So far, the Clinton strategy is pretty obvious: lay out her positions in a
way that both protects her standing as the prohibitive Democratic
front-runner and, when possible, exposes GOP divisions.

Can she stick to what at times seems to be already a general election
approach? Stay tuned.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny notes that the Democratic field is about to become
bigger, at least officially, when Bernie Sanders launches his campaign on
Tuesday.

"He's going to have a big rally, probably reminiscent of Howard Dean's big
entry into the race in '03-'04," said Zeleny.

"The question is, will this be the summer of Bernie? Will he be able to
rally things? He's already getting a lot of online support and a lot of
interest from that side."

Zeleny adds that he will be watching Sanders and O'Malley, who will launch
later in the week, to see how much "space they occupy" in the Democratic
2016 presidential field.

3. Jitters about Jeb, even as he says the ship has been righted

It's a bit off when the candidates get into self-analysis, but there was
Jeb Bush this past week saying all is well and the ship is righted.

He felt compelled to make that statement after a stretch in which he seemed
to have a hard time talking about the Iraq War and his brother's judgment
in launching it.

So is his self-assessment shared by other Republicans? Not so fast, reports
Robert Costa of The Washington Post.

"When I was in Iowa and New Hampshire this past week, I sat down with a lot
of Republican officials and donors in those states and I said, you know,
really just give me a sense of what's on your mind behind the scenes," said
Costa.

"And the topic almost all of them brought up was angst about Jeb Bush,
angst about his candidacy. They're anxious that he's not getting momentum,
that he doesn't have energy in any way in this primary. They're not sure
how he's going to get it."

4. Is Rick Perry the new Rick Santorum?

Rick Perry torpedoed his 2012 run for the presidency. The trademark moment
was, of course, when he couldn't -- in a debate -- name three Cabinet
agencies he would eliminate if elected.

This time, as he explores another run, the former Texas governor is but a
blip in most polls.

But Julie Pace of The Associated Press, just back from some time on the
ground in Iowa, says Perry is getting some favorable reviews from activists
as he works the state and seeks political redemption. And, Pace says, he
has a model for his 2016 plan: the rise of former Senator Rick Santorum
from 1% or 2% in early polls to victory on caucus night.

"He is spending a ton of time in Iowa," said Pace. "He's doing all of the
big campaign forums. He went to the Eagle Scout dedication of a local
activist. He's just doing the things that people in Iowa want to see
candidates do."

5. Some Sanders buzz, plus a lot of disillusionment among younger voters

I spent a good deal of time last week talking to younger voters, and
possible voters. As always, these conversations were refreshing -- the
energy is inspiring and I was involved in several interesting conversations
about big 2016 campaign issues. But some of it was a tad depressing.

At a Boston dinner for the remarkable community service organization City
Year, I was approached by a handful of young people who wanted me to know
how eager they were to help Sen. Sanders in his Democratic bid.

Many others said they were unimpressed with the candidates so far. Many
expressed views consistent with what we see in public opinion polling: Many
young people lean conservative or libertarian on issues such as taxes and
regulation and NSA surveillance, but see the Republican Party as trapped in
a time warp when it comes to issues such as immigration, climate change and
same-sex marriage.

My casual, and unscientific, focus groups included my older children. My
son, Noah, graduated from Boston College on Monday. We drove back to
Washington on Wednesday, with all his stuff, plus 18-year old Hannah King
and "almost four" Jonah King.

We don't talk politics much because they have always viewed it as dad's job
-- and boring. But for a chunk of our drive we did, and they had thoughtful
observations about the big issues and about many of the candidates in the
2016 race.

But -- this is the tad depressing part -- like many of those at the City
Year dinner, they voiced the opinion that nothing gets done on the big and
hard stuff anyway, so why waste their time worrying about the campaign?

Whether you were happy with the results or not, the enthusiasm of younger
voters in the Obama campaigns was good for our politics.

There is a huge opportunity -- and a huge potential campaign talent pool --
available to the 2016 contenders. But most of the young people I talked to
were skeptical about politics, if not outright disillusioned.

All of the candidates, regardless of party, need to do a better job
convincing these voters -- and possible voters -- that they are listening,
and that it does matter.

*Hillary Clinton to speak at S.C. Democratic women’s event in Columbia*
<http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article22149219.html>*
// The State // Jamie Self - May 24, 2015*

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is coming to Columbia on
Wednesday for her first trip back to the Palmetto State since her 2008
presidential campaign.

The former secretary of state will give the keynote address at the third
annual 2015 Day in Blue, the event’s co-hosts announced Sunday.

Clinton also will hold a roundtable discussion with African American small
business owners and make brief remarks to the S.C. House and Senate
Democratic caucuses.

Hosted by the S.C. Democratic Women’s Council and the S.C. House Democratic
Women’s Caucus, the Day in Blue brings together S.C. Democratic women to
the State House for a conference.

Clinton will give her keynote address at 1:45 p.m. at the Columbia
Marriott.

Clinton’s visit comes more than a month after her April 12 entry into the
race and after she has campaigned in early primary states Iowa, New
Hampshire and Nevada.

Clinton’s stops so far have consisted of small, controlled events and
roundtable discussions.

The campaign has announced a larger campaign kick-off event scheduled for
June 13, but the location has not been announced.

An ongoing congressional inquiry into Clinton’s leadership of the U.S.
Department of State during the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in
Benghazi, Libya, and revelations that she used a private email account and
server to conduct state department business have followed her on the
campaign trail.

Last Friday, on her second visit to New Hampshire, Clinton took questions
from a gaggle of reporters, marking a shift from the distance she has kept
from the media since entering the race.

Also the heavy favorite in the race, Clinton returns to the Palmetto State
after a seven-year absence. She last was in South Carolina during the
January 2008 Democratic presidential primary debate in Myrtle Beach. She
lost the S.C. primary to then-Sen. Barack Obama who won all but two
counties.

The former first lady’s S.C. trip also trails visits by her rivals,
including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who was first to announce
he’s seeking the nomination. Former governors Martin O’Malley of Maryland
and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island are expected to announce soon. Former
U.S. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia also is eyeing a run.

Clinton will head to Florida on Thursday and Friday followed by a June 3-4
trip to Texas, according to media reports.

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*Clinton’s full embrace of immigration
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-full-embrace-immigration?google_editors_picks=true>
// MSNBC // Amanda Sakuma - May 24, 2015*

Hillary Clinton’s embrace of immigration reform has been an unusually bold
gesture for a public figure best known for her caution. By hiring onto her
campaign staff a 26-year-old grassroots activist who lived in the U.S.
without documentation for more than a decade, the 2016 Democratic front
runner has signaled she’s serious about going all-in on the single-most
contentious issue roiling the immigration debate – full citizenship for
potentially millions of undocumented immigrants –  all the while hitting a
key Republican pressure point with precision.

The effort may reflect a heartfelt change in Clinton’s views on
immigration, nearly 8 years after a question in a nationally televised
debate on whether she supported driver’s licenses for undocumented
immigrants sent her into a fit of verbal contortion. But the move largely
political, severely undercutting her likely GOP opponents’ ability to
compete in drawing support from Latinos, one of the fastest growing voting
blocs in the country, and one that will be crucial for any party to claim
future presidential elections.

As the former secretary of state’s stance on the issue takes shape with
increased clarity, the spotlight falls squarely on the crowded Republican
field, where candidates’ murky policy positions are being pushed further
and further to the right.

The strategy could risk alienating voters in areas of the country where
illegal immigration remains a hot button issue. But by coming out early and
strong on the matter, Clinton appears willing to take that risk – clearly
acknowledging that Latinos have led the way in turning many historically
red states purple.

“She’s concerned about the swing states where it’s crucial for her to win:
Nevada, Colorado and certainly Florida,” said William Frey, an expert in
U.S. demographics with the Brookings Institute. “Immigration is not the
most important issue, but it’s a symbolic. That enthusiasm is going to be
very important for her.”

Clinton outpaced Obama’s Latino support during the 2008 primaries by a
nearly two-to-one margin, throwing her support behind comprehensive
immigration reform before stumbling at that infamous primary debate. She
eventually come out against driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants.
This month Clinton went much further, saying she supported a full and equal
pathway to citizenship, while also vowing to take Obama’s controversial
executive actions a step further to extend work permits and a temporary
legal status to millions more undocumented immigrants.

While Clinton has been aggressively pushing her position on immigration
forward, Republicans have been scrambling to pull theirs back. Sen. Marco
Rubio was the architect of the comprehensive immigration plan in Congress
before he abruptly began sprinting away from the bi-partisan bill; Govs.
Scott Walker, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush favored a pathway to citizenship
before they suddenly didn’t; and former Govs. Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee
have advocated for tighter border security without detailing what exactly
that means.

It was not by mistake that Clinton chose to unveil her immigration platform
in Nevada, a swing state that Obama visited immediately after announcing
his sweeping executive actions last November. Nor was it by accident that
Clinton chose to make her announcement while sitting at a table with young,
undocumented student activists – a group the former secretary of state
knows she needs to win over – rather than by giving a barn-burning speech
before hundreds of supporters.

Lorella Praeli, who was appointed this week to lead Clinton’s immigrant
outreach, sits atop a very short list of young DREAMers who can seamlessly
shift between roles as an activist, cable news commentator and honored
White House guest. Immigration advocacy is inevitably divided into two
separate camps – those who influence from within the halls of power and
those on the outside who build political pressure from the ground up. Few
organizations, like Praeli’s, have managed to do both, proving that the
young people directly impacted by immigration policy are some of the most
effective messengers for reform.

DREAMers often note that they’ve been burned before. Obama made sweeping
promises early in his first term to pass comprehensive immigration reform,
but instead the community watched as more people were deported under his
administration than any other. Obama later followed through with his series
of sweeping executive actions, but with the programs tied up in the courts,
it’s now up to the next occupant of the Oval Office to finish what he
started.

The obstacles facing Clinton on immigration remain formidable. She faces an
uphill battle in actually accomplishing most policy positions she has
staked out on immigration: creating a pathway to citizenship and ending
bed-quotas at immigrant detention centers would both require support from
Congress. Meanwhile, the Obama administration maintains that the
president’s executive actions are as far-reaching as possible within the
confines of the law – anything further, as Clinton has promised, would
almost certainly be challenged in the courts.

The question remains whether Clinton’s early immigration platform could
come back to bite her with undecided voters in the general election, should
she secure the Democratic nomination. Clinton’s campaign has not been
defined by immigration yet, but she carries the risk of being defined in
negative terms on the issue with some white voters in Iowa, said Dennis
Goldford, a political scientist at Drake University in Iowa.

“For your average, rural, small town Republican voter, illegal immigration
is an assault on their culture,” Goldford said.

Just a month into her official campaign, Clinton’s consistency on
immigration only amplifies the disarray within the GOP 2016 field over how
to address immigration without alienating base voters. In 2012, Republican
leaders made adopting a more welcoming tone toward Latinos a top priority
after the party’s “self-deportation” platform set them back dramatically in
the last presidential election. But 2016 Republican candidates have since
seized on the anti-immigrant sentiment of the party’s base, pushing their
platforms further to the right.

While flip-flopping on his own position on a pathway to citizenship this
week, New Jersey governor and likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate Chris
Christie called out Clinton for “pandering” to immigration advocates. Some
immigrant rights groups, however, are saying that they’re shamelessly
accepting the attention.

“It was a brilliant electoral strategy and it’s a strong commitment,” said
Frank Sharry, executive director of the advocacy group America’s Voice. “If
there’s any pandering going on, it’s the Republicans who are lurching to
the right to pander to the nativists.”

*Clinton, Secret Service go way back
<http://www.thonline.com/news/tri-state/article_ed557bc5-e94b-5445-99b8-829cdfeb9c08.html>
// TH Online // William Garbe -May 24, 2015 - May 24, 2015*

Carrie Tedore's home was packed with people as a member of Hillary
Clinton's Secret Service detail stood watch at the front door, a
star-shaped badge emblazoned with the White House facade pinned to the
chest of his shirt.

Among those impressed with the Secret Service was Tedore's 10-year-old son,
Bobby, who greeted the Democratic presidential candidate with his parents
before dashing upstairs.

"I didn't expect him to be quiet the whole time," Tedore said. "That's a
10-year-old for you."

The Secret Service detail has followed Clinton since the successful 1992
presidential campaign of her husband, Bill. More than two decades later,
the same type of detail followed her to Dubuque Regional Airport after she
departed the Tedore residence.

"On Tuesday afternoon in Dubuque, Iowa, a few dozen passengers waited for
their routine American Airlines flight to Chicago, one of only three
flights scheduled from the tiny airport that day," wrote MSNBC journalist
Alex Seitz-Wald.

Clinton neither passed through TSA security, nor did she converse with
passengers or talk to Seitz-Wald, a passenger himself. Instead, she sat on
the plane, sunglasses on, BlackBerry in hand, surrounded by the Secret
Service, he reported.

Jeb Bush tidbits

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush hasn't run for any office since 2002, and he
technically isn't running for one now -- at least yet. But should the
Republican choose to do so, he'll be ready to take selfies.

"By the way, I found a new way of doing this," he said to a supporter
during his May 16 visit to Loras College. The supporter had just asked to
take a cellphone photo with Bush.

"You turn it back to the way it was, go like this," Bush said, fiddling
with an iPhone in his hand. "I found out yesterday. I take a lot of these."

Bush continued working the room when another attendee approached.

"Gov. Bush, since the tallest candidate always wins," said Russ Furhman, of
Dubuque.

"George Pataki?" Bush said interrupting Furhman, referring to the also-tall
former governor of New York.

"Now that I've seen you I'm going to run out and put 10 bucks on you,"
Furhman said.

"Well, it's a long path, man," Bush said. "Wait until the odds get really,
really bad and then buy."

FUNDRAISING FOR BUSTOS

If you're in the market to see Taylor Swift in concert, you might consider
making a $2,500 donation to U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill.

According to an invitation obtained by the Sunlight Foundation, a
nonpartisan, open government nonprofit, Bustos is offering tickets to
donors willing to make the per-person donation. The concert will be held
July 13 at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C.

POLITICAL CALENDAR

* Saturday, June 6 -- U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, will host "Joni's 1st
Annual Roast and Ride." Most GOP declared and potential presidential
candidates are expected to attend. Ernst will lead a motorcycle trip from
Des Moines to the Central Iowa Expo in Boone. Tickets are $30 and are
available at jonipac.com.

*'16 race feeds Benghazi talk
<http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/05/16_race_feeds_benghazi_talk>
// Boston Globe // Owen Boss - May 24, 2015*

The sister of a Navy SEAL killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack is wary
that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential run will mean her family will have
to deal with nonstop news coverage

focused on the former secretary of state’s failure to boost security at the
embassy.

“What’s unfortunate for us is Hillary Clinton running for president is
going to keep this story on the news,” Kate Quigley of Marblehead told the
Herald yesterday. “It would’ve been lovely a long time ago if she accepted
her responsibility in it but that never happened and that most likely will
never happen.”

Quigley’s brother, Glen Doherty of Winchester, and fellow Navy SEAL Tyrone
Woods were killed by mortar fire while holding off dozens of insurgents on
Sept. 11, 2012, at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. U.S. Ambassador J.
Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer
Sean Smith also were killed in the attack.

The State Department released nearly 900 pages of Clinton’s personal
correspondence Friday, some of which reinforced the notion that the
front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination received numerous
warnings about security at the American diplomatic compound prior to the
deadly attack.

One email shows Clinton received a message from Stevens warning of the
deteriorating police presence near the compound.

“The police chief is a university professor who took on these police duties
after the revolution. According to the police chief, there are only 3,000
police in the Benghazi area, down from 6,000 prior to the revolution,”
Stevens wrote. “Many police simply did not return to their jobs after the
revolution, as they feared retaliation.”

Another email, sent just seven months before the attack by then-Ambassador
to Libya Gene Cretz, warned of “concern here that continuing rivalries
among the militias remains dangerous from the perspective of the havoc they
can wreak with their firepower and their continued control of select turf.”

Quigley said the release of Clinton’s personal emails hasn’t provided her
family any bombshell revelations.

“We’ve known this all along,” Quigley said of the lack of security at the
compound. “I have heard that now there are new restrictions pertaining to
how embassies are supposed to be staffed but this is nothing new for us. We
still are not going to blame the government, we still lay blame where we
always have — with the people who planned and executed the attack.”

*Clinton campaign strategy catching flak
<http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/mct/clinton-campaign-strategy-catching-flak/article_16cff586-1795-5829-b94e-82f467103f5a.html>
// Sentinel Source // Anita Kumar - May 24, 2015 *

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa — Here’s how Hillary Clinton campaigned for president
this week: She took a private 15-minute tour of a bike shop that had closed
for her visit. She spoke to four small-business owners chosen by her staff
in front of an audience of 20, also chosen by her staff. She answered a few
questions from the media following weeks of silence.

And after a little more than an hour, Clinton was off, whisked away by
aides and Secret Service agents, into a minivan and on to the next event.

Members of the public who wanted to go inside the building to support her,
oppose her or merely ask a question of her were left outside on an
unseasonably cool Iowa day. Most didn’t bother showing up.

“I am troubled that so far in this caucus cycle she hasn’t had any public
town halls,” said Chris Schwartz, a liberal activist from Waterloo, as he
stood outside the bike store hoping to talk to Clinton about trade. “If she
had a public town hall then we wouldn’t be out here. We would much rather
be in there engaging with her.”

Welcome to Hillary Clinton 2.0. Mindful of her defeat by Barack Obama in
2008, Clinton has embraced a new strategy — one that so far does not
include town hall meetings and campaign rallies, media interviews, even
public events.

Instead, she holds small controlled events with a handful of potential
voters in homes, businesses and schools. She repeats many of the same lines
(“I want to be your champion” is a favorite), participants are handpicked
by her staff or the event host, and topics are dictated by her campaign.

Clinton’s approach — made possible by her lack of strong competition for
the Democratic nomination — comes as she works to relate to working
American families after years of being criticized as an out-of-touch
Washington insider garnering hefty paychecks for her speeches and books.

But the campaign to show the world that she’s never forgotten her
middle-class, Middle America sensibilities can be a tough sell from inside
a bubble of armored cars, Secret Service agents and wary aides.

“It’s going to come back and haunt her,” said Eric Herzik, chairman of the
political science department at the University of Nevada, Reno. “I think it
will backfire.”

Clinton’s distance from the public stands in contrast to other candidates
in both parties, who routinely mix and mingle with the public, hold town
hall meetings and appear on TV news programs.

So far, Clinton has not held one event open to the public since she
launched her campaign, though aides say she eventually will hold bigger
events..”

Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center,
said that while there’s value in hearing what potential voters say, the
Clinton campaign has ensured she only gets friendly audiences even if she
doesn’t know exactly what they will say.

“There’s not the same level of pushback. It’s always going to be
artificial,” he said. “She shouldn’t be afraid to talk to voters and really
campaign.”

*Sliver of Clinton Emails Hint at Lingering Political Trouble
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/24/sliver_of_clinton_emails_hint_at_lingering_political_trouble_126712.html>
// Real Clear Politics // Lisa Lerer, Matthew Lee & Jack Gillum - May 24,
2015*

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton received information on
her private email account about the deadly attack on U.S. diplomatic
facilities in Benghazi that was later classified "secret" at the request of
the FBI, underscoring lingering questions about how responsibly she handled
sensitive information on a home server.

The nearly 900 pages of her correspondence released Friday are only a
sliver of the more than 55,000 pages of emails Clinton has turned over to
the State Department, which had its plan to release them next January
rejected this week by a federal judge.

Instead, the judge ordered the agency to conduct a "rolling production" of
the records. Along with a Republican-led House committee investigating the
Benghazi attacks, the slow drip of emails will likely keep the issue of how
Clinton, the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination,
used a personal email account while serving as the nation's top diplomat
alive indefinitely.

Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said that the released emails were
incomplete, adding that it "strains credibility" to view them as a thorough
record of Clinton's tenure.

The prospect for political complication in Clinton's choice to use a
personal email account, rather than one issued by the government, was
evident in the messages released Friday. They included several that were
deemed sensitive but unclassified, contained details about her daily
schedule and held information - censored in the documents as released -
about the CIA that the government is barred from publicly disclosing.

Taken together, the correspondence provides examples of material considered
to be sensitive that Clinton received on the account run out of her home.
She has said the private server had "numerous safeguards."

Campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton said Friday she was aware that the
FBI now wanted some of the email to be classified, "but that doesn't change
the fact all of the information in the emails was handled appropriately."

Asked if she was concerned it was on a private server, she replied, "No."

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said, "It was not classified at the
time. The occurrence of subsequent upgrade does not mean anyone did
anything wrong."

It's not clear if Clinton's home computer system used encryption software
to communicate securely with government email services. That would have
protected her communications from the prying eyes of foreign spies,
hackers, or anyone interested on the Internet.

Last year, Clinton gave the State Department 55,000 pages of emails that
she said pertained to her work as secretary sent from her personal address.
Only messages related to the 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in
Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador
Christopher Stevens, were released by the department on Friday. The 296
emails had already been turned over to the House Benghazi committee.

A Nov. 18, 2012, message about arrests in Libya was not classified at the
time, meaning no laws were violated, but was upgraded from "unclassified"
to "secret" on Friday at the request of the FBI to redact information that
could contain information damaging to national security or foreign
relations.

Twenty-three words were redacted from the message, which detailed reports
of arrests in Libya of people who might have connections to the attack,
Harf said.

The redacted portion appears to relate to people who provided information
about the alleged suspects to the Libyans. That part of the email had been
categorized by the State Department as "NOFORN," meaning that foreign
nationals weren't allowed to read it, including close U.S. allies.

The message, originally from Bill Roebuck, then director of the Office of
Maghreb Affairs, was forwarded to Clinton by her deputy chief of staff,
Jake Sullivan, with the comment: "fyi."

No other redactions were made to the collection of Benghazi-related emails
for classification reasons, officials said. They added that the Justice
Department had not raised classification concerns about the now-redacted 1
1/2 lines in the Nov. 18 email when the documents were turned over to the
Benghazi committee. The committee retains an unredacted copy of the email,
the officials said.

Clinton also appeared to send and receive protected information about the
CIA, which was withheld on Friday because the State Department said federal
law prevented its disclosure. The department did not offer a detailed
description of what it was withholding, such as a name or other sensitive
information.

A number of the messages were marked with codes indicating that the
information had been censored for reasons related to the U.S. intelligence
community, law enforcement or personal privacy - a process that happened
after they'd already been circulated through Clinton's home server.

Much of the correspondence concerned the mundane matters of high-level
government service, press clippings, speech drafts, and coordination of
calls with other top officials as well as chit-chat about shopping between
Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin.

"What a wonderful, strong and moving statement by your boss," Christian
Brose, a top adviser to Sen. John McCain, writes in an email to Sullivan,
forwarded to Clinton just after Stevens' death. "Please tell her how much
Sen. McCain appreciated it. Me too."

There are repeated warnings of the unrest in Libya, though Clinton has said
she was never personally involved in questions of security in Benghazi
before the attack. One message describes a one-day trip by Stevens in March
2011 to "get a sense of the situation on the ground" and prepare for a
30-day stay in the future. A request for Defense Department support was
made, the email adds, but no approval had yet been received. Stevens was
killed in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.

As early as April 2011, Clinton was forwarded a message sent to her staff
that the situation in the country had worsened to the point "where Stevens
is considering departure from Benghazi," The email was marked "Importance:
High."

*8 things we learned from the Clinton emails
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/8-things-we-learned-from-the-clinton-emails/article/2564973>
// Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood - May 23, 2015*

The highly selective trove of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State
Department Friday revealed both the seemingly strong influence Sidney
Blumenthal wielded over the secretary of state and the preoccupation with
media coverage exhibited by her closest aides.

If the 296 published emails are to be considered a complete collection,
they would suggest Clinton relied almost exclusively on an aide that had
been banned from the State Department, Blumenthal, to provide her
intelligence on a country at war.

The emails show that Clinton's staffers often circulated and debated press
clippings amongst themselves and occasionally discussed how to respond to
certain media criticisms.

They also provide a narrow glimpse of how the State Department's top ranks
operated in the weeks before and after the greatest crisis of Clinton's
tenure.

Clinton asked State Dept. aides to prepare speech for Clinton Foundation

An email dated Sept. 22, 2012 shows Clinton appeared to discuss a speech
for the Clinton Global Initiative less than two weeks after the Benghazi
attack.

Jake Sullivan, a top Clinton aide, sent Clinton a draft of the speech that
day and encouraged her to "let me know your thoughts."

The entire speech is redacted under a FOIA exemption that allows agencies
to hold back internal deliberations.

What is unclear is why Clinton was using State Department aides to prepare
a speech for her family's foundation, or why the text of that draft would
be considered an internal government communication.

The day of Benghazi attacks, Clinton asked for a film she made a cameo in

Hours before the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Clinton asked a
pair of her top staffers to find her a copy of the Bernard Henri Levy
documentary, "The Oath of Tobruk."

Levy had directed the film about the Libyan war, which featured a cameo
from Clinton herself.

But elsewhere in the emails, Levy's name surfaced again, although it was
redacted in the version released by the State Department.

In a memo to Clinton dated March 27, 2011, Blumenthal noted that French
President Nicolas Sarkozy had asked Levy, a sociologist, to use his "long
established ties to Israel, Syria, and other nations in the Middle East" to
assess the level of influence al Qaeda and other terrorist groups wielded
in the Libyan government.

'This will be exciting when it's FOIA'd'

A light-hearted exchange between Philippe Reines, Thomas Nides and Caroline
Adler — all top Clinton aides — revealed the staffers had FOIA in mind when
emailing with their government accounts.

Describing an interview Clinton gave to Wall Street Journal reporter Monica
Langley in which the reporter sat too close to the secretary, Reines said
he didn't "think you see that behavior among any type of mammal."

"Was like the dental hygienist rolling around the floor to get the best
access to your mouth depending on what tooth she was trying to get access
to," he wrote.

"I may go and throw up since I am laughing so hard," Nides said.

Adler, who was copied on the chain, added, "this will be exciting when it's
FOIA'd."

Clinton confused names of slain Americans

In the hours after Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were
murdered in a terrorist raid, Clinton sought advice from her aides about
when to announce Stevens' death.

But critics quickly pounced on the fact that Clinton seemingly jumbled the
ambassador's name with that of Sean Smith, a foreign service information
management officer who was also killed in the attack, by referring to the
slain diplomat as "Chris Smith" instead of Chris Stevens.

Blumenthal and Clinton had secret meeting just after Benghazi attack

Clinton appears to have visited Blumenthal just weeks after the Benghazi
attack.

Blumenthal told his old friend it was "great to see you" on October 6,
2012, and encouraged her to "drop in again," the emails show.

A day later, he invited Bill and Hillary Clinton to his home after the
election.

"Post-election, we'd like to have you over for dinner," Blumenthal wrote.
"Bill can come too, if he's in town. Whatever works."

"Will do," she replied.

The exchange was yet another illustration of the close ties between the
former Clinton aide and secretary of state that has sparked controversy in
recent days.

Emails between Blumenthal and Clinton made up a significant portion of the
records released Friday.

In 9 months leading up to Benghazi, there's only 35 Clinton emails

The State Department emails span most of Clinton's final two years in
office, but the cache contains long stretches of time when either no emails
were sent, or none were disclosed.

In the two weeks before the Benghazi attack, Clinton and her staff either
did not send each other a single email regarding the atmosphere in Benghazi
that led to the death of four Americans in a raid on the U.S. consulate
there, or the emails during that time were not disclosed.

In the nine months of 2012 before the Sept. 11 attack, Clinton and her
aides exchanged just 35 emails that the secretary of state evidently deemed
fit to give the State Department.

Private server emails contained sensitive data FBI classified just hours
before release

The FBI classified information in one of Clinton's emails just hours before
their release, the Associated Press reported Friday.

State Department officials told the AP Clinton's emails from Nov. 18, 2012,
contained the names of suspects that had been arrested in Libya in
connection with the attacks.

Twenty-three words were redacted from that particular email published on
the State Department website.

Reporters pressed State Department spokesperson Marie Harf on why
information sensitive enough to be considered classified, even
retroactively, was handled on a private server.

"It's possible that the degree of sensitivity … evolved over time," Harf
said at a briefing Friday.

State Dept. made political, helpful redactions

Leaked emails published by the New York Times just one day before the State
Department officially released the email trove show that the agency
redacted a number of passages before publishing the documents.

The State Department had redacted parts of emails that revealed officials'
personal opinions about prominent Libyans.

The agency also removed some of Clinton's own words, such as her suggestion
to explore arming the Libyan rebels using "private security experts."

Clinton's attempt to warn the White House to prepare for Republican attacks
on the Obama campaign using Benghazi as fodder was also redacted, although
it is unclear how that information would affect national security.

*Possible Clinton running mate decries Benghazi ‘witch hunt’
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/243038-possible-clinton-running-mate-decries-benghazi-witch-hunt>
// The Hill // Devin Henry - May 24, 2015*

Julian Castro, an Obama Cabinet secretary floated as a potential running
mate for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, said on Sunday
the release of State Department emails relating to Benghazi is part of
“basically a witch hunt.”

"What you have here with these emails is basically a witch hunt, and
Congressman [Trey] Gowdy [R-S.C.], who is leading this, is very
intentionally trying to manipulate this witch hunt to play politics,”
Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary, said on CNN’s “State
of the Union.”

Under public pressure, the State Department on Friday released hundreds of
emails between Clinton and other department officials related to the 2012
attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya. Gowdy, who is chairing a
congressional investigative committee into the events around the attack,
has called Clinton to testify on the matter before Congress later this year.

“This thing has been studied to death, by Republicans and by Democrats,
several committees, including in Congress, that have all said, ‘Yes, of
course what happened was tragic, but Secretary Clinton was not in any way
at fault,’ ” Castro said.

Democrats have pitched Castro as a potential running mate for Clinton in
the 2016 presidential election, speculation he has brushed off as
“flattering.”

“If I had a dime for every amount of speculation that happens in DC, I
think all of us would be wealthy,” he said.

*Clinton inevitable? Really?
<http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article21640572.html> //
Miami Herald // Editorial Board - May 23, 2015*

The aura of inevitability in which Hillary Clinton basked for so long has
smacked up against the reality of the rough-and-tumble of a presidential
campaign. And both she and the Democratic Party are worse off.

She deigned to speak at length to the media last week after about a month
of giving reporters, and the public she seeks to represent, the silent
treatment. At a time when Republican wannabes are grabbing every
microphone, gabbing at length to differentiate themselves from each other,
Mrs. Clinton, until last week, had taken another, less winning approach.

Really, the Republican campaign so far, with its cast of seemingly
thousands, has been fun to watch, informative and revealing.

Mrs. Clinton, however, has seemed imperious, remote and tone-deaf to the
clamor to hear directly from her instead of being defined by the people who
hope to oppose her next Election Day. She’s already lost one presidential
campaign; it’s up to her now to persuade Americans that she really wants to
be president and is not just going through the motions because of
...inevitability.

Of course, it’s way early in this campaign, and she may yet find her mojo.
Maybe it’s part of her strategy to not expend a lot of energy before it’s
clearer who her Republican opponent will be.

Still, it’s no longer too early for Mrs. Clinton to make the case that
she’s hungry for this job, that she’s the better choice for the position.
So far, though, she hasn’t really moved the needle of her poll numbers
since declaring her candidacy. And despite the intimate, unrecorded chats
Mrs. Clinton has held with small groups of voters, her 27-day silence let
others fill the void and tell the public who she is, and mostly in negative
terms.

Thing is, when she engages in straight talk, as she did this week in
unequivocally declaring that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a mistake, she
plays to her strengths. Yes, it’s past time for her foes to give up on
their Benghazi allegations — they have been a nonstarter from the outset.

But, like every other candidate, Mrs. Clinton comes with baggage, the
contents of which should be examined, explained. The dubious sources of
donations to the Clinton Foundation, for instance, are fair game.

Mrs. Clinton’s hurdles are short-term — she only has to make it to Election
Day — but the Democratic Party’s challenges are long-term. Despite having
one of its own in the White House for six years, party leaders seem
complacent, not hungry to maintain occupancy at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., not
just in 2016, but 2024, 2032 and beyond.

In other words, the Democratic bench isn’t very deep, and that stands to
cause enduring damage to the rich mix of ideas and ideology that has
propelled American politics for centuries now.

If tomorrow Mrs. Clinton decided, “You know, maybe I don’t want to be
president after all,” who would step into the void? So far, Sen. Elizabeth
Warren has a large, cultish following that could translate into a credible,
popular campaign. Joe Biden? Experienced and personable, but like Mrs.
Clinton, and even Jeb Bush on the Republican side, there’s a freshness
lacking, though it’s not a deal-killer.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is in there pitching, and former Maryland Gov.
Mike O’Malley is exploring. But where the country is only benefiting from
the scrappy fighters on the Republican side, from the credible to the
far-out, Mrs. Clinton and her party lack that “oomph.” They must keep in
mind that inevitability is hardly a winning strategy.

*Can Hillary Clinton Keep it Cool?
<http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a28530/hillary-clinton-campaigns-for-cool/>
// Elle // Sarah Lindig - May 24, 2015*

The old adage says, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." And
then there's also "Learn from your mistakes," which is always good advice,
right? Just ask Hillary Clinton. She's taking both these themes to heart
with her #Hillary2016 campaign.

Back in 2008, she had her work cut out for her. It was a battle of
competing "firsts": Hillary Clinton as the first female vs. Barack Obama as
the first African American. Both were undeniably progressive, but Obama had
the cool factor. He (along with his stylish wife) was new, inspiring,
savvy, and just really, really likable—and with that he had a lock on the
lucrative Generation Y demographic. The celebrities, digital media users
and cultural trendsetters that made up this group of voters championed
Obama's cause as their own, turning support for his campaign into a
lifestyle, if not a social status symbol. No Hope posters and t-shirts for
Hillary.

Despite her legacy as a feminist and political icon, other elements of Mrs.
Clinton's (or the Clintons, general) reputation precede her. Before she
ever officially announced she'd be running, there was already a circulation
of criticism about a second-time-around regime returning to the White House
and skepticism about what will be different, plus endless spoofs and
parodies that painted her as an icy, power-hungry, headband and skirt
suit-wearing woman and played up her husband's notoriety. (We're looking at
you, SNL.) In the face of it all, the political powerhouse seems to be
operating under a new strategy that seeks to shake these stereotypes. The
new Hillary isn't cold—she's cool.

This time around though, the former Secretary of State is taking cues from
the exiting president's success. Hillary's official announcement video
focused on communities and individuals before ever mentioning her name or
the word "campaign"—a far cry from the stiff talking head that she showed
us in 2008. Her online presence is revamped from her active social media
use, complete with the requisite Beyoncé references, gifs, memes and
selfies, down to her website's humorous 404 page (which, it just so
happens, would make for a great #tbt). And let's not forget her new
campaign headquarters, located in the heart of Brooklyn Heights. Because,
"Brooklyn, U.S.A. How can you beat that?"

The question we're left wondering is this: Can Hillary Clinton keep it
cool? Popularity is fleeting, especially with the Millennial crowd where
technology is tantamount to oxygen and the window for what's trending
refreshes daily. Will Hillary successfully excite and engage young voters
the way Obama did, or will the level of interest rest firmly at apathetic?
She's got a jumpstart on the campaign trail and numerous heavy-hitting
stars in her corner, but there's still a year and change left to tell.

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*Hillary: hiding in plain sight
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-witcover-0526-20150525-story.html>
// Baltimore Sun // Jules Witcover – May 25, 2015*

Has Hillary Clinton learned the lessons of 2008? Her reticence on TPP says
no.

In President Barack Obama's struggle with Congress to win fast-track
authority on trade with 12 Pacific nations, a conspicuously missing voice
has been that of his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, now a
declared 2016 presidential candidate. It's in keeping with her obvious
strategy to campaign in a defensive crouch.

Her reintroduction to the American electorate, delayed well into 2015, was
deliberately — yet transparently — low key, to counter the widespread
perception not only that she is entitled but also that her coronation for
the next Democratic nomination is assured.

Rather than kicking off her campaign with a large and raucous televised
rally and full-throated campaign speech, she settled for a brief Internet
video pitched to the "everyday Americans" she pledged to represent, in
which she appeared and spoke only for a few closing moments.

In an obvious gesture of calculated humility, the former first lady
eschewed a lightning-swift opening visit to Iowa, the state in which she
had placed an embarrassing third behind Mr. Obama and Sen. John Edwards in
its 2008 caucuses. Instead, she elected to endure a 1,000-mile bus ride.

That endurance was tempered by her use of a large luxury van driven by a
Secret Service agent. But she maintained a facade of just-folks normality
by stopping off at a Chipotle, where photographers managed to capture her
consorting with the hoi polloi.

Throughout the Iowa visit and in the following days, Hillary Clinton
continued to hold small conversations with her intended targets in
neighborly chats. They were designed to combat an impression left by her
failed 2008 presidential campaign that she was too impersonal and aloof to
warm hearts of other than the already committed and faithful.

But a bump in the road came early. After leaving the Obama cabinet, it
turned out she had complied with a government requirement to forward
business-related emails yet chose to erase personal emails from the private
Internet server she had used in office. She defended the action as a right
of privacy in a rare press conference of limited duration, and thereafter
took few questions from the press.

All of this conduct inevitably worked against the campaign strategy of
presenting a Hillary Clinton who had learned lessons from her 2008
campaign, widely criticized in the press at the time as excessively closed,
cautious and isolated her from the voters.

Then the other day, a serious policy question was in the news that saw her
on the sidelines in a potentially disadvantageous manner. President Obama's
major effort to gain fast-track trade authority from Congress, as part of
the effort to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement (TPP),
suffered a temporary setback when all but one Democratic senator voted
against it, leaving the measure eight votes short of the margin necessary
for it to advance.

Candidate Clinton is no longer in the Senate, and she remained essentially
silent on the matter that she once as secretary of state said would "create
a new high standard for multilateral trade." Her reticence drew a jibe from
House Speaker John Boehner last week on "Meet the Press," who remarked that
"she can't sit at the sidelines and let the president swing in the wind
here."

Her failure to step into the fray came as Democrat Elizabeth Warren of
Massachusetts, emerging as the party's strongest liberal voice in the
Senate, has pointedly taken on Mr. Obama on the pending trade deal. She
contends the deal could jeopardize the financial reforms on Wall Street and
investments set in place by Congress after the Great Recession, and that
the text of the deal, now classified, should be made public before any
binding vote.

Mr. Obama in turn lashed out personally, saying Ms. Warren is "absolutely
wrong" on the point, adding he would be "pretty stupid to sign a provision
that would unravel" the reforms enacted with his support.

The disagreement within the Democratic ranks would ordinarily be an
invitation to a presidential candidate like Ms. Clinton to express her
views on it. Yet to date she has looked like a referee standing in a
neutral corner, letting the boxers untangle each other on their own. With
the fate of TPP still to be resolved, Hillary's cautious election strategy
compromises her claim to be a decisive leader.

*If Hillary Falters, Why Not Joe?
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/24/if_hillary_falters_why_not_joe_126696.html>
// Real Clear Politics // Carl M. Cannon - May 24, 2015*

Ten years ago, I wrote an article making the case for Hillary Clinton in
2008. The former first lady, then a senator from New York, was popular with
Democrats and boasted near-total national name identification. She’d proven
her fundraising prowess, was improving her résumé, and had ambition to
burn. “Why Not Hillary?” my essay was titled.

It didn’t happen for Clinton in that election cycle. She ran up against a
historical juggernaut in the person of Barack Obama, who’d been in the
Senate only a few months when I assessed Hillary’s chances. In a long
primary season they essentially split their party’s votes, but Obama
narrowly edged her out in delegates, mainly with superior organizational
skills.

When it came to dividing the spoils, Clinton seemed to get short shrift
again. Although she would become Obama’s first secretary of state, Joe
Biden—a distant also-ran in the Democratic primaries—was tapped as Obama’s
running mate. But Biden seems to have been informed by his boss that this
was as far as he was going in politics. Clinton was told no such thing, not
that she would have accepted such a restriction anyway, and she’s running
again.

For those who care about good government, this is problematic. Eight years
ago, Bill and Hillary Clinton hadn’t yet perfected the sophisticated
money-making operation that has Republicans salivating and Democrats
fretting. The details are only now coming to light, but the scheme seems to
work like this: huge corporations and wealthy individuals—and foreign
governments—donated millions to the Clintons’ foundation, while also paying
Bill huge speaking fees, and then turned around and lobbied the
administration in which Hillary was a high-ranking official for various
favorable decisions that will generate great profits. The projects we’re
talking about range from transnational oil pipelines to uranium mines.

Democratic Party professionals are understandably worried about the
atmospherics. On Thursday, I had lunch with three former White House
officials, all Democrats, who were discussing possible alternatives.
“Hillary’s campaign is going to implode,” one of them said. The question
was who could pick up the pieces. None of my lunch companions gave any love
to the three Democrats who have expressed interest in running against
Clinton. (If you’re keeping score, that’s former Maryland Gov. Martin
O’Malley, former Virginia Sen. James Webb, and former Socialist Bernie
Sanders, currently representing Vermont in the Senate.)

Three other names arose, however: California Gov. Jerry Brown, former vice
president Al Gore, and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry—the man who
replaced Hillary Clinton at the State Department. I added a fourth: Joe
Biden.

Why not Joe?

For the pros and cons, let’s start with the positive: On paper, he may be
the most qualified presidential candidate in America: two terms as vice
president, three decades in the U.S. Senate, including chairman of the
Judiciary Committee and Foreign Relations Committee. He’s run for president
twice before. He’s been scandal-free in all that time, save for a 1987
plagiarism beef that looks mild by today’s standards. He has working-class
roots, connects with blue-collar “Reagan Democrats,” and is respected by
military families. He has easy sense of humor.

Unlike other Democrats I could name, he hasn’t amassed a personal fortune.
He’s a public servant committed to public service. As vice president, he’s
been exceedingly valuable to Obama, on politics and policy. I’ll cite two
examples.

Remember when the intransigence of House Republicans and the petulance of
Senate Democrats—and the president himself—threatened to take the country
over a “fiscal cliff” in 2013? Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell
called Biden, his former and longtime colleague, with a simple question:
“Does anyone down there know how to make a deal?”

There was, and once Obama tasked his vice president with getting it done, a
deal happened. It’s called governing, and Joe Biden knows how to do it.

He’s savvy on politics, too. The prevailing wisdom holds that Bill Clinton
rescued the Democrats’ 2012 humdrum nominating convention in Charlotte with
a stemwinder that pumped up the delegates. But Biden is the one who may
have actually saved that convention four months earlier when he blurted out
his support for same-sex marriage on “Meet the Press.”

“I think you may have just gotten in front of the president on gay
marriage,” his communications director told him afterward. This was true,
but after Education Secretary Arne Duncan did the same thing on “Morning
Joe,” the president realized that the Democrats’ days of having it both
ways on gay marriage were over.

White House officials didn’t know it then but Biden may have saved the
convention. Delegates would have raised hell over this issue in Charlotte.
Some would have walked out over it. That would have been a bigger news
story than Bill Clinton’s speech.

So those are the pros. There are cons—Joe is only human—and I won’t gloss
over them. For one, he will be nearly 74 on Election Day 2016. Also, he’s
famous for his blooper reel. That sense of humor I mentioned? Sometimes
it’s inadvertent. Everybody, it seems, has their favorite Biden gaffe. Two
of my favorites came on the 2012 campaign trail. “My mother believed and my
father believed that if I wanted to be president of the United States, I
could be, I could be vice president!”

Three weeks earlier, he told a college audience, “I promise you, the
president has a big stick. I promise you.”

At a White House conference on violent extremism earlier this year, Biden
said he has “great relationships” with Somalis because “there is a large,
very identifiable Somali community” in Wilmington, Delaware and “an awful
lot [of them are] driving cabs and are friends of mine. For real. I’m not
being solicitous. I’m serious.”

This might have been problematic even if Biden’s premise were true;
actually there are hardly any Somalis in Wilmington, let alone a huge
squadron of taxi drivers. But nobody is perfect, and after eight years of
Obama’s cautious and detached diffidence—and after only two months of fresh
Clinton scandals—maybe Biden’s genuine, if flawed, “Uncle Joe” persona is
what the American people want.

“Joe Biden is what you see,” says Republican former House Majority Leader
Eric Cantor. “Yes, he’s prone to gaffes publicly, and he'll admit that.
He’s very self-deprecating like that. And I'm certainly not one who agrees
with Joe Biden on all things … but from a human and relationship
standpoint, the guy’s awesome.”

*Sanders opens presidential campaign headquarters in downtown BTV
<http://www.wptz.com/news/sanders-opens-presidential-campaign-headquarters-in-downtown-btv/33177032>
// WPTZ // Stewart Ledbettr - May 24, 2015*

BURLINGTON, Vt. —Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has leased office space in
downtown Burlington for his presidential campaign headquarters on the eve
of the national kickoff here Tuesday.

The insurgent candidate will challenge Hillary Clinton for the 2016
Democratic nomination.

Staffers already occupy part of the third floor space at 131 Church Street,
a stone's throw from City Hall where Sanders' political career first gained
traction with his election as mayor in 1981.

Nostalgia, aides said, played a role in selecting the location.

Sanders has hired former Chief of Staff Jeff Weaver to manage the
presidential effort.

"This campaign is going to be a grassroots campaign," Weaver said. "It's
going to take advantage of the tens and tens of thousands of volunteers we
already have, and the tens and tens of thousands more we're going to get,
and he is going to go from one end of Iowa to the other, one end of New
Hampshire to the other, and we're going to be in a whole bunch of other
states as well."

Weaver said they're looking to open satellite offices in Ohio and New
Hampshire soon.

Sanders will hold a rally and formally begin his campaign on Tuesday at 5
p.m. at Waterfront Park in Burlington.

*Bernie Sanders Is Over Social Media Gaffe Stories
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-24/bernie-sanders-is-over-social-media-gaffe-stories>
// Bloomberg // Ali Elkin -May 24, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says he's grown weary of
campaign coverage that focuses more on the horse race and outrage than on
the policy issues shaping the election.

“In terms of campaign coverage, there is more coverage about the political
gossip of the campaign, about raising money, about polling, about somebody
saying something dumb, or some kid works for a campaign and sends out
something stupid on Facebook, right?” the Vermont senator said in an
appearance Sunday on CNN's Reliable Sources, a program about media. “We can
expect that to be a major story. But what your job is, what the media's job
is, is to say, 'Look, these are the major issues facing the country.' We're
a democracy. People have different points of view. Let's argue it.”

Controversies about social media posts by aides to figures including Jeb
Bush and Scott Walker, likely Republican presidential candidates, have
captured the political media's attention repeatedly in this early stage of
the race.

“We can expect that to be a major story.”

Senator Bernie Sanders

Sanders, who identifies as an independent in the Senate, said last week on
the network that he likes Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and wants
to avoid attacking her but, to his dismay, isn't sure he can get any media
attention with that approach. During Sunday's appearance, Sanders said he
would much rather see news outlets focus on climate change or income
inequality than on some of the other stories they deem newsworthy.

“I think that instead of coming up with the next news of the moment,
'Breaking news! There was an automobile accident and a cat got run over,'
here's breaking news: For 40 years the American middle lass has been
disappearing and the rich have been getting richer. Why?” Sanders said.

*Step aside, Bernie Sanders has a big week
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/24/inside-the-beltway-step-aside-bernie-sanders-has-a/>
// Washington Times // Jennifer Harper - May 24, 2015*

He is the busiest of all the presidential hopefuls this week. Sure, Sen.
Marco Rubio will celebrate his birthday in Las Vegas on Thursday, and Carly
Fiorinaand Gov. Scott Walkerwill head for New Hampshire later in the week,
but it’s Sen. Bernard Sanders who has the wall-to-wall schedule punctuated
by the rallying cry, “A political revolution is coming.” So step aside,
folks.

On Tuesday, the Vermont senator kicks off his formal campaign for the
Democratic presidential nomination with a Zydeco band and free Ben &
Jerry’s ice cream. Company founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfieldwill be
by his side, incidentally. Mr. Sanders rushes to New Hampshire on Wednesday
for town meetings in Concord, Portsmouth and Eppington. By Thursday, he
will be in Iowa for more town meetings in Davenport, Muscatine, West
Branch, Iowa City and Kensett and pushing his new “Agenda for America”
wherever he goes. And Mr. Sanders, 75, is in a fighting mood when it comes
to the press.

“In terms of campaign coverage, there is more coverage about the political
gossip of the campaign, about raising money, about polling, about somebody
saying something dumb or some kid works for a campaign and sends out
something stupid on Facebook, right?” Mr. Sanders told CNN on Sunday. “The
media’s job is to say, ‘Look, these are the major issues facing the
country. We’re a democracy. People have different points of view. Let’s
argue it.’”

*Bill de Blasio: The Boring Progressive
<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/bill_de_blasio_the_boring_progressive.html>
// American Thinker // David Lawrence - May 24, 2015*

I am so sick of de Blasio promoting his Progressive agenda.  The job of a
politician is to pragmatically play among various ideologies and to satisfy
the majority of his constituents rather than to dogmatically stick to his
opinions.

De Blasio has been traveling around the country giving feeble, redundant
Progressive speeches.  New Yorkers feel that he should stay home attending
to New York’s problems rather than campaign for political-philosophical
clichés.

In Washington, our resident of Gracie Mansion spoke about income
inequality.  He spoke with another quasi-communist – Elizabeth (phony
Indian)  Warren.

Hey, I earn a lot less than either one of them.  Yet I don’t feel I deserve
income equality.  I used to be a businessman and earn millions of dollars.
I lost it all.  I didn’t feel that because I had been rich, I deserved to
be rich again.  I am not a jealous person.

I now live modestly as a boxing coach.  If you asked me if I wanted to go
back to the insurance industry and earn a fortune, I’d tell you no.  If
income equality demands working a lot in a field that doesn’t stimulate
you, then you can shove it.  I don’t want to be an accountant or an
insurance man even if it would pay me bundles.

De Blasio promotes fiscal jealousy; Obama promotes divisive racism.  They
both believe in divide and conquer.  However, they are conquering
themselves and their constituents, us.

De Blasio instituted paid sick leave and universal kindergarten.  I don’t
think you should get paid for being sick.  If you can’t afford a few days
off, you haven’t managed your money correctly.  Universal kindergarten?  I
don’t know.  I didn’t learn a thing in kindergarten.

Where do the handouts stop?  Maybe we should give people free cars,
marijuana, and prostitutes?  Maybe we should breathe and eat for them?

De Blasio’s still pushing for a minimum wage of $15.  As if that wouldn’t
turn around and bite us down the line.  I don’t want to pay ten dollars for
a Big Mac or see inflation go through the roof just so de Blasio can
pretend that he’s helped the poor with his $15-an-hour concession.  With
inflation it washes out to be nothing.  Also, it does little to put the
poor in dream coops.

Mr. de Blasio said an issue like mass incarceration is “exceedingly
pertinent” to income inequality.  Crime is a lifestyle not necessarily
driven by greed.  I knew a gangster who was part of the Whitey Bulger crew
in Boston.  He told me that he got a football scholarship to college but
chose instead to join the mob because it was more exciting.  He even told
me that he’d rather be John Gotti than Paul McCartney.

Even the poor are not always motivated by money.  There’s glamour, style,
and leading a proper life.

Give the income inequality a break.  It’s boring.

One of de Blasio’s simple-minded cohorts, Ms. Greenberg, ballyhooed gay
marriage.  Gay marriage is an oxymoron, and the rephrasing of a negative.
De Blasio seems to be behind everything that is new, as if the continuity
of the world were meaningless.

Marijuana doesn’t need to be decriminalized.  Alcohol is enough to get us
high; we don’t need marijuana, too.  I had some bad trips on it when I was
young and almost flipped out.

Now de Blasio wants to stop arresting drug dealers over 40.  He figures
that concentrating on younger drug dealers would bring down the gun
violence.  If he wants to bring down the shootings, which have been going
up, why doesn’t he just reinstitute Stop & Frisk?

Oh, that’s right – that would hurt the feelings of the minority criminals
who might get profiled.  Better to let drugs flow and people get shot.  Who
cares if the murder rate has gone up?

De Blasio is a tone-deaf egotist.  He doesn’t hear that New Yorkers don’t
approve of his selfie travels.

He moans again about affordable housing.  Hey, let some of these people
move to cheaper places outside the city so that New York can become a
classier place that attracts businesses, hotels, and posh condos.  We don’t
need a leprous city like Mumbai.  We don’t need bums on every street corner
and subway.

New York City is beautiful.  Why does de Blasio want to turn it into a
slum?  As it goes downhill, the crime will only worsen.  The windows will
all be broken.

Let de Blasio admit that progressivism is a failure.  Its goal is progress,
but its results are chaos, destruction, and a depressed society.  Because
“progressivism” has the word “progress” in it, it fools de Blasio and his
followers.

De Blasio is impressed by his own borrowed rhetoric.  His progress is
really regress into his shortsighted failures.

*GOP*

*Carly Fiorina Talks, Iowa Swoons, as Polls Shrug
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/25/us/politics/carly-fiorina-talks-iowa-swoons-is-it-serious.html>
// NYT // Amy Chozick - May 24, 2015*

DES MOINES — After 11 Republican presidential contenders spoke to a huge
gathering of Iowa party activists at the Lincoln Day Dinner this month,
they moved to hospitality suites to greet people one on one.

Jeb Bush’s suite looked sparse, with a handful of visitors asking the
former Florida governor for a photo. Rick Santorum said hello to a
scattering of old supporters.

But the line to meet one candidate, Carly Fiorina, a former Silicon Valley
executive whose name recognition is negligible among voters, snaked down
the hallway. For more than an hour, Iowans filed into the suite for their
chance to meet Ms. Fiorina.

Ms. Fiorina, a former chief executive at Hewlett-Packard with a flair for
biting one-liners, had just delivered a speech that included references to
God and a joke about former President Bill Clinton’s hormones. When a
timekeeper cut off her microphone, indicating that she had used up her
allotted 10 minutes, the audience broke out in catcalls and groans. The
crowd wanted more Carly.

“It was the most exciting speech all night,” said Cait Suttie, 27, who
waited to meet Ms. Fiorina and now wants to volunteer with her campaign.

Iowa voters are known to fall in love with firebrand candidates and
underfunded outsiders, from Pat Buchanan in 1996 to Howard Dean in 2004.
And this cycle, Republicans here are starting to swoon over Ms. Fiorina,
who is so unknown in national polls that she may not even be included in
the first presidential debate in August.

Ms. Fiorina, whose net worth is between $30 million and $119 million, has
generated headlines and steady crowds of conservative voters. In April,
nearly 300 people showed up to see her deliver the keynote address at the
Clinton County Republican Party dinner in Iowa, twice as many as were
expected. On Saturday, when she spoke at the Southern Republican Leadership
Conference in Oklahoma City, she was interrupted by several standing
ovations.

Whether Ms. Fiorina, the only woman in the Republican race, can build from
her status as a crowd-pleasing speaker and curiosity into a serious
competitor is not clear. But something is happening on the ground here.

While supporters in Iowa noted that she had doubled her standing in state
polls, it was a statistically insignificant change from 1 percent to 2
percent, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll released May 6. (That
may seem piddling, but the same poll had Mr. Santorum, who won the Iowa
caucuses in 2012, also at 2 percent, while 5 percent supported Mr. Bush.)

Not even Ms. Fiorina’s aides predicted that she would become the surprise
hit at the Lincoln Day Dinner on May 16, which 1,300 Republican stalwarts
paid $75 a plate to attend.

“She walked on the stage, and they said, ‘Who is she?’ “ said Steve
DeMaura, the executive director of Carly for America, a “super PAC” that
supports her candidacy. “And then she walked off the stage, and they said:
‘She’s impressive. I want to see her six more times.’ “

Gender clearly separates Ms. Fiorina from the pack. And she seems to be
building on the popularity of Joni Ernst, the state’s motorcycle-riding
senator, who became the first woman to represent Iowa in Congress after a
campaign last fall in which she promised to cut pork in Washington much the
way she had castrated pigs on her farm.

But another element of Ms. Fiorina’s appeal is an experience often lost in
her biography: She spent much of her technology career in marketing, and
has a talent for reading an audience and crafting pithy, and sometimes
cutting, comments.

Ms. Fiorina says she writes all of her own remarks, including some choice
jabs at the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. “Flying is not
an accomplishment, it’s an activity,” she likes to say, knocking Mrs.
Clinton’s boast that she traveled 956,733 miles as secretary of state. In
her announcement video, Ms. Fiorina watched — and critiqued — Mrs.
Clinton’s own announcement video.

She is prepared with answers on issues from the Islamic State to the
California drought (which she has blamed on “overzealous liberal
environmentalists”) and distills them into one-liners that play to the
party’s base.

Of the Affordable Care Act, Ms. Fiorina likes to say, “The law is longer
than a Harry Potter novel and not nearly as interesting.”

But at times, Ms. Fiorina, 60, also speaks in deeply personal terms about
her faith, her struggles to conceive a child, her survival of breast cancer
and the death of a stepdaughter, experiences that seem to resonate with a
heavily evangelical party base. “It was my husband Frank’s and my personal
relationship with Jesus Christ that saved us from a desperate sadness,” she
has said.

Her favorite remark on the trail — after bashing Mrs. Clinton — is to relay
the advice of her mother, who taught Sunday school: “What you are is God’s
gift to you, and what you make of yourself is your gift to God.”

Ms. Fiorina has been among the most frequent visitors to Iowa in the
Republican field. She has spent 10 days in the state this year, according
to a tally kept by The Des Moines Register, and on a five-day swing last
month, she held 13 events. On June 6, she will be back, attending a “Roast
and Ride” event with Ms. Ernst, a fund-raiser that includes a 38-mile ride
on a Harley-Davidson, followed by barbecue and horseshoes.

Her campaign is expanding in the state faster than those of some
better-known rivals, and aides hope a strong showing in Iowa will give Ms.
Fiorina the money, infrastructure and enthusiasm to continue to make her
case in New Hampshire, South Carolina and beyond.

Supporters are careful not to call it a groundswell. “Everyone, understand
the challenges she faces,” said Boris Feldman, a Silicon Valley lawyer and
fund-raiser for Ms. Fiorina. The Republican establishment is “ready to
declare the messiah before the three wise men arrive,” he said, but
independent-minded Iowans can help stem the tide.

Ms. Fiorina — who lived all over the world as a child, was educated at
Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was once
criticized for her reliance on private jets at Hewlett-Packard — is not
traveling in grand style here. In April, she was driven around the state in
a Honda CRV owned by Mary Earnhardt of West Des Moines, who is the Iowa
director of Carly for America.

Continue reading the main story

“To me it’s quite fun to see people in their element where they’re
comfortable,” Ms. Fiorina said in a telephone interview.

Still, she has not caught on to all the local customs.

“You meet people over breakfast, you talk to them while they’re eating
gigantic cinnamon rolls or a Pizza Palace breakfast or whatever it is,” she
said. (A spokeswoman said Ms. Fiorina was referring to Pizza Ranch, an
evangelical-owned pizza chain and must-stop for candidates here.)

The most immediate aim for the Fiorina campaign is making the threshold for
the first debate, which Fox News has said will include only the top 10
contenders.

In perhaps the most meaningful sign that Ms. Fiorina is gaining, she is
starting to annoy others in the back of the pack. After the Lincoln Day
Dinner, a flustered Donald Trump, told The Register that more people had
come to his hospitality suite than to Ms. Fiorina’s, which seemed a
debatable claim. “I had people counting. I was curious,” he said.

“She’s a nice woman,” said Mr. Trump, who is expected to announce his own
plans next month. “But she got fired viciously from Hewlett-Packard.”

*Ohio Gov. John Kasich edges closer to 2016 run
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/24/ohio-gov-john-kasich-edges-closer-to-2016-run/>
// Washington Times // Tom Howell Jr. - May 24, 2015*

Ohio Gov. John Kasich hinted Sunday that he is ready to jump into the GOP
race for president, saying he’s “very optimistic about where we’re headed.”

Mr. Kasich, a Republican, said his team is “getting closer” to making a
firm decision about the 2016 contest and he is soliciting financial support
while he tests the waters in key primary states.

“I’m pretty qualified for this kind of a job,” he told ABC’s “This Week,”
citing his executive work in a large state and 18 years in Congress.

While Mr. Kasich boasts a long resume, some in the GOP have lambasted his
positions as inadequately conservative, notably his embrace of Medicaid
expansion under Obamacare.

Also, he would enter the presidential race as a late underdog who wouldn’t
qualify for a spot on the stage in early debates.

Unfazed, Mr. Kasich said there’s plenty of time for him to catch fire.

“You go to New Hampshire and you do well and you’re on a rocket ship,” he
said.

*Perry Seeks to Win Over Iowa, One Handshake at a Time
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/24/perry_seeks_to_win_over_iowa_one_handshake_at_a_time_126713.html>
// RCP // Catherine Lucey & Steve Peoples- May 24, 2015*

LE MARS, Iowa (AP) -- Rick Perry is working his way through small-town Iowa
one handshake, bear hug and backslap at a time.

The early, hands-on approach from the 2016 presidential prospect contrasts
with his failed bid four years ago, when he entered the race relatively
late and stumbled in the debates. The former Texas governor says he has
more policy knowledge under his belt buckle now and more time for the early
states.

"Nobody came to Iowa more in 2014 than I did," Perry said after speaking to
about 20 people at a Pizza Ranch in Sioux Center this past week. "And I
will suggest to you that will probably be the case in 2015. If somebody is
going to spend more time in Iowa than I am, they better bring their lunch."

Although politicking in diners and pizza places is hardly new in the
leadoff caucus state, Perry has been notably active in some of Iowa's more
out-of-the-way places, which get less frequent traffic from presidential
hopefuls. Since 2014, he has made more than a dozen visits to Iowa.

"I think it's a good strategy," said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, noting that
former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum employed a similar tactic in 2012
and narrowly won the caucuses. "It's not a bad strategy to be kind of under
the radar and just kind of build."

Perry, 65, has also been spending time in other early voting states, such
as New Hampshire and South Carolina. He says he will announce on June 4
whether he's running for president again.

Perry launched his 2012 presidential bid with fanfare and high
expectations, but quickly went from being a front-runner to an also-ran
because of gaffes and poor debate performances. This time, Perry is hoping
his energetic pursuit of each vote will help people forget his "oops"
moment, when he was unable to recall the third of three federal agencies he
said he would close if elected president.

Perry's aides have said he wasn't prepared when he entered the last
presidential race and have blamed his debate problems on a busy schedule
and pain medication he was taking after back surgery. After finishing fifth
in the Iowa caucuses and sixth in New Hampshire's primary, Perry quit the
race.

"I hadn't spent the time and the preparations that I should have," he says
now.

During stops in conservative northwestern Iowa, Perry boasted about his
record as the longest-serving governor in Texas history, citing his state's
low taxes, limited regulation and caps on civil lawsuit damages. An
animated speaker, Perry gestures dramatically as he talks about his farm
upbringing, military record and experience in office.

"I don't just talk about 'here's what I would do,' but I say 'here's what
I've done,'" he said. "This is going to be a show-me, don't-tell-me
election. Executive experience has been what's been missing out of the
White House."

Texas has a booming population and posted solid job growth during much of
Perry's three terms as governor, from December 2000 to January of this
year. But it has the nation's highest rate of residents without health
insurance and the economy has been hurt in recent months by falling oil
prices.

One shadow hanging over him this time: Perry is facing a criminal
abuse-of-power indictment in Austin for threatening in 2013 to veto state
funding for public corruption prosecutors, then doing so.

If he runs, Perry will enter a race packed with contenders, some of them
also former or current governors.

Still, former Iowa Republican Party Chairman Matt Strawn saw opportunity
for Perry in the state.

"The good news is, Iowans are going to give Gov. Perry a second chance, and
he's doing all the right things," Strawn said. "The bad news is, it's a
stronger field of options than four years ago."

As Perry packs in appearances in early voting states, he's also quietly
expanding his national network, with an advisory board of donors and
Republican officials. Many are prominent GOP names from Texas, but the
board also has people from financial centers around the country.

Several Iowa Republicans said they were impressed by Perry, though not
ready to commit.

"He's got a great personality," said Leann Bohlken, 56, of Le Mars, who
chatted with Perry in an ice cream parlor. "He didn't have to share a
personal story with me, but he did."

*Huckabee: Distrust of government at new high
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/243036-huckabee-distrust-of-government-at-new-high>
// The Hill // Mark Hensch - May 24, 2015*

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) said on Sunday that American skepticism
of the government has reached the highest peak he has ever encountered.

“Frankly, there’s never been a time in my lifetime where people are more
distrustful of government,” Huckabee told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News
Sunday.”

Huckabee, a 2016 GOP presidential candidate, blamed the National Security
Administration (NSA) and its bulk phone records collection program as a
major force behind citizen unease.

“If this is so effective, why hasn’t it foiled potential terrorist plots?”
he asked.

“Not one of them has been tied to the NSA’s collection of metadata,”
Huckabee said of the program’s warrantless collection of phone records for
countering terrorism.

“It seems like we’re spending billions of dollars on the whiz-bang
technology and not enough on human resources, which have proven to be the
most effective way of stopping terrorism,” he added.

Huckabee’s remarks follow the Senate’s decision to adjourn early on
Saturday without reforming NSA practices or renewing the controversial
Patriot Act portion relating to them.

The upper congressional chamber departed on Saturday morning without a
clear strategy for revisiting the Patriot Act’s intelligence-gathering
provisions, parts of which expire at the end of the month.

Huckabee argued on Sunday that the Constitution offered one tried and true
method for combating terrorism – the rule of law.

“I think the Constitution already provides what we should do,” he said.

“If you have probable cause to suspect Chris Wallace is going to commit
criminal acts you go to a judge and get a warrant and then you can listen
to his phone calls,” Huckabee told Wallace.

Huckabee also noted on Sunday that mystery surrounding the NSA program’s
effectiveness mirrored the greater opaqueness of both President Obama and
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“The secrecy with which this government has operated and specifically
Hillary Clinton operating outside State Department protocol is extremely
troubling,” he said.

Huckabee additionally argued that the Supreme Court had abused its legal
power with recent decisions, thus eroding the public’s faith in the
institution.

“Judicial review is exactly what we have operated under,” he said of the
judicial branch historically. “Judicial supremacy is not what we have
operated under.”

“One can’t overrule the other two,” he added of the three branches of
government.

“We learned that in ninth grade civics,” Huckabee said. “It’s a matter of
balance of power.”

*Huckabee suggests government should have a warrant before spying
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/huckabee-suggests-government-should-have-warrant-spying?google_editors_picks=true>
// MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin - May 24, 2015*

Mike Huckabee is the latest Republican to weigh in on the controversial
issue of government surveillance, going as far on Sunday to suggest
authorities should get a warrant if they want to listen in on Americans’
phone calls.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” the presidential candidate and former
Arkansas governor criticized the National Security Agency’s controversial
collection of millions of Americans’ phone records, asking host Chris
Wallace, “If this is so effective, why hasn’t it foiled potential
terrorists plots?”

He argued the NSA program – recently deemed illegal by a federal appeals
court – was just one of the reasons Americans are so distrustful of
government. Huckabee pointed to the U.S. Constitution, saying it “provides
what we should do.” He added, “If you have probable cause to suspect Chris
Wallace is going to commit criminal acts you go to a judge and get a
warrant. Then you can listen to his phone calls.”

If no action is taken by the end of May, some provisions of Patriot Act
will expire – including the ability to conduct roving wiretaps, business
record searches and gathering information on individuals who are suspected
of terrorist activity but aren’t necessarily affiliated with a particular
group.

It’s an issue that has divided the emerging 2016 Republican field.

Critics have spent years condemning the Patriot Act – which was instituted
after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and allows the government to obtain
telecommunication, financial and credit records without a court order –
arguing it tramples on civil liberties and allows the government to spy on
innocent people. In 2011, Obama signed a four-year extension of the act,
allowing the government to conduct roving wiretaps in an effort to thwart
terrorists.

Some like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie –
who have not officially declared their 2016 intentions but are expected to
run – have defended the programs, arguing they are vital to national
security. Similarly, declared candidate Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida
Recently argued on the  Senate floor that a perception has been created
“that the United States government is listening to your phone calls or
going through your bills as a matter of course,” said Rubio. “That is
absolutely and categorically false.”

Others like Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (who spearheaded an 11-hour
filibuster like speech against the NSA program) have hailed the court
decision as “monumental” for “all lovers of liberty” and called on the
Supreme Court to “strike down the NSA’s illegal spying program.” Sen. Ted
Cruz of Texas said the ruling confirmed what many Americans already know –
that the NSA “went too far in collecting the phone records.”

*Mike Huckabee on Fox News Sunday
<http://mms.tveyes.com/PlaybackPortal.aspx?SavedEditID=b6621a20-1e0b-42b8-96a2-427980fdb1cd>
// Fox News // May 24, 2015*

CHRIS WALLACE: all right now on "fox news sunday." hello from fox news in
washington. it's not just barbecue on the menu this memorial day weekend.
there's also politics and national security. we begin with former arkansas
governor Mike Huckabee who ran second for the gop presidential nomination
in 2008, became a star on fox news channel, but then left television to run
again. governorHuckabee joins us now and welcome back to fox news sunday.

MIKE HUCKABEE: thank you, chris. great to be back.

CHRIS WALLACE: i want to start with a couple of breaking stories. first of
all, the release on friday by the state department of 296 of hillary
clinton's e-mails concerning benghazi. here's the reaction that you gave.

MIKE HUCKABEE: we expect these charades and masquerades in ussr, the old
soviet union, not the u.s. explain what you mean by that. h which this
government has operated and specifically, hillary clinton using a private
e-mail server outside the bounds of normal state department protocol is
very troubling, especially because we have yet to give an answer to what
happened in benghazi. i know that sounds like something an old broken
record, we need to know why did four different times an ambassador call for
help and no help came? the one thing american soldiers and american
diplomats need to know wherever they are stationed across the world is when
they are under fire and being shot at, we will move heaven and earth to try
to get to them, to rescue them and to protect them. and we didn't do that
on the night of benghazi. hillary's phone rang 3:00 in the morning and she
let it go to voice mail. we need to know why.

CHRIS WALLACE: let me ask you about another breaking question. congress is
more deadlocked than ever what to do about the nsa's bulk data collection
of phone records with the program set to expire on june 1st. here's what
you had to say about that this week.

MIKE HUCKABEE: does the constitution allow the government to read the mail
and to listen to the phone calls, even to collect them without a warrant or
probable cause? i think the obvious answer is no, it does not.

CHRIS WALLACE: a couple of points here. section 215 of the patriot act,
which is the section that is going to expire on June 1st, has nothing to do
with listening in on phone calls. it's just recording the fact that my
phone number called your phone number. so aren't you wrong there when you
talk about listening in? secondly what do you think we need to do about
this bulk data collection?

MIKE HUCKABEE: i think the constitution already provides what we should do.
if you have probable cause to suspect that Chris Wallace is acting in a
nefarious manner, you go to the judge and listen on his calls because you
have the other branch of government that is constitutionally required to be
part of that process. you don't give unlimited resources, unlimited power.
our founders were very concerned about too much power being invested in any
one, any branch. the balance of power is fundamental to our system. i don't
want to be made unsafe, but Chris, 225 different terrorist plots over the
past year since 9/11, and so far not one of them has been tied directly to
the NSA collection of meta data. if this is so effective, how come it
hasn't resulted in the foiled terrorist plots? those have been foiled by
old-fashioned police work, human intelligence. it seems like we are
spending billions of dollars on wiz bang technology and not enough money on
human resources which has proven to be the most effective way of stopping
terrorism.

CHRIS WALLACE: let's turn now to your candidacy. you announced it three
weeks ago. i was struck listening to your campaign announcement. you laid
out bold policies. i want to drill down into those. you said first of all,
no cuts, no changes to medicare or social security. here you are.

MIKE HUCKABEE: if congress wants to take away someone's retirement, let
them in their own congressional pensions, not your social security.

CHRIS WALLACE: but government trustees say without any changes, for
instance, medicare's hospital instance, medicare's hospital insurance fund
will run out of money by 2030 and the social security trust fund will run
out of money by 2033. governor, don't we have to find some way, raising the
eligibility age, cutting benefits perhaps for the wealthier people to keep
these programs solvent for people 55 or younger.

MIKE HUCKABEE: the problem with people 55 or younger, they've been paying
in 40 years. this was not a voluntary extraction from their paycheck. it
was involuntarily lifted from them under the guise that the government
would then provide for them, their money, back in that social security or
medicare fund. this is not an entitlement as much as it is an earned
benefit that people have paid in. there are some factors here. one of the
reasons i'm for the fair tax, it means everybody will help fund social
security and medicare, not just the working people of america. right now
the only people paying in are the people who work for wages. people who get
their money off dividends are not paying anything in. social security and
medicare funds are being short shrifted because we limit the manner which
people pay in. if everybody was under a consumption tax, which is what the
fair tax does, all americans would be contributing.

CHRIS WALLACE: i want to stay on this entitlement reform. back in to 2011
here is what you told neil cavuto.

MIKE HUCKABEE: we keep saying that 60 is the new 40. okay. let's treat 60
like it's the new 40. let's raise that eligibility age up to 70 for the
people under 55.

CHRIS WALLACE: you favored reforms to entitlements back then what's changed?

MIKE HUCKABEE: well, the main thing i feel like that has happened, as i
understand, if we start breaking promises to people and we start making
changes in a program people have been into for years, i think it adds to
the distrust we have of government. frankly, there's never been a time in
my lifetime where people are more distrustful of government. i say go back
to people who are d 15 just entering the work force -- and here is another
suggestion.

CHRIS WALLACE: if i may briefly, it was only four years ago you were saying
we do need to change it for people who were 55 and younger, because frankly
people are living longer.

MIKE HUCKABEE: i think the fact is that we can't make those changes
because, as i talk to people across the country, they feel like that is a
gut punch and if we are going to make the changes, let the individual. for
example, if you want to give me the option to take my retirement benefits
in one lump sum, but let me make that choice, okay. give me the tax-free
benefits, but i don't think you can go and give seniors the sense that
everything they have been involuntarily paying in for is now going to be
taken from them.

CHRIS WALLACE: okay. let's talk about the fair tax which you just brought
up. you want to abolish the income tax, you want to abolish the irs and
create a fair tax, as you say, is a national sales tax. critics say the
problem with that is it's too regressive. the tax policy center said that
the average rate for the lowest income group would exceed 33%, while the
average for the top group would fall to less than 16%. the argument,
governor, is that the rich who spend less of their income are going to end
up making out pretty well under this. and the poor who spend almost all
their income and are going to be paying this sales tax are going to pay the
most, or at least the highest percentage.

MIKE HUCKABEE: they have it exactly wrong. in fact, it's the bottom third
of the economy who benefit the most from the fair tax. the people of the
top of the economy benefit the least. although everybody benefits some.
that tax study is one that has been discredited by the people who spend
over $20 million, very thorough economic study developing the fair tax.
it's not ome political idea.

CHRIS WALLACE: doesn't it just stand to reason if i make 5,000, i'm going
to spend a higher percentage of my income just for the necessities, and if
i make $1 million, i probably am not going to spend as much a percentage of
my income because i've got a lot of income.

MIKE HUCKABEE: well, the difference is who, and this is where a lot of
people don't understand, the fair tax has what's called the prebate, if you
are at the bottom third, chances are you don't pay any effective tax in the
consumption tax because you are consuming less and getting a prebate in
advance of what you would have spent. that's why the poorest people come
out better. i recommend people going to the fair tax website, reading books
on the fair tax, but getting it from people who actually know what it does
rather than those who don't want to see the fair tax. i'll tell you what
the fair tax does, it empowers the consumer and lets people have their
whole paycheck and takes the power out of the hands of congress and puts it
in the hands of the consumer. that's power to the people.

CHRIS WALLACE: governor, i want to keep moving along. there are a lot of
things you said in your announcement. you indicate as president you
wouldn't necessarily obey court rulings, even the supreme court. here you
are.

MIKE HUCKABEE: many of our politicians have surrendered to the false god of
judicial supremacy, which would allow black robed and unelected judges the
power to make law as well as enforce it.

CHRIS WALLACE: we have operated under the principle of judicial review
since 1803.

MIKE HUCKABEE: judicial review is actually what we've operated under. we
have not operated under judicial supremacy. presidents lincoln, jefferson,
jackson, presidents understood that the supreme court cannot make a law.
they cannot make it. the legislature has to make it, the executive branch
has to sign it and enforce it, and the notion that the supreme court comes
up with the ruling and that automatically subjects the two other branches
to following it defies everything there is about the three equal branches
of government. the supreme court is not the supreme branch. for god's sake,
it isn't the supreme being. it is the supreme court.

CHRIS WALLACE: but sir, george will, the conservative columnist pointed out
back in 1957, another governor of arkansas, orville forbis decided to
disregard and refuse to obey the ruling to desegregate schools. president
eisenhower had to call in the 101st airborne. are you saying president
Huckabee might decide he wasn't going to obey the ruling on desegregation
or president nixon to turn over the tapes? that it's up in the air whether
you are going to obey the supreme court?

MIKE HUCKABEE: you know george will is no fan of mine. he recently called
me appalling. i'm not surprised he would make such a false comparison. in
that case the supreme court had ruled the legislature and executive branch
agreed with the supreme court and precisely what happened is what should
happen. the president ordered the airborne to come in and enforce the law.
the law that did exist. it wasn't that the president defied the law, the
president was carrying out the law and using all the forces at his
resources to do it.

CHRIS WALLACE: let's say he said i don't want to turn over the tapes and
the court can't make me?

MIKE HUCKABEE: the president has to follow whatever the law is. does
congress have a law that tells him what he is going to do? in that case,
the congress was ready to impeach nixon and he ultimately resigned. i want
to get back to the main point. it's a matter of balance of power. if the
supreme court could just make a ruling and everybody has to bow down and
fall on their faces and worship that law, it isn't a law because it hasn't
been passed, what if the supreme court ruled they were going to make the
decision as to who was going to be the next president and save the
taxpayers and voter from all the expense and trouble of voting, and they'll
just pick a president. we would say, they can't do that. why can't they do
it? they can't do it because it's not in the law. we are sworn to uphold
the constitution and law. it has to be consistent and agreed upon with
three branches of government. one can't overrule the other two. that's all
i'm saying. we learned that in ninth grade civics. i'm convinced a lot of
ivy league law schools must have forgotten that simple basic civic lessons
along the way.

CHRIS WALLACE: governor Huckabee, an awful lot of interesting things you
said in your announcement. interesting things you'll say in this campaign.
thank you for coming in today and thank you for sharing your holiday
weekend with us. we'll see you on the campaign trail.

MIKE HUCKABEE: thank you.

CHRIS WALLACE: and we'll keep asking you questions.

MIKE HUCKABEE: all right, chris. thanks.

*When Huckabee Also Wanted Us To Forgive Mel Gibson
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/24/when-huckabee-also-wanted-us-to-forgive-mel-gibson.html>
// The Daily Beast // Aswain Suebsaeng -  May 24, 2015*

GOP Presidential contender Mike Huckabee not only wants you to forgive an
admitted sexual predator, he wants Mel Gibson off the hook too.

On Friday, 2016 Republican presidential hopeful and professional Beyoncé
opponent Mike Huckabee took to Facebook to publicly convey his support for
accused sexual predator Josh Duggar.

“Josh’s actions when he was an underage teen are as he described them
himself, ‘inexcusable,’ but that doesn’t mean ‘unforgivable,’” the former
Arkansas governor wrote. “No purpose whatsoever is served by those who are
now trying to discredit Josh or his family by sensationalizing the story.
Good people make mistakes and do regrettable and even disgusting things.”

He goes on to chide the “blood-thirsty media” for covering the fact that
Duggar—a social-conservative activist and reality-TV star—was accused of
molesting five underage girls when he was a teen.

Huckabee, being the devout Christian that he is, has plenty of forgiveness
to throw around at controversial, similarly devout figures in
entertainment. (Again, provided they are not Beyoncé.) For instance, last
year, Huckabee took to his verified Facebook account to urge Hollywood and
America to make up with Mel Gibson.

“Will Hollywood ever forgive Mel Gibson?” his post reads. He, again, spots
an opportunity for casual media-bashing, this time unfair “showbiz
journalists.”

“[Gibson has] also quietly given millions of dollars to Jewish charities,
and not just to polish his image, because nobody knew about it,” Huckabee
added. You can read the whole post below:

Huckabee is a fan of Gibson’s controversial 2004 film, The Passion of the
Christ. In fact, Huckabee owes some of the early momentum during his last
presidential campaign to a Christian-voters email list that had its roots
in the marketing strategy for The Passion of the Christ.

Gibson fell out with much of Hollywood over accusations of anti-Semitism,
and his widely covered ugly, racist, misogynistic rant.

But again, the “blood-thirsty media” are the real problem here.

*Jeb Bush having new mansion built for him on family compound in Maine:
report
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/jeb-bush-new-mansion-maine-family-compound-report-article-1.2234004>
// Daily News // Adam Edelman - May 24, 2015*

Jeb Bush is going for Maine over Main Street.

The all-but-certain 2016 candidate is having a huge house built for him at
the Bush family compound at Walker’s Point, in Kennebunkport, Maine, the
Boston Globe reported Sunday.

The former Florida governor’s new home will be built on a 1.3-acre site
worth at least $1.4 million, the Globe reported, and was ordered built by
Bush’s parents, former President George H.W. Bush and former First Lady
Barbara Bush.

The 3,000 square-foot, 4-bedroom, 4.5-bathroom “cottage” is expected to
have a gorgeous wraparound porch and feature panoramic views of the
Atlantic Ocean. The construction of the house, which is expected to be
completed in July, is thought to be around $600,000, the Globe reported.

“I’m incredibly blessed to be George and Barbara’s son and am thankful that
they have built a special place for their family to gather,” Bush, who
currently owns a home in Coral Gables, Fla., with his wife worth at least
$1.3 million, said in an email to the Globe. “We are so lucky.”

According to the Globe, the potential 2016 candidate didn’t take part in
the design of the new mansion, yielding instead to his mother Barbara.

“Barbara dictated most things,” Kristi Kenney, the architect of the new
house as well as another one built nearby for Jeb’s younger brother Marvin,
told the Globe.

The extended Bush clan has enjoyed a decades-long relationship with the
Kennebunkport area, where multiple generations of the iconic political
family have vacationed, and where Jeb’s four siblings already have homes
“set aside for them,” the Globe reported.

The land for the “Bush Compound,” which serves as the summer home for
George H.W. Bush and Barbara, was originally purchased by the 41st
president’s great-grandfather, and has been kept in family since. It now
houses several homes for the Bushes as well as a unit for Secret Service
agents.

For Jeb Bush, however, who is already struggling both with making inroads
with middle-America Republicans and with distancing himself from his
family’s political legacy, another mansion in a New England vacation town
given to him by his parents may not provide him the relaxation it was
intended to.

Bush has faced continued criticism over his inability to articulate how he
would govern differently than his brother, former President George W. Bush,
experiencing particular difficulty in stating his position on the failed
2003 invasion of Iraq.

He has also been on the receiving end of attacks from a growing number of
rivals for the 2016 GOP nomination, who have suggested he won’t be a friend
to middle-class voters.

*Christie's curse-fest, and how the media blew it
<http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/05/christies_curse-fest_and_how_the_media_blew_it_mor.html#incart_2box_opinion_index.ssf>
// Star Ledger // Tom Moran - May 24, 2015*

I don't usually rush to defend someone who calls me an angry drunk, but I'm
making an exception today.

The crack came from Gov. Chris Christie, and it was part of a good-natured
roast at an annual dinner where journalists and politicians trade jabs
while raising money for a good cause.

He's wrong about me, first of all. I'm not angry.

But Christie is taking heat because his speech was packed with obscenities,
including a generous helping of the f-word, and some of the media broke
custom and reported every scrap of it.

This won't hurt Christie here in Jersey, where our sensibilities have been
worn down to a nub. But evangelical Christians might see things differently.

"In South Carolina and other states with a conservative religious
tradition, it could be a big deal," says Brigid Harrison, a political
scientist at Montclair State University.

My concern is not for Christie's campaign. If he becomes commander in
chief, I'm building a bomb shelter and investing my money in gold bullion.
Scary.

He regards me now as something akin to toe fungus. But he feels free to
joke, and I feel free to laugh.

But this event, the Legislative Correspondents Dinner, just suffered a
wound that could be mortal. And that's a pity. This is one night a year
when we all put down our weapons and share a drink and a few laughs.

The dinner, which raises about $10,000 a year for scholarships, began in
1890. I don't know what they talked about back then, but the speeches these
days are full of obscenity and personal attacks. People laugh hard.
Christie broke no new ground; he was just a lot funnier than most of them.

Normally, that stuff stays in house. The speeches used to be strictly off
the record, and most journalists still treat it that way. But the rules
changed in 1994 after the editor of The Record of North Jersey objected.

Even now, though, most reporters treat the dinner as off the record. Until
last week, I thought it was still officially off the record. Christie did,
too, clearly.

"Probably more than half the audience thinks that," says Mike Symons, a
reporter for Gannett New Jersey Newspapers, and the director of the show.

The tradition of restraint died Thursday morning when a small consulting
firm, Jaffe Communications, printed the meat of Christie's speech,
including the f-words, in its daily newsletter to clients and media.

Bruno Tedeschi, a former Star-Ledger reporter who is a partner in the firm,
had recorded the speech.

"How do you have a gathering of 350 people and tell them it's off the
record when everyone has a recording device," Tedeschi says. "And how does
being off record give you license to say thing that are just crude, quite
frankly?"

After the newsletter broke this, Bloomberg News ran a story, as did the
International Business Times, and the New York Times. Then the social media
world exploded. The Star-Ledger declined to publish a news story until
Saturday.

You can now send friends a recording of Christie using the f-word over and
over. Why that is considered newsworthy is a mystery. Seems to me more like
teenager staring through a keyhole for thrills.

Christie is considering a boycott next year, and who can blame him? Will
the next governor play ball?

Symons worries the whole event could collapse. To some editors and
ethicists, that would be welcome. They warn that politicians and
journalists have become too chummy.

I get the concern, but I don't see much evidence of it on the ground. Most
journalists I know salivate at the prospect of uncovering a scandal and
sending a politician to jail.

We can laugh at Christie's jokes, and then skewer him the next day. We can
walk and chew gum at the same time.

My own relationship with Christie is a good example. When he was a
prosecutor, we had many lunches together, used first names, joked and
chatted frequently.

Then he started screwing up as governor, and I wrote that he was screwing
up. He regards me now as something akin to toe fungus. But he feels free to
joke, and I feel free to laugh.

It strikes me as healthy for pols and journalists to be reminded once a
year that the other guy is a human being, that banging heads on the job
doesn't have to make us personal enemies.

That's probably lost now. And for what?

This was not a noble fight for a free press, or the public's right to know.
This was a cheap shot on the governor, first from a communications firm
eager for attention, then from mainstream media that followed the path
without thinking.

It's not a week when I'm proud to wear the uniform.

*Can Feingold come back from defeat?
<http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/304826481.html> // Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel // Craig Gilbert - May 23, 2015*

For almost two decades, Russ Feingold had a winning image in Wisconsin
politics — the liberal maverick. He galvanized Democrats, won independents
and made small but critical inroads among Republicans.

That election formula abandoned him in the conservative wave of 2010, when
the three-term senator lost his seat to Republican newcomer Ron Johnson.

Can Feingold come back from defeat?

Can he recover his “maverick” brand?

Can he reconstruct the appeal he once had to voters outside his Democratic
base?

Early polls seem to offer that hope. In fact, his numbers right now are
more reminiscent of the Feingold victories of 1992, 1998 and 2004 than the
Feingold rejection of 2010 (see chart).

In surveys by the Marquette University Law School, Feingold’s popularity
ratings are better than almost any politician Marquette has asked about in
its three and a half years of statewide polling. He led Johnson by 16
points in last month’s poll. He led by almost 20 points among independents
— after losing them by 12 in 2010.

Even among Republicans, a sizable minority — 27% — viewed Feingold
favorably. That may not sound like much, but it’s practically unheard of
these days in a polarized state where big-name politicians get almost no
support from voters in the other party.

These numbers are so promising for Feingold it’s hard to know how much
stock to put in them. Is a 27% favorability rating among Republicans
sustainable for a Wisconsin Democrat trying to unseat a Republican senator?
No. Is a 16-point lead sustainable in a state as divided as this one?
Almost certainly not.

It’s worth remembering that what Feingold is trying to do — win back his
old Senate seat — is rare for a reason. Rejection isn’t usually a building
block to victory.

But it’s also worth asking why someone who lost his job less than five
years ago is polling so well.

Let’s start with something both sides can agree on about Feingold’s
political history.

Even in his losing 2010 campaign, voters didn’t come to view him all that
negatively.

“Both candidates ended up with pretty good image ratings after the 2010
race,” says Johnson strategist Brad Todd.

“In the last week of the campaign, his favorability rating was coming back
up,” says Paul Maslin, who polled for Feingold in 2010.

But they take different lessons from that. Todd says Feingold’s loss wasn’t
about “personal animus” but political rejection based on Feingold’s voting
record on issues like the stimulus and the new health care law. That record
will remain a problem whatever voters think of him personally, Todd argues.

“It has been since the 1930s that a senator (last) came back to beat the
person that took him out of office. The reason that is nearly impossible to
do is because the voters have already made that choice,” says Todd. “You
can’t escape the fact that Russ was fired, despite the fact that he had a
positive image among Wisconsin voters. It was pleasant, it was amicable,
but it was a firing. He can’t come back and say, ‘I’m going to make the
case I made before,’ and expect to be rehired.”

Feingold has a different reading of his defeat: that it had much more to do
with a national political wave than an individual repudiation.

“I do not believe and didn’t believe then it was a personal judgment or
rebuke (by voters),” says Maslin. As a three-term senator “in the midst of
the Obama administration, it was very difficult for him to maintain the
Feingold brand...But I don’t think voters concluded Russ Feingold’s time
had come and gone,” Maslin says.

In last month’s Marquette poll, Feingold was viewed favorably by 47% and
unfavorably by 26% of registered voters, a better “net favorable” rating
than almost any politician Marquette has asked about since it started
polling in Wisconsin in 2012. At the moment, voters are much less polarized
over him than over Gov. Scott Walker, President Barack Obama or either of
the state’s two U.S. senators, Republican Johnson and Democrat Tammy
Baldwin.

Marquette pollster Charles Franklin says all that is a “positive signal”
for Feingold.

“It says the voters’ rejection of him in 2010 did not turn into a lasting
antipathy toward him,” says Franklin.

There are some caveats, however. The one other Wisconsin politician with
numbers like Feingold’s in recent years was former GOP Gov. Tommy Thompson
at the outset of his own 2012 Senate race. Like Feingold, Thompson had been
out of partisan politics for several years, making him a less polarizing
figure. Like Feingold, he scored well with independents and did unusually
well with voters in the opposing party.

But in Thompson’s case, his popularity and crossover appeal didn’t survive
the polarizing brawl of the 2012 election, which he lost to Baldwin.

“Thompson started at plus 18,” says Franklin, referring to the difference
between his positive and negative rating. “But he finished at minus 14.
It’s a powerful example of how a campaign can change a politician’s image
with the voters in the state.”

So Feingold’s early polling numbers should be taken with some caution. He
won’t end up with 12% of the GOP vote against Johnson, as he did in last
month’s Marquette poll. The state has grown too polarized for that to
happen. In recent state elections, only about 5% of voters in each party
have crossed over to vote for the other party’s candidate.

And Feingold will be hard-pressed to win independents by 20 points as he
did in last month’s Marquette poll, since those independents include many
voters who lean Republican and usually vote that way in the end.

On the other hand, Feingold doesn’t need to make the kind of Republican
inroads he made in the 1990s to win in 2016, and he doesn’t need to win
independents by double digits.

The presidential electorate in Wisconsin usually includes more Democrats
than Republicans. It’s usually better for Democratic candidates than the
midterm electorate. If that turns out to be the case next year, Feingold
only needs to hold his own among independents to win.

That makes it sounds easy, but broadly speaking, what Feingold is trying to
do is not easy. He’s trying to persuade Wisconsin voters to make a
different choice between the same two options they had a few years ago. He
has to do that by getting people to switch their votes, or by relying on
the added voters that turn out in a presidential election, or both.

It’s a challenging path. But the early polling suggests that Feingold
starts out with less baggage than you might expect for someone who was
voted out of office in his last election.

*The road to the White House
<http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-commentary/project-29-the-road-to-the-white-house-20150523/>
// The Tampa Tribune // Blaise Ingooglia - May 23, 2015*

The road to the White House goes through Florida, and that means it goes
through each one of us. Voters across our great state get to play a key
role in electing the next president of the United States. Moms and dads,
students and recent grads, hardworking employees and job seekers all alike
will have the opportunity to decide which candidate has the leadership and
plan for our country.

This is why the Republican Party of Florida is committed to having an open
conversation on our vision of a better future for all people through
greater opportunity, economic growth and individual empowerment.

At our recent spring quarterly meeting, I introduced our plan for 2016:
Project 29. Our first goal of Project 29 will be to fully engage with all
communities, Hispanics and African-Americans, seniors and millennials,
students and taxpayers, to talk about the issues facing our nation.

Project 29 will help shape how our party operates during the 2016
elections, and it is my hope that these changes will make a lasting
impression on our state.

We are not only fighting for Florida’s 29 electoral votes, but we are
fighting to keep control of Florida’s U.S. Senate seat, increase Florida’s
Congressional majority and maintain majorities in the Florida House and
Senate.

Our Party will accomplish these goals by being present and embedded in
communities where we have been absent in the past. We plan to engage with
churches and faith leaders, local community leaders and organizations. We
plan to have one-on-one conversations about the future of our economy and
discuss your concerns and ideas for the future of our country.

A key part of our plan is to provide support for local races in addition to
moving back toward the grass roots by opening Victory Offices throughout
the state.

Florida will now be the first winner-take-all primary in the country,
ensuring that all presidential campaigns will have to spend a considerable
amount of time in our neighborhoods speaking to Floridians from Pensacola
to Key West and everywhere in-between.

Our party is going to be called on to do more than ever before. We’re going
to knock on more doors. We’re going to make more phone calls. We’re going
to reach out to voters that may never have heard from us before. I know
that Republicans in this state are ready to hear your opinion and talk
about our future.

The Democratic Party believes it is ready for Hillary Clinton, but I can
promise it that it won’t be nearly as ready as we will. From being embedded
early on in all communities to building up the technology infrastructure
needed for digital outreach, our party will be ready to play a key role on
the national stage.

Project 29 is not just about outcomes, but changing the way our party
engages with communities as well. With the launch of our new website,
Florida.GOP, we are fulfilling our commitment to modernize the way we
engage with voters across the state. As we prepare our path to victory in
2016, this new website provides a digital platform to interact with voters
and empower volunteers with the tools they need to be effective.

We now have a clear road map with Project 29, and if we work hard and
spread our message I know we can be successful. Florida’s 29 electoral
votes can only be delivered by the voters of Florida. We need to make sure
that we make our votes count. Florida will decide the next President of the
United States, and our Party will make sure Project 29 is successful.

Blaise Ingoglia is the chairman of the Florida Republican Party.

*TOP NEWS*

*DOMESTIC*

*Two dead as south-central U.S. storms force evacuations
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/25/us-usa-storms-idUSKBN0O90N920150525>
// Reuters // Jim Forsyth - May 24, 2015*

Two people were killed in flash flooding and severe storms in Texas and
Oklahoma that forced evacuations and rooftop rescues and left thousands
without power, officials said on Sunday.

The National Weather Service reported river flooding across southern
Oklahoma and central Texas, where 6 to 9 inches of rain fell overnight.
Flash flooding remained a threat on Sunday from central Iowa into southern
Texas, where the heaviest rainfall was expected, the NWS said.

Tornado watches were in effect in the Midwest and south on Sunday evening,
including Kansas, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Arkansas and
Louisiana, the NWS said.

As much as 3 inches of rain could fall in east central Texas on Monday, and
possibly more in certain areas, the NWS said.

"They haven't seen flooding like this for probably a good decade, probably
more like 25 years, even longer, on some of these rivers," said Kurt Van
Speybroeck, a NWS meteorologist in Fort Worth, Texas.

He said soil was saturated from heavy rainfall over the past three weeks.

Helicopters rescued people off rooftops in Hays County in central Texas.

More than 1,000 people were rescued or evacuated from 400 homes, county
officials reported on Sunday.

The county, which includes the small cities of Wimberley and San Marcos,
about an hour's drive north of San Antonio, ordered a Sunday night curfew.

Local officials at an afternoon news conference said debris piles were
nearly 20 feet high. An unidentified man was found dead from the flooding
in San Marcos.

Three people who had been reported missing in San Marcos were found safe, a
representative for emergency management operations said.

In San Antonio, electric utility CPS Energy said it would take up to 48
hours for power to be restored to 2,600 customers.

In Oklahoma, which also had weekend flooding, a firefighter died overnight
in Claremore, about 30 miles northeast of Tulsa.

Captain Jason Farley, a 20-year veteran of the department, had been
responding to a call to help about 10 people trapped in their homes by
floodwater, said Claremore Fire Chief Sean Douglas. Farley was swept into a
storm drain and died.

Another firefighter who rushed to his aid was also swept into a drain but
survived with minor injuries, he said.

"It is a tragic event and a devastating loss for us," Douglas said.

Dozens of streets were closed, and the Red Cross had opened shelters.

*Here are the cities that need a $15 minimum wage the most
<http://fortune.com/2015/05/23/15-minimum-wage-cities/?xid=gn_editorspicks&google_editors_picks=true>
// Fortune // Claire Zillman - May 24, 2015*

Californian cities have plenty of work to do.

The Los Angeles City Council this week voted 14-1 to pass a $15 minimum
wage for the city. The hike, which will go into effect over the next five
years, further solidifies the $15 minimum as the new national standard.

New York City seems poised to follow suit. This month, New York Governor
Andrew Cuomo announced plans to convene a panel to consider a wage increase
for the fast-food industry, a change that can become law without a vote in
the legislature.

There are plenty of arguments against this high of a minimum wage,
including one made by Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett on Friday, in
which he called for an expanded earned income tax credit rather than a $15
per hour wage. But like it or not, the $15 per hour train is gaining steam.
It had already made stops in Seattle and San Francisco before pulling into
L.A. Should others follow suit? That question prompted Fortune to examine
which U.S. city residents would benefit the most from a $15 per hour
minimum wage. We asked David Cooper, an economic analyst at the Economic
Policy Institute, for help.

We first wanted to determine which cities had the largest share of sub-$15
per hour earners, where a minimum wage boost to $15 would presumably have
the biggest direct effect, not in absolute numbers but by percentage of the
working population. (One caveat here: we used the Bureau of Labor
Statistics’ data for metropolitan statistical areas—geographical areas with
high population density and consistent economies that don’t necessarily
contain just one city and might reach beyond a city’s official limits.)

It turns out that there are plenty of metropolitan areas—especially in the
South—where 45%, 50%, and even 55% of the working population earn less than
$15 per hour. (Another caveat, because of the size of some of these areas,
some percentages have margins of error up to 4.3%.) For example, in the
part of Texas that encompasses McAllen, Edinburg, and Pharr, which is
located in the state’s southeast corner near the Mexican border, just over
68% of its workforce earns less than $15 per hour.

But when you examine how much it costs to live in that region—which Cooper
measured using regional price parity, the price of goods and services in
that area versus the national average—you get a different picture. The RPP
there is 85, on a scale where the overall national RPP is equal to 100,
which means goods and services in that area are cheaper than the national
average. To take that factor into account, we looked at the most expensive
places to live, as measured by RPP, and used the U.S.’s average share of
sub-$15 per hour earners—42.4%—as a cutoff for the share of low-wage
workers.

The map above shows the metropolitan areas that turned up. L.A., which will
soon have a $15 per hour minimum wage when Mayor Eric Garcetti signs the
recently passed measure into law, makes the list. It’s one of five
California areas in the top 10.

The list picks up on the fact that there’s “greater inequality in cities
where there’s a high cost of living and where wages are low,” says Chris
Tilly, director of the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.

In the old, rust belt wage structure, there was a healthy population of
middle wage income earners. Men worked in manufacturing; women held
clerical jobs. But the bottom has dropped out of the middle class, in part,
because of the reduction in traditional manufacturing jobs. As cities begin
to orient themselves to newer, techonology-driven economies, there’s very
little middle ground. You either work in high tech (engineers, etc.,) and
its ecosystem (lawyers, accountants) or you’re left at the bottom, Tilly
says. Cities with large immigrant populations also tend to have a wide
disconnect between the cost of living and wages.

Missing from this list is, notably, New York City. The metropolitan
statistical area that includes New York (plus parts of New Jersey and Long
Island) has the second highest regional price parity on our list—122.2,
behind only Honolulu’s 122.9. But the New York area’s share of sub-$15 per
hour workers is 36%, considerably lower than the the national average of
42.4%. Then again, with a national average as high as 42.4%, it sounds like
there’s plenty of room for improvement all across the U.S.

*GM: Criminal charges likely in ignition case
<http://fortune.com/2015/05/24/gm-criminal-ignitions/> // Fortune //
Stephen Gandel - May 24, 2015*

Fine is likely to eclipse $1.2 billion paid by Toyota last year.

General Motors is facing a criminal prosecution and may have to pay a
record fine to resolve charges related to its faulty ignition switches. The
switches, which shut some cars off while traveling at high speeds, have
been linked to over 100 deaths.

The Department of Justice’s soon-to-be-unveiled criminal case against the
company appears to revolve around the fact that GM failed to disclose the
problem with the switches in Chevrolet Cobalts and other older cars. The
U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan believes the company hid problems with
misstatements for over a decade.

The Justice Department is also considering charges against former GM
employees, but has not finalized whether those charges will be brought.

GM’s fine is likely to eclipse the $1.2 billion Toyota paid last year for
concealing acceleration problems in its cars. GM could also plead guilty to
criminal charges, but a deferred-prosecution agreement is also possible in
the case.

The ignition switch problems emerged more than a year ago, and have weighed
on GM’s stock. The possible criminal charges were first reported by the New
York Times.

*John Nash dies in car accident leaving behind incredible legacy: 6
remarkable life lessons
<http://www.nj.com/parenting/index.ssf/2015/05/john_nash_dies_in_car_accident_6_remarkable_life_lessons.html>
// True Jersey // Ann Brasco - May 24, 2015*

American mathematician, John Forbes Nash Jr., and his wife, Alicia, were
suddenly killed in a taxi accident on the New Jersey Turnpike today.

I never knew John Nash. I never met him. I never was fortunate enough to be
his student, or to stand in a room with him. Like most everyone else, I
came to know of his story through the 2001 movie A Beautiful Mind.

The unexpected news was startling. There is something about tragedy when it
unexpectedly strikes in the middle of a sunshine day. It is as if the
tragedy grabs your being by its lapels and shakes you to essence of your
core, reminding you to look inward at what matters.

A remarkable, gifted man best known for providing the world with insight
into the factors that govern chance taught us, in fitting irony, leaves
behind great lessons both the orderly and expected and all that is
possible. His brilliant life reminds us of how these seemingly adverse
pieces of a complex puzzle fit together.

The legacy of a courageous and tireless genius speaks to us all in many
ways. Here are just six of many lessons that a remarkable teacher has left
us with:

1. Don't believe everything you are told. When Nash was sold a bill of
goods about his prognosis, he didn't buy it. If John Nash would have
believed his mental condition to be limiting, it would have been.

Nash didn't let the limitation of others dictate who he became and what he
could achieve. He didn't let ordinary assumption dull his potential for
extraordinary achievement.

2. Non-conformity is a gift. Nash was not valued solely because he was one
of the most talented mathematicians of the century. John Nash was
incredibly wonderful because he embraced, especially in his latter years,
an offbeat authenticity that was completely unique and completely himself.

John Nash's life, both his remarkable body of work and who he was as an
individual, remain inexplicably intertwined and boldly remind us of that
being ordinary should never be the goal. It is in our authenticity that our
gifts, talents, and self-truths are tangled.

Nash embraced his unique perspective. He explained, "One aspect of this is
that rationality of thought imposes a limit on a person's concept of his
relation to the cosmos."

3. Egotism is sheer madness. In his eighty-six years of life, John Nash's
achievements were truly extraordinary. Nash was on the mathematics faculty
at MIT and a Senior Research Mathematician at Princeton University. Nash
was awarded the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with two
other game theorists and recently won the notable Abel Prize in 2015. Nash
had much to proudly boast about and yet he did not.

Nash, never a fan of egotism, thrived in humility. Those who knew him are
quick to point out that he always focused on his work before he even
mentioned his own accomplishments. Nash understood his own contributions to
be part of something infinitely greater.

Nash candidly admitted, "When I started thinking irrationally, I imagined
myself as really on a Number 1 level. I was the most important person of
the world."

4. Believe in second chances. When it came to love, Nash remarried his
first wife, Alicia, in 2001. When it came to work, Nash was indefatigable
and understood his value in a larger context. He persevered through
struggle with tenacity, grit and a passion for creativity.

Nash explained, "The only thing greater than the mind is the power of the
heart." Nash showed us through constant example that authenticity is far
more interesting and outstanding than a pursuit of ghostly perfection.

5. Be careful not to judge. Long before I was a mom and a writer, I had the
unique privilege of working as a clinical social worker in a long-term
inpatient adult psychiatric ward. I only say this because after spending
over half a decade in this setting, I have a slight understanding of a
fraction of Nash's uphill climb.

Nash was treated in a medical field that was just emerging in terms of
treatment and not very fair to its patients. He was existing in a society
that, at its worst, stigmatizes those with a different brain composition,
and at its best, pities them.

John Nash said it best when he explained, "People are always selling the
idea that people with mental illness are suffering. I think madness can be
an escape. If things are not so good, you maybe want to imagine something
better."

6. Believe you matter. Several great athletes in the past century have
overcome physical limitations. Many of our greatest thinkers throughout
history have been those affected by adversity, whether it was a
neurological limitation, a disorder related to concentration, a problem
related to reading, depression, mania, or even delusion.

It seems that that the concurrence of great adversity and extraordinary
accomplishment is more than coincidental. It also appears that the way that
person perceives themselves to be a determining factor.

Whether we hear our subconscious as a literal voice or a soft echo, it
shapes who we become and what value we add to the world around us. The
thoughts we think undoubtedly shape the actions we take.

Few of us will solve complex mathematical theorems, yet we all have
talents, gifts, and purpose and it is up to no one but ourselves to remain
committed to these gifts. As parents, caregivers, and teachers, we must
build up our children to know that they matter because they do.

The world is often too eager to separate and classify madness from genius,
obstacle from advantage, misapplication from accuracy, and weakness from
strength. Nash's life brilliantly reminds us that these things are not so
easily separated or even classified for that matter. Perhaps it is only the
total sum of these things that matters anyway.

*INTERNATIONAL*

*Defense Secretary Ash Carter: Iraqis lack ‘will to fight’
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/defense-secretary-ash-carter-iraqis-lack-will-fight?google_editors_picks=true>
// MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin - May 24, 2015*

U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter offered a stinging criticism of the
recent takeover of Ramadi by the terrorist group known as ISIS, arguing it
demonstrated Iraqi forces lacked the “will to fight.”

Carter’s remarks are the most strident yet from the Obama Administration
since the crucial city fell to extremists a week ago. He told CNN’s Barbara
Starr in an interview that aired on Sunday that Iraqi forces were not
outnumbered. “In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force, and yet
they failed to fight, they withdrew from the site. And that says to me, and
I think to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to
fight [ISIS] and defend themselves,” he said.

The defense secretary called the situation “very concerning,” arguing while
the U.S. and allies could provide Iraqis with training and equipment, they
can’t give the forces motivation to fight.

“We can’t make this happen by ourselves, but we can assist it to happen,
and we are counting on the Iraqi people to come behind a multi-sectarian
government in Baghdad,” said Carter.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi’s office dismissed Carter’s
assessment, telling NBC News that the takeover by ISIS was an anomaly and
that the government has “started its on investigation to punish those who
neglected their duty.” Dr. Sa’ad Al-Hadithi, the media director for
Al-Abadi, added, “…we cannot consider one or two failures committed by our
forces as a failure of all Iraqi troops.”

According to NBC News, Iraqi forces on Sunday, recaptured territory near
Ramadi on Sunday – an effort to head back toward the key city that fell to
ISIS a week ago.

Separately, according to Syrian state television, members of ISIS
reportedly killed at least 400 people in the ancient city of Palmyra. Just
days ago, the terrorist group claimed it had taken over Palmyra as well.

How to combat ISIS was a central issue on the Sunday news shows. Sen. John
McCain of Arizona accused the White House of having no game plan. The
Republican said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “there is no strategy, and
anybody that says that there is, I’d like to hear what it is, because it
certainly isn’t apparent…” McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee argued in favor of a more militaristic strategy. “We need to have
a more robust strategy. We need more troops on the ground, we need forward
air controllers - we’re just referring to air strikes,” he said.

On the other hand, Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff said on the same
show that there will be no victory unless the Iraqi government can resolve
its own issues. He added, “I wouldn’t say that we’re winning. I don’t think
we’re losing either, but I think we’re seeing an ebb and flow, and largely
a stalemate situation in the war against ISIS.”

*Vote serves as beacon of hope for those still facing oppression
<http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/vote-serves-as-beacon-of-hope-for-those-still-facing-oppression-1.2224532>
// Irish Times // Dennis Staunton - May 24, 2015*

Ireland’s vote in favour of same-sex marriage is a milestone in the global
struggle for equality for gays and lesbians that has seen dramatic progress
in many western countries while others slide backwards into further
repression.

Homosexual activity remains illegal in almost 80 countries and in many,
including Uganda, Nigeria, Russia and Egypt, the situation for gays and
lesbians has worsened. Our Yes vote can serve as a beacon of hope not just
for LGBT people on the brink of achieving equality but for those millions
throughout the world who continue to face persecution, oppression and
violence.

Marriage equality, which was a marginal, almost eccentric demand only two
decades ago, is now a reality in 20 countries and in many sub-national
regions, including 37 of the 50 states of the United States.

Crowds react in the court yard at Dublin Castle on Saturay. Photograph:
Dara Mac Dónaill Campaign to promote Ireland as same-sex wedding destination

Yes Equality Roscommon said it ‘watched in envy as well-known politicians
in almost every other area in the country got publicly and deeply involved
in the campaigns in their areas’. Photograph: Cyril Byrne / The Irish Times
Yes Equality Roscommon says politicians did not support campaign

A dog waiting outside a polling station on Friday while his owner casts his
vote. Photograph: Dave MeehanWorking class areas embracing change faster,
campaigners claim

A supporter holds a sign reading ‘Thank You - You’re All Invited to the
Wedding’ as he celebrates outside Dublin Castle following the result of the
same-sex marriage referendum in Dublin on May 23rd, 2015. Photograph: Paul
Faith/AFP/Getty ImagesAll churches in Ireland in need of ‘reality check’

‘It made me cry’: Generation Emigration expresses pride at same-sex
marriage result

‘A day when hope and history rhyme’: writers and artists react to same-sex
marriage vote

Scenes Dublin Castle on Saturday for the referendum count. Photograph:
Stephen Collins/Collins PhotosSame-sex marriage: Northern Ireland ‘last
bastion of discrimination’ says Amnesty

Singer Miley Cyrus tweeted in response to the same-sex marriage referendum
result: ‘Fuck yeah Ireland!’ Photograph: George Pimentel/Getty
ImagesCelebrities react to Ireland legalising gay marriage

It is an entirely 21st century phenomenon, with the Netherlands becoming
the first country in the world to allow gays to marry in 2001. It is also
essentially a conservative one, which was initially resisted by radical gay
rights campaigners who saw marriage as a repressive, patriarchal
institution.

Tragic

The Aids crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s brought into sharp, tragic
relief the consequences of the lack of legal recognition of gay
partnerships as men were denied access to their dying partners in
hospitals, were evicted from the homes they shared when loved ones died and
had no inheritance rights. The initial response came in the form of
domestic partnerships.

It was the gay conservative writer Andrew Sullivan who first put gay
marriage on the agenda in the US in 1989 with a groundbreaking essay in the
New Republic called “Here Comes the Groom”. He argued that marriage would
help to “humanise and traditionalise” gays by strengthening their
relationships and providing emotional and economic security.

As in Ireland, what brought marriage equality into the mainstream in the US
was the growing number of gays and lesbians coming out to friends and
family. Greater visibility not only made gays and lesbians appear less
exotic, it gave more straight people a stake in the debate as they backed
equal rights for friends or family members.

Some 60 per cent of Americans now approve of same-sex marriage and the US
supreme court will next month rule on Obergefell v Hodges, a set of four
challenges to state bans on gay marriage. It is expected to rule that the
bans are unconstitutional, a move that would effectively legalise same-sex
marriage throughout the US.

Until 2010, when the states of Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington
approved same-sex marriage in referendums, the conventional wisdom in the
US was that the issue could not win popular approval at the ballot box.

Progress

Most progress on the issue in the US has come through the courts, with
referendums more often called to introduce bans on same-sex marriage than
to lift them.

But the courts are not deaf to public opinion and the head of the European
Court of Human Rights suggested in 2012 that the court could reconsider its
view that same-sex marriage is not a human right if enough countries
introduced it. The European Parliament last March passed a resolution
recognising such a right, although just 10 European Union member-states,
including Ireland, have marriage equality, with two more – Slovenia and
Finland– set to join them within months.

Ireland has shown marriage equality can win popular support and Friday’s
vote will encourage legislators and activists elsewhere in Europe to be
bolder. The lessons of Ireland’s campaign will be useful elsewhere, just as
the successful campaigns in the US in 2012 helped to guide Ireland’s
campaigners.

Perhaps the central lesson is that it is less effective to simply demand
rights than to persuade through personal testimony. It was stories such as
those of Ursula Halligan, Pat Carey and Una Mullally that cut through the
noise and appealed to the better nature of undecided voters. And straight
allies such as Mary McAleese and Noel Whelan were eloquent in making the
case that marriage was so important to them that they wanted to allow equal
access to it.

*Women activists cross DMZ between North and South Korea
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/23/asia/north-korea-women-activists-dmz-crossing/>
// CNN // Jethro Mullen - May 24, 2015*

Paju, South Korea (CNN)An international group of female activists crossed
the heavily fortified border between North and South Korea on Sunday in a
controversial effort to bring attention to the need for peace between the
two nations.

The group of about 30 members, called WomenCrossDMZ, included feminist
Gloria Steinem and two Nobel Peace laureates, Mairead Maguire of Northern
Ireland and Leymah Gbowee of Liberia.

On Sunday morning, a bus picked them up from the North Korean side and
ferried them across the Demilitarized Zone that has separated the two
Koreas for more than half a century.

"We feel very celebratory and positive that we have created a voyage across
the DMZ in peace and reconciliation that was said to be impossible,"
Steinem said after the group, which had originally planned to walk across
the zone, arrived in South Korea.

The activists said they acted as "citizen diplomats" in North Korea,
speaking with women at a series of events during their time there.

"We can learn on paper and on screen," Steinem said. "But the ability to
understand, not just learn, happens when we are together and able to
empathize."

The group says women need to be involved in the peace-building process. It
calls for reuniting families divided by the Korean War, and replacing the
1953 armistice with a permanent peace treaty -- demands similar to those
made by the North Korean government.

Criticism from other activists

Other activists have criticized the event, saying the group is overlooking
major problems faced by women under Kim Jong Un's authoritarian rule.

"It is absolutely outrageous that they completely ignore the suffering of
the North Korean people, especially North Korean women," said Suzanne
Scholte, head of the North Korea Freedom Coalition.

"If they truly cared, they would cross the China-North Korea border
instead, which is actually more dangerous now than the DMZ," Scholte said
ahead of the event.

North Korean women who cross into China often become victims of human
trafficking, ending up being forced to work in the sex industry or sold as
brides to rural Chinese men.

The reported abuses for North Korean women are not limited to the Chinese
border. North Korean defectors have testified of rape and abuse in prison
camps by fellow inmates or guards.

Maguire, who became known for organizing peace demonstrations during the
conflict in Northern Ireland, suggested the human rights situation would
improve if the two Koreas were to sign a full peace treaty.

"You can get to human rights when you have a normal situation and not a
country at war," she said Sunday.

Sympathy for North Korea?

Christine Ahn, one of the event's organizers, has been called a North Korea
sympathizer -- an allegation she denies.

"Basically that is a Cold War, McCarthyist mentality," she told CNN in
April. "And that kind of framework has enabled Korea to remain divided. I
am pro-peace. I am pro-engagement. I am pro-dialogue. I am pro-human
rights."

She says she is for ending "the state of war on the Korean peninsula."

Her critics include Human Rights Foundation's Alex Gladstein, who accused
Ahn of "whitewashing the North Korean regime for more than a decade, always
excusing the Kims, saying they aren't so bad, and blaming North Korea's
problems on South Korea and the U.S."

Observers say that a group being allowed by both North and South Korean
authorities to hold this kind of event is unusual but not unheard of.

A group of bikers from New Zealand crossed the border in 2013, and another
group drove through the DMZ last year.

Last week, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the North Korean
government abruptly canceled his planned visit to an industrial zone.
Situated to the north of the DMZ, the Kaesong Industrial Complex contains
factories that are owned by South Koreans and staffed by thousands of North
Koreans.

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS*

*The Center Needs a Voice
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/22/the_center_needs_a_voice_126690.html>
// WaPo // David Ignatius - May 22, 2015*

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton's move to the left on trade and other issues
is a reminder of the growing power of activists on the wings in
presidential nominating politics -- and a corresponding diminution of the
power of the center.

"Social and demographic shifts mean that no left-leaning position Clinton
takes now would be likely to hurt her" in the 2016 general election, writes
The Washington Post's Anne Gearan in a recent assessment of Clinton's
strategy. Meanwhile, GOP candidates are doubling down in the other
direction, as they move toward their party's right wing.

The disenfranchisement of the center is a fact of modern politics. That
should be worrisome even if you think the center is an ideological muddle.
As we've seen in recent years, in a world dominated by the political wings,
the compromises necessary for passing any legislation become difficult. As
the center disappears, so does governance.

To illustrate how the current system works, a would-be reformer named Peter
Ackerman recently showed me a diagram that estimates party affiliation:
"Democrats: Less than 30 percent," "Republicans: Less than 30 percent," and
in the middle "Unaffiliated: Greater than 40 percent." He argues that if
you include left-leaning and right-leaning voters in the "moderate" camp,
it makes up two-thirds of the electorate.

Yet as we head toward the presidential nominating season, the voice of this
broad center is barely audible. Politics is pulled toward the left and
right by campaign-finance rules, redistricting and other issues discussed
in countless essays and op-ed pieces. This centrifugal force seems to
increase in every election cycle, with a resulting paralysis in Washington.

Ackerman has launched a campaign dubbed "Change the Rule" to address one
piece of this puzzle of America's political dysfunction. The rule in
question is imposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which the
two major parties created in 1987 to administer the televised debates that
are the nexus of modern presidential campaigns. Ackerman argues that this
rule, as currently applied, prevents the emergence of an independent
candidate who might empower the underrepresented middle.

The current debate rule requires that any third-party candidate must
average 15 percent support in five polls taken in the two weeks before the
debates begin in October of the election year. To get the necessary name
recognition and support, Ackerman's group estimates that an independent
candidate would have to spend $266 million. Because of contribution limits,
this effectively precludes anyone who's not a billionaire from joining the
debates as an independent.

Ackerman argues that the entry ticket to the debate should instead be
getting on the ballots by the end of April in an election year in states
that together have at least 270 Electoral College votes. To avoid chaotic
debates, just one such independent candidate should be added -- the one
with the highest number of ballot-access signatures nationwide. Such a
signature drive would cost less than $15 million, Ackerman estimates,
opening the field to less-wealthy candidates who could mobilize volunteers
and small donations.

Supporters are a "who's who" of the bipartisan center: John Anderson, a
Republican former congressman who ran as an independent in the 1980
presidential race; William Cohen, a Republican former senator who served as
secretary of defense for a Democratic president; Lee Hamilton, a Democratic
former congressman who co-chaired bipartisan commissions on 9/11 and the
Iraq War; Jon Huntsman, a Republican former governor whose moderate
positions vaporized his 2012 presidential campaign; and Joe Lieberman, a
Democratic former senator and vice presidential nominee. Other backers
include retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and retired Adm. James Stavridis.

To bolster the case, Ackerman commissioned a survey last July by pollster
Douglas Schoen. In the sample of 1,000 likely voters, 86 percent said the
political system is broken and doesn't serve ordinary people; 89 percent
said they wished politicians would work together and compromise; and,
interestingly, 66 percent said they thought presidential debates could do a
better job of informing the electorate.

Other surveys reflect this deep mistrust of the system. A January 2015 Pew
Research Center poll reported a 48 percent unfavorability rating for the
Democratic Party and a 53 percent negative for the Republicans. An August
2014 Gallup survey found that 83 percent disapproved of the job Congress is
doing.

Yet the system grinds forward with a perverse set of incentives that
rewards extremism and punishes compromise. I don't know if opening the
presidential debates would fix this mess, but it might pull candidates back
toward the center, where the public lives and where problems get solved.

*Who's going 'Iowa heavy,' 'Iowa light'
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/05/23/caucus-iowa-heavy-light/27865107/>
// Des Moines Register // Jennifer Jacobs - May 25, 2015*

Presidential contenders often tell Iowa voters some variation of "I'll be
back soon" or "You'll see a lot of me."

Their travel histories, however, reveal which ones truly have an "Iowa
heavy" strategy and which ones are playing "Iowa light" — at least so far.

Of the 15 GOP White House hopefuls knocking around Iowa these days, a Des
Moines Register review of days spent in Iowa pegs five as Iowa light, six
in the middle range and four as Iowa heavy.

At the lightest end of the scale among top-tier candidates is Florida U.S.
Sen. Marco Rubio, with just two days here in calendar year 2015.

No one has had more face time in Iowa than Rick Perry. The former Texas
governor is looking for redemption after a 2012 presidential bid he admits
was pock-marked with mistakes, including spending only 36 days here last
cycle. He has already tabulated 30 this time, with nine months to go before
caucus night, scheduled for Feb. 1.

"If anyone spends more time in Iowa over the next year, God bless them,"
Perry said in an interview with the Quad-City Times last week. "They'd
better pack a lunch because I will be here often."

Because of the record number of Republicans slicing up the positioning for
the Iowa caucuses, the amount of time a contender spends connecting with
voters could be more critical this year than in earlier cycles, Iowa
politics watchers said.

"In a crowded field, personal retail interaction becomes even more
important," said Republican strategist Matt Strawn, a former state party
chairman. "That may be the differentiation between candidates that are very
closely aligned ideologically."

STRAW POLL:

And with polling showing the GOP field tightly clustered, the dicey game of
beating expectations may be another factor that weighs more heavily than
ideology in determining victory, said Dennis Goldford, a Drake University
political science professor.

"For candidates high in the polls, failing to do well in the caucuses hurts
worse than a win helps," Goldford said.

Appearances in Iowa are one of the most visible measures of commitment to
the first-in-the-nation presidential voting state, but appearances may not
be what they seem when it comes to an Iowa footprint, strategists cautioned.

Contenders seeking to keep expectations low are likely doing more than
meets the eye, said campaign veteran Craig Schoenfeld, who is unaligned
with any 2016 candidate. Subterranean work includes private telephone calls
to Iowans from the contender, tele-town halls (a speech or Q&A by mass
conference call), social media outreach and online advertising — which can
all happen without the candidate ever stepping foot in Iowa, and sometimes
without the media or rivals knowing about it, Schoenfeld said.

And in the new era of super PACs taking on more campaign-style voter
recruitment duties rather than just doing TV advertising, a candidate's
Iowa footprint may be even less obvious than when the traditional campaign
structure handled them.

To sum it up, strategists said, "Iowa heavy" for 2016 candidates means: Be
here. Be here virtually even when you're not. Have your friends and super
PAC allies here when you're here — and when you're not.

Historically, there hasn't always been a direct correlation between days
spent in Iowa and victory in the caucuses, said Goldford, who co-authored a
book on the caucuses. The Rick Santorum model of hitting all 99 counties is
merely a way for candidates who aren't well known or well funded to gain an
edge, he said.

Mitt Romney, who spent just 19 days in Iowa on his second go at the White
House in 2012, fell just 34 votes shy of Santorum, a little-known
Pennsylvania senator who blew apart the GOP record book with 105 days here.
But Romney had built his Iowa network by spending 77 days here in the 2008
cycle. (Historical days in Iowa are from Goldford's book, "The Iowa
Precinct Caucuses," co-authored with Hugh Winebrenner.)

Eventual caucus winners such as Kansas U.S. Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 (41 days)
and Texas Gov. George W. Bush in 2000 (29 days) were well-known figures who
didn't need to camp out in Iowa to establish a following.

What about the Democrats?

Democrats reign as king of the road warriors in the Iowa caucuses,
according to "The Iowa Precinct Caucuses" co-authors Hugh Winebrenner and
Dennis Goldford.

While Rick Santorum set the Republican record with 105 days in 2012, his
total pales compared with the all-time leader: Democrat Dick Gephardt, a
U.S. representative from neighboring Missouri who campaigned 148 days in
Iowa in the 1988 cycle. The time Gephardt put in paid off with a caucus
win. Eventual nominee Mike Dukakis, who campaigned in Iowa 82 days, came in
third.

In the Democrats' most recent competitive caucus, in 2008, six candidates
spent more than 75 days each in Iowa. Then-Delaware U.S. Sen. Joe Biden led
the way with 120 days, but placed a disappointing fifth and left the race.
The caucus winner and eventual president, Barack Obama, spent 89 days in
Iowa. Hillary Clinton, a candidate again this cycle, spent 74 days.

*Welcome, candidates: Some answers, please
<http://www.thonline.com/news/opinion/article_6d2b2184-e21d-5f44-a1a0-18fae146014e.html'>
// TH Online // Editorial Board - May 24, 2015*

When presidential hopefuls visit with Iowans, let's press them to talk
about the real issues.

The next presidential election is still a year and a half away, but
campaigning is ramping up in Iowa, where citizens are treated to an "early
bird special" of candidate visits.

Its status as first-in-the-nation caucus state makes Iowa a choice
destination for presidential hopefuls. Thus, Iowans, more than citizens in
nearly all other states, have more chances to see and hear the candidates.
Just in the past week or so in Dubuque, Republicans Jeb Bush and Rick Perry
made public appearances and Democrat Hillary Clinton attended a private
event.

But a stump speech is a stump speech, whether you see it from the front row
or on YouTube. Citizens want more from candidates than platitudes and
promises, one-liners and tweets. One of the reasons Iowa maintains its
first-caucus status is because Iowans have a reputation for being
no-nonsense and interested in the issues, not just the personalities.

While the candidates are appearing in Iowa's town halls and coffee shops --
come January, they will be gone -- Iowans should be proactive in directing
the conversation.

The problems facing our country are complex and will require thoughtful
planning and collaboration. Detailing a solution won't fit in a sound bite.
A quip won't do justice to a difficult problem. Pointing out what's wrong
is not the same as explaining how to make it right.

Rather than sit back and let the candidates choose the topics and spin them
their way, Iowans would be doing themselves and the country a monumental
favor if they pressed the candidates to be more specific on how they would
address major issues.

For example:

* Infrastructure: Some 20 percent of the country's 900,000 miles of
highways are in desperate need of reconstruction. About a quarter of its
600,000 bridges are categorized as structurally deficient or functionally
obsolete. In Iowa, that accounts for more than a quarter of the bridges
people use every day. Fixing infrastructure means spending.

What's your plan for paying for the infrastructure work the country so
desperately needs?

* Debt: While issues like infrastructure will require spending, fiscal
responsibility must be a key element to any candidate's platform. U.S. debt
is on an unsustainable track. As a share of the economy (GDP), the debt has
grown from 35 percent of GDP in 2007 to 74 percent today, according to the
Concord Coalition. The debt is projected to exceed the entire economy by
the 2030s.

What steps will you take to address the unsustainable growth of debt? Will
reforming the tax code and changing the Social Security formula be part of
the plan?

* Immigration: Politicians of every stripe know that immigration reform is
long overdue. Still, we have yet to see anyone with the leadership to make
that happen. It has been seven years since the Postville, Iowa, raid that
resulted in nearly 400 employees of Agriprocessors being arrested and
hauled away. That event put a face on the issue of illegal immigration in
the Heartland, and still reform has languished.

What plan do you have for immigration reform? Should there be a path to
citizenship for undocumented people living here now?

* Health care: Ever since the landmark Affordable Care Act was passed, it's
been a tale of two Obamacares. Opponents will tell you this legislation
will drive up prices, limit health care options and critically damage our
whole health care system. Supporters will talk about how many people have
insurance coverage for the first time and the benefits, rights and
protections now in place.

Is there a way to keep the elements of the Affordable Care Act that are
working well and discard the parts that have failed? Who will make those
assessments and how?

* Economy/jobs: Though the economy has shown great strides of improvement,
memories of the recession and job losses are still fresh in the mind of
many Americans. The availability of better-paying jobs is part of the
American Dream.

How would you continue to grow the economy and spur business and industry
to create jobs and increase wages?

* Environment: As evidence of climate change caused by human action piles
up, government has been slow to react. A global issue like this shouldn't
divide people down party lines, but it has. Regardless of political
persuasion, there ought to be some basic tenets upon which everyone can
agree. Increasing research on and production of renewable fuels, for
example, and mandating greater fuel-efficiency. Meanwhile, the quality of
our air and water, while better than it was a half-century ago, remains an
issue of concern.

What environmental rules would you support to decrease humans' footprint on
our world, improve sustainability and protect our air and water?

* Partisanship: The preceding laundry list of challenging issues all have
one thing in common -- they are stymied in large part because of partisan
politics.

How will you break through partisan gridlock and be a leader for all
Americans? Everyone knows collaboration needs to happen to effect change.
How will you get the two sides to work together?

None of these questions is easy to answer. But anyone running for president
should have taken the time to think not just about campaigning but about
governing and what it will require. The candidate who can answer these
questions -- no matter what the answer is -- will go a long way toward
winning credibility among Iowans during caucus season and all Americans
come November 2016.

*Fusion Media Aims at Millennials, but Struggles to Find Its Identity
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/25/business/media/fusion-media-aims-at-millennials-but-struggles-to-find-its-identity.html?partner=socialflow&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0&gwh=5280D553DA145253F286E13AB84452D0&gwt=pay>
// NYT // Ravi Somaiya - May 24, 2015*

From left, Dodai Stewart, Fusion’s director of culture; Hillary Frey,
executive editor; and Joyce Tang, managing editor. Credit Jim Wilson/The
New York Times

In 2011, when Isaac Lee, president of news for Univision, set out to
persuade his company and Disney to back Fusion, a digital news service and
cable channel he wanted to start, he promised nothing less than the holy
grail: young viewers for the older media conglomerates.

He played a slide show in which a middle-aged white man transformed into a
young brown woman. The executives present were dazzled.

“It’s very hard to say no to Isaac Lee,” said Ben Sherwood, president of
the Disney/ABC Television Group, describing him as “extremely charismatic
and dynamic and a visionary.” Randy Falco, president and chief executive of
Univision, said of Mr. Lee: “Oh, my God. He is really a force of nature.”

The reality, since Fusion began in October 2013, has been more complex.
Many inside and outside the company are hard pressed to define what exactly
Fusion does. Traffic to its website has been anemic at times, and it has
yet to deliver the kind of attention-getting stories that digital media
rivals like Buzzfeed and Vice have produced.

The site was originally aimed at young Latinos who spoke English as a first
language, but it quickly shifted its target audience to young viewers of
all ethnicities. In April, it shuffled its news and features editorial team
and appointed a new editor in chief.

Fusion has grown quickly, with 250 employees and offices in Miami, New
York, Washington, D.C., Boulder, Colo., and Oakland, Calif. Mr. Lee and his
senior editors say the organization is young and quickly finding its way —
they point to an interview with Marco Rubio as an example of the kind of
noteworthy journalism they strive for.

They believe that Fusion will eventually fulfill a mission that news
organizations across the world see as vital to survival: reaching younger
and more diverse audiences on the platforms they go to for news, like
Snapchat and YouTube.

In an interview, Mr. Lee, 44, said his employees “have the ability to bet
and to make mistakes, and the results are there,” specifying both written
and visual storytelling and investigative reporting. “I think that this is
one of the very few organizations that is about journalism and talent,” he
added.

Fusion is, in many ways, the archetype for broader movements in media. As
traditional news organizations have struggled to adapt to the rhythms of
the web, a new generation of media companies, like Buzzfeed and Vox, have
moved from bright ideas to full-fledged businesses at breakneck speed. They
are often backed by big corporations — Disney is also behind the websites
Grantland and FiveThirtyEight — or venture capital firms making big bets
that all the people browsing the web on their phones will demand fresh
content.

Many covet millennials — a group loosely defined as those born after 1980,
or about one-third of the current American work force, according to the Pew
Research Center. Nobody has quite figured out what they want or if it is
possible to tell stories that appeal universally to a huge number of
Americans who sometimes seem united only in the dreams of marketers.

Disney and Univision supplied Fusion with an additional $30 million in
financing recently, according to a person involved with the deal who spoke
on the condition of anonymity. But the cultures of the companies and Fusion
have already clashed. For instance, according to two senior Fusion staff
members, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, Disney put the
organization on notice that it would not take kindly to coverage that might
dent its standing with consumers. The warning came after Fusion published
several stories based on documents that hackers stole from Sony.

Fusion is not alone: In negotiations to create a Vice cable channel, Disney
and Hearst insisted on a clause protecting the companies in the event that
Vice content “embarrasses Hearst or Disney in any way,” according to people
with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to
discuss private negotiations.

Fusion has offered lavish wages to hire a number of highly regarded
journalists. Big names include the financial writer Felix Salmon and The
Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal, who was named editor in chief in late April in
a broad reshuffling of the organization’s management ranks.

Mr. Lee made his name starting and editing a series of publications aimed
at audiences in Mexico and his native Colombia. He became the head of news
at Univision in 2010 and is known in media circles to be funny, profane and
inclined to go off on philosophical tangents.

He said that no one, however close to him they are, receives preferential
treatment. Addressing high wages, he said he believed that journalists,
“not just suits,” should be paid well.

Though Fusion was recently nominated for two Livingston Awards for its
investigative work, the network is perhaps best known for sifting through
hacked Sony emails — something that made Disney the target of criticism in
Hollywood — and for using foul-mouthed puppets in its State of the Union
coverage in January.

Recently, Fusion’s website had stories on the potential dangers of
virtual-reality pornography and on new emojis, and an investigation into
industrialized chicken farms titled “Cock Fight.” Its television offerings
include “America with Jorge Ramos,” the popular Univision news anchor, and
the Cannabusiness Report, on “the mainstreaming of marijuana.”

Several current and former Fusion employees mentioned a masculine and
raucous office culture inside the organization.

Last year, when the company instituted what it described as a routine
training program on appropriate sexual behavior, some employees took it as
a reaction to widespread rumors of office liaisons. David Ford, a spokesman
for Fusion, said that, just like other corporations, it conducted “respect
in the workplace training as part of our overall compliance program.”

Its web traffic late last year, according to internal figures obtained by
The New York Times, dropped as low as 23,000 page views on some days.
Fusion said its traffic this past December reached 1.9 million unique users
and increased to about five million by April. The media measurement company
Nielsen said it did not measure Fusion’s viewership on television.

Mr. Madrigal described the organization in simple terms: “Fusion is a cable
and digital network that is championing a more diverse and inclusive
America.” It will do so by hiring those who are “naturally and natively
interested in things that the rising generation of people in America are
interested in,” he added. That will include television shows on topics like
prisons and technology, with matching content online, on social media and
in live events.

Mr. Falco said Fusion was “different, experimental.” It should act as a
kind of ideas lab, he said, that feeds the lessons it learns back to its
parent companies. One goal, he said, was to expand Fusion’s cable channel
from its current reach of 40 million homes to as many as 70 million homes
over the next few years.

It is a complex time to introduce a new cable channel — the pressure from
consumers is to narrow the bundle of networks sold to them, not to expand
it. But Fusion, one of the most modern of media enterprises, is supported
in part by one of the most old-fashioned of revenue streams: cable fees.

For his part, Mr. Sherwood, the president of Disney/ABC Television Group,
repeatedly compared the service to ESPN, which began as a small-town
Connecticut cable channel and grew into a media behemoth.

“It’s going to be a big success,” Mr. Sherwood said of Fusion. “You have to
take the long view when you’re building a multiplatform service.” He added
that he was “excited” about the comedy news program with the puppets, which
is called “No, You Shut Up!”

Mr. Lee projected confidence, too.

“I have nothing to worry about,” he said. “I know exactly what I am doing.
I know that we don’t know everything, but we are running the best possible
process to figure it out. This is a marathon.”

*Only Capitalism Can Save the Planet
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/23/only-capitalism-can-save-the-planet.html>
// The Daily Beast // Eleanor Clift - May 23, 2015*

Lester Brown, environmentalist nonpareil, isn’t waiting for government. He
thinks the free market is the way to address climate change.

A warming planet poses a threat to our way of life whether it’s man-made or
a natural phenomenon, and government efforts to combat and slow its impact
so far have been minimal. President Obama says our failure to act weakens
national security, yet Congress is beholden to climate-change deniers and
no real action is likely to happen anytime soon.

This isn’t surprising in the least to Lester Brown. A pioneering
environmentalist who decades ago warned of the “manhandling of nature” and
its dire consequences, Brown isn’t looking to government to save the
planet. “Government helped get some of these things going (like solar
energy and wind farms), but now government is less and less important,” he
says. “The important thing is that the market is now driving this.”

As the founder of two nonprofit research organizations, the Worldwatch
Institute and the Earth Policy Institute, and the recipient of a MacArthur
genius grant for his work on sustainable development, Brown is an unlikely
champion of capitalism. But he predicts a half-century’s worth of change is
possible in the next decade as corporate America and billionaire investors
move into profit-making new-energy ventures.

He cites Wal-Mart’s decision last year to move toward solar energy—not to
save the planet, but to save money. “It’s a business decision,” Wal-Mart
CEO Bill Simon said in May 2014. “The renewable energy we buy meets or
beats prices from the grid.”

The beauty of this quiet revolution is that it’s more than the usual
suspects. Billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Warren Buffett are on the
front lines, investing in new sources of energy, but so is conservative
oilman Philip Anschutz, owner of the conservative outlets The Weekly
Standard and The Washington Examiner, who a year ago invested $15 billion
to build a 3,000-megawatt wind farm in Wyoming.  “Anschutz has jumped into
this with all four feet, he’s pulling out all the stops,” says Brown. “He
sees Wyoming as a huge gold mine, and he’s building a transmission line to
California. Wyoming has 600,000 people; California has 28 million.” Do the
math, he says.

Renewable energy is an issue that divides conservatives. Some see its
value; others see it as a threat to oil and gas. When the business-friendly
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) developed legislation for
state legislatures requiring consumers who use solar to pay an added fee,
the Tea Party joined with the Sierra Club in some states to fight the fee,
dubbing itself the Green Tea Party.

Shifting alliances in energy can be dizzying. Texas has gone from being the
country’s leading oil producer to being the biggest wind producer, getting
10 percent of its power from wind and building transmission lines to
Mississippi and Louisiana. Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens, an early
believer in wind power, backed away in the face of early challenges. Brown
tells of listening indifferently as Pickens lectured him on how oil is
forever. “You’re not listening to me, are you?” Pickens said. “No,” Brown
replied.

Trim and fit in his 80s, still jogging, and with a full head of white hair,
Brown cemented his reputation as a seer with a 1994 article on who will
feed China that ran in The Washington Post under the headline, “How China
Will Starve the World.” It said that to feed 1.2 billion people, China
would have to import so much grain that world food prices would rise, and
nations would move away from emphasizing military preparedness to insuring
and protecting food supplies.

Chinese officials angrily denied any such looming crisis. But they quietly
revamped their agriculture policies to accommodate population growth that
Brown said was the equivalent of a new Beijing each year. Several years
later, a top Chinese official who was in power at the time told Brown his
book, Who Will Feed China? Wake-up Call for a Small Planet, was very
helpful.

It may seem unusual for a leading environmentalist to place his faith in
the power of capitalism to move the country, and indeed the world, away
from the cheap oil and coal economy that has powered America’s economic
success since the Industrial Revolution. Brown does hedge, writing in his
new book, The Great Transition, that no one can say with any certainty that
the change that’s underway will proceed fast enough to avoid catastrophic
climate change.

Ted Turner, long an advocate on climate change and a funder of Brown’s
work, purchased 4,000 copies of The Great Transition and is distributing
them to members of Congress and elected officials across the country. It is
a rare optimistic look at evidence that the economy is moving away from oil
and coal to solar and wind and battery-powered vehicles. “That’s the most
exciting for me, how fast things are moving,” says Brown, citing a UBS
survey that says rooftop solar panels with backup batteries for home and
cars will be cost-competitive in Europe by 2020.

Obama’s “war on coal” was a feature in the 2014 midterm election, and
there’s still plenty of pushback in Congress. But 188 of the nation’s 523
coal plants have closed or are scheduled to close, and the $80 million
donated by Michael Bloomberg to the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign is
a game-changer, says Brown. As the economy transitions, so does the
investor class. Brown points out that Goldman Sachs pulled out of coal, and
Morgan Stanley is out of oil. Even the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, whose
ancestor founded Standard Oil, divested its investments in fossil fuels
last year. “When you get the billionaires moving out, that’s smart money,”
says Brown.

Pressure to divest is also cropping up on college campuses. Stanford is out
of coal, and Syracuse University is out of all fossil fuels. Harvard
students staged a sit-in in February demanding the university shed its
investments in fossil-fuel companies. The administration refused, but the
pressure will continue. More than 200 faculty members have signed a letter
asking Harvard’s governing body to reconsider, and Harvard law students
have filed a lawsuit in an effort to force the change that everybody knows
is coming. For those who worry about the health of the planet, help is on
the way.

*ISIS rises, the economy falters, and Obama’s legacy falls apart
<http://nypost.com/2015/05/23/isis-rises-the-economy-falters-and-obamas-legacy-falls-apart/>
// NY Post // John Podhoretz - May 23, 2015*

Deep into the seventh year of his tenure, Barack Obama is thinking about
his post-presidential legacy. We know this because he’s telling us so.

In an interview this week with The Atlantic about the potential deal with
Iran regarding its nuclear program, the president sought to use the fact of
his relative youth and his consciousness about how history might judge him
to his advantage: “Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around,
God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this. I think
it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security
interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”

In one sense, this is what we want presidents to worry about. We want them
to be restrained by the cautionary examples provided by history and by the
fact that history will judge them.

But what if the desire to tip the scales of history’s judgment in his favor
leads a president to take dangerous risks?

In fact, we know that is what Obama has done with the Iran deal because his
aides have told us so.

His deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, put it this way last year
to a roomful of liberal activists when talking about the initial November
2013 agreement to begin talking about Iran’s nuclear program: “Bottom line
is, this is the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian issue
diplomatically…This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do
in his second term on foreign policy. This is health care for us, just to
put it in context.”

But this “opportunity” didn’t just emerge organically — which is actually
where “opportunities” are supposed to come from. It did not result from
changing conditions that opened a new possibility of finding common ground.

Iran’s behavior didn’t change, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons didn’t
change. Obama manufactured what Rhodes called an opportunity by pursuing a
deal with Iran and dangling all kinds of carrots in front of the mullahs.

And why? Because he wants a foreign-policy legacy to match the size and
scope of his key legacy in domestic policy.

And who can blame him? After the failure of the Arab Spring, the collapse
of Libya, the failure to act on his self-imposed “red line” in Syria,
Russia’s seizure of Crimea from Ukraine and the terrifying rise and forward
march of ISIS, the only unmitigated positive on his foreign-policy
spreadsheet remains the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Masked Iraqi fighters prepare to battle ISIS who have risen to prominence
on Obama’s watch.

Look, the guy will need something impressive to fill the exhibition space
at his brand-new presidential library in Chicago.

Obama’s asking us to trust him because, he says, you can’t think he would
want to look like the man who allowed Iran to go nuclear at some point in
the future.

So what explains the president’s own unprompted comments in an NPR
interview in April that, under the terms already announced, Iran would have
the right to go nuclear by 2028 — when he will,

God willing, be a mere 67 years of age?

“A more relevant fear,” he said, “would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they
have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that
point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

Obama offered an answer. “The option of a future president to take action
if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished,” he said.

So it will be up to his successors to bail him out in the eyes of history
and make it appear as though his legacy wasn’t the nuclear destabilization
of the Middle East!

For all of Obama’s posturing, he has done little to curb the nuclear
ambitions of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Speaking of legacies, how’s that key domestic-policy legacy going? Not so
hot.

ObamaCare remains unpopular; far more Americans oppose than favor it.

People still remember the disaster of the October 2013 rollout, which still
casts a shadow over the program today.

Those hard feelings were deepened last year by the discovery of a series of
talks by key ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber in which he bragged that
it had been falsely marketed to the American people to take advantage of
their stupidity.

Its defenders say the program is beginning to work, in the sense that it’s
covering more people — but it’s not covering as many as the administration
said it would by this time.

They tout the fact that the cost of the program is lower than it was
supposed to be by now.

But that’s an inconsistent claim; it’s only less expensive because it isn’t
meeting its target numbers, not because cost savings have suddenly
materialized from the ether.

Meanwhile, at some point over the next month, the entire policy may be
thrown into terminal chaos when the Supreme Court issues its judgment in a
case called King v. Burwell — which challenges the legality of a central
component of ObamaCare.

Modal Trigger

Obamacare is the president’s key domestic achievement, but the gargantuan
piece of legislation might not even be legal.

As the Supreme Court debates and writes its opinions, the overall economy
continues to sputter. Over the past five years, it grows and halts, grows
and halts, in a somewhat mystifying pattern that has kept the American
people on guard and on edge.

In the latest RealClearPolitics polling average, 62% say the country is on
the wrong track — more than seven years after Obama moved into the White
House.

Obama still has 18 months to go, and presidents have staged remarkable
turnarounds in public opinion in such a time frame. Bill Clinton did it
before his re-election in 1996, which seemed like a ludicrous prospect in
early 1995.

Ronald Reagan was at low ebb in mid-1987 and left office on a triumphant
high in early 1989.

But we’ve also seen the opposite. Indeed, we’ve seen the opposite more
recently. George W. Bush was in bad shape in mid-2007, unquestionably —
worse than Obama, because he’d lost the confidence of some Republicans,
while Obama seems not to have lost any of his base.

But in 2008 the bottom fell out when a financial crisis that began in the
spring turned into a total meltdown by the fall. Bush left office with one
poll showing his approval rating at 22%.

Right now, would you bet on things getting substantially better for Barack
Obama, or substantially worse? Does it look like we’re going to triumph
over ISIS?

Does it feel like the economy is going to improve or that ObamaCare will
suddenly gain public support? Does it seem like the deal with Iran is a
good one?

If you answer these questions in the affirmative, then you are likely to be
the sort of person who’s kept your 2008 Obama “Hope” poster on your wall
and your 2012 Obama bumper sticker on your car.

Alas for America and the world, a poster and a bumper sticker do not a
legacy make.

*The Making of a Great Ex-President
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/22/opinion/sunday/24vaughn.html?ref=opinion&_r=0>
// NYT // Justin S. Vaugh - May 23, 2015*

Though deeply engaged in his presidency — battling for the Trans-Pacific
Partnership and against ISIS — Barack Obama is also casting an eye beyond
Jan. 20, 2017, when his post-presidency begins. We’ve learned that his
presidential library will be in Chicago, and he will continue to advocate
for young minority men.

Mr. Obama’s slow pivot to his retirement coincides with renewed controversy
over how Bill Clinton has conducted his, especially around donors to the
Clinton Global Initiative and possible conflicts of interest during Hillary
Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Some assessments of Mr.
Clinton’s post-presidential career have become extremely critical.

Which of Mr. Obama’s predecessors have been the best ex-presidents and
which have been the worst? ...

Best

Engaged in important work, sometimes at a level that exceeded White House
accomplishments.

John Quincy Adams

After losing badly to Andrew Jackson in 1828, he re-entered politics almost
immediately and served nearly 20 years in the House of Representatives.
While in Congress, he was chairman of multiple committees, fought
vigorously against slavery and helped bring the Nullification Crisis to an
end. He was instrumental in ensuring that James Smithson’s fortune built
the Smithsonian Institution and successfully argued before the Supreme
Court on behalf of African slaves who had revolted against their Spanish
captors and seized the slave ship Amistad.

Jimmy Carter

President Carter has been out of office for 34 years and counting. He is
renowned for his work with Habitat for Humanity, and his foundation, the
Carter Center, has done extraordinary work promoting democracy, human
rights and global health. Of particular note is the foundation’s effort to
eradicate the Guinea worm, which has helped lead to infections dropping
from 3.5 million in 1986, when the foundation began combating the problem,
to around 100 in 2014. Critics, however, allege the foundation gave its
approval to questionable election processes in Venezuela in 2004.

William Howard Taft

Eight years after leaving the presidency, Taft became chief justice of the
United States. He held the post, which had long been his dream job, from
1921 to 1930. Taft was the author of more than 250 opinions and became well
respected for his role as a jurist, appearing in the Top 20 in some
academic rankings of the greatest Supreme Court justices. He also led
reform efforts to streamline the Supreme Court’s organization and give it
greater control over which cases it hears, and led the charge for a new
Supreme Court building, though it would not be completed until after his
death.

Herbert Hoover

He lived three decades after leaving office at 58. He campaigned against
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and rebuked Harry Truman’s decision to drop
the bomb on Japan in 1945 and his aggressive approach to the Cold War. But
he also led essential administrative efforts, including international
relief in Europe during World War II and food distribution in
famine-stricken parts of the world. Hoover later was chairman of the Hoover
Commission, from 1947 to 1949, which proposed reforms to strengthen the
executive branch and helped make the modern presidency.

Worst

Took strong positions against the national interest and undermined
successors for personal and political reasons.

John Tyler

Tyler became an advocate for Southern secession from the Union and was
elected to the Confederacy’s House of Representatives, though he died
before he could be sworn in. At the time of his death, many in the North
considered him a traitor, a position Jefferson Davis’s political
exploitation of his funeral did little to combat. Even though his coffin
was draped with a Confederate flag, it should be noted that Tyler was
chairman of the 1861 Virginia peace convention in a commendable, if failed,
effort to avert civil war.

Millard Fillmore

After leaving office in 1853, Fillmore ran again as the Know-Nothing
Party’s candidate in 1856. He lost, but still helped prevent John C.
Frémont, a Republican, from defeating James Buchanan, who went on to be the
worst president in American history, according to numerous scholarly
studies. Fillmore continued to take positions on the wrong side of history,
from his support of the Constitutional Union Party (which placed priority
on maintaining the union above all else, including ending slavery) in 1860
to his disdain for the Emancipation Proclamation.

Franklin Pierce

A staunch critic of Abraham Lincoln throughout the Civil War, Pierce’s
opposition to the 16th president was so renowned he became the subject of
rumors that he was involved in a planned uprising against the government,
which would replace Lincoln’s administration with a provisional government
and put in office a president more sympathetic to the Southern states.
Although these claims would ultimately be revealed as a hoax, the public
remained suspicious of his loyalty to the country. A longtime drinker,
Pierce ultimately succumbed to cirrhosis of the liver in 1869.

Teddy Roosevelt

After leaving office, he went on an African safari with a group that killed
hundreds of animals, including rare species like the white rhino. Upon his
return, he undermined his chosen successor, William Howard Taft. After a
failed challenge to Taft for the 1912 Republican presidential nomination,
Roosevelt formed the Progressive Party, known as the Bull Moose Party,
which split the Republicans and helped elect Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt
railed against Wilson, too, helping the Republicans win back Congress in
1918, which would play a key role in the defeat of Wilson’s League of
Nations plan.

Studies and rankings in that area are rare, compared with those that rate
or rank presidential greatness, which has become something of an
intellectual cottage industry. Indeed, in the most recent poll of
professional presidency watchers — which I conducted with Brandon
Rottinghaus of the University of Houston — Mr. Obama found a place at No.
18.

In looking at the recipe for post-presidential greatness, an analysis of
his predecessors suggests equal parts opportunity, activity and incentive.

First, presidents need to stay alive after leaving office long enough to
have a chance to provide meaningful service. Those who do need to also
accomplish something significant beyond campaigning for their fellow
partisans, burnishing their legacy and cutting the ribbon at the
groundbreaking of their library.

Many of our greatest presidents would not — indeed, could not — make the
list. Fully one-half of all presidents died either in office or within a
decade of decamping from the White House. Favorites like Abraham Lincoln,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy died as presidents, and
others, including near-greats Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan and Lyndon B.
Johnson, suffered health problems that severely constrained their
post-presidential activities.

As one study shows, the presidents most likely to engage in ambitious
post-presidencies were those who either resigned or failed to win
re-election. Consider, for example, Richard M. Nixon’s purposeful
post-presidency: In addition to writing several books, he represented
presidents abroad in sticky diplomatic situations and became a respected
elder statesman.

Our greatest ex-presidents have engaged in important work, sometimes at a
level that rivaled their accomplishments in the White House. Our worst
ex-presidents, on the other hand, have been noteworthy for taking strong
positions against the national interest and consistently undermining their
successors for personal and political reasons.

If Mr. Obama seeks an alternative to Mr. Clinton’s path, George H. W. Bush
offers a model. He has been the very picture of post-presidential dignity,
retiring to Houston, where he is loath to criticize his successors or
appear on the national stage, except for the occasional birthday sky-dive
or to raise funds for natural disaster relief.

President Obama would do well to chart an active course that makes a
difference but avoids partisan entanglements and financial controversy.

*MISCELLANEOUS*

*N.H. political veterans talk about what it takes to throw a good campaign
event
<http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/16810575-95/setting-the-stage-nh-political-veterans-talk-about-what-it-takes-to-throw-a>
// Concord Monitor // Casey McDermott - May 24, 2015*

If you’re a presidential candidate looking to make your mark in New
Hampshire, the old adage rings true: Location, location, location.

There’s no shortage of iconic campaign stops that have produced legendary
primary moments over the years, but when voters show up to a town hall, a
house party, a Politics and Eggs breakfast, a parade or any other
pre-planned event, they’re only seeing half of it.

Just about any veteran strategist who’s navigated the Granite State
campaign trail agrees that a location can say a lot about a candidate.

“You can tell a lot about a candidate’s strategy – where they think their
voters are – by where they go,” said veteran Republican strategist Tom Rath.

As much as the place itself, a good campaign stop is also about the people
who show up or lend a hand behind the scenes, about the potential for photo
ops, about the press access, about the broader message, about paying homage
to New Hampshire traditions without revisiting the same list of places
candidates have been frequenting for decades.

“New Hampshire primary history is filled with really historic and
meaningful sites, it is a challenge to find the right balance,” said Jim
Merrill, who’s handled his fair share of location scouting assignments
through the years and serves as a senior adviser to Marco Rubio’s campaign.
“The challenge and the joy of each cycle is finding the new places folks
haven’t gone to before.”

There are places like the Merrimack VFW post or the Old Bow Town Hall — no
better way to illustrate a candidate’s appreciation for New Hampshire’s
civically active electorate than to meet them at one of these community
institutions.

Then there are the greasy spoons and cafes: Chez Vachon, the Red Arrow, the
Tilt’n Diner and the like. Candidates are almost guaranteed to find people
who otherwise might not attend a political event, and it makes for a fun
photo op. There’s little control over who’s in the room, and these can
yield especially unscripted moments with voters. And those who don’t win
the presidency can at least get their name or campaign sticker adorned on a
booth.

Large rallies like the ones held in the past at the State House, Concord
High School or local colleges attract plenty of attention in the media and
otherwise, but these venues come with some risk as candidates have to place
bets on whether they’ll draw large enough crowds to fill the space.

In the summer, candidates benefit from the state’s lineup of parades and
festivals – which offer great exposure and require little energy from
campaign staff. Candidates often just have to show up, shake hands and
smile.

And for more formal policy conversations, presidential hopefuls can tailor
“roundtable” discussions to suit their intended themes: a community college
to talk about education, a high tech company to talk about business or
energy, a defense firm to talk about national security, and so on.

And that thrill Merrill mentioned about finding just the right New
Hampshire spot for a presidential candidate’s appearance crosses party
lines. Mike Vlacich, who’s leading Hillary Clinton’s team in New Hampshire
after years of working on local campaigns, approaches the challenge with
equal enthusiasm.

“What I like about this cycle is the conversations both parties are having
about how to bring candidates back to the living room and back to the small
businesses,” Vlacich said. “While there is always going to be a role for
the large venues. . . . What’s important is that we’re all working hard to
get back to a place where we can keep the primary unique and special and
having the candidates have a conversation with people, not talk at people.”

The way Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern sees it, the candidates who
visit New Hampshire can be broken up into three tiers. There’s the first
tier, the lowest: These are the ones who focus mostly on optics, using the
state “as a backdrop for the national media.” Then there’s the next level:
These ones recognize that the first-in-the-nation primary state gives them
an opportunity to “shake a lot of hands and meet a lot of people,” and to
make a dent in their standing. “That’s valuable,” Van Ostern noted,
“because we’re not a big state.”

And then there are, in his eyes, the top-tier candidates: the ones who take
the time to do more than shake hands and take pictures, and use it as a
chance to really listen.

“Not only does it help them win over New Hampshire voters,” said Van
Ostern, a Hillary Clinton supporter whose resume includes work on a few
high-profile campaigns, “but it makes them a better candidate.”

Advice for beginners: Try ‘borrowing’ a crowd

New Hampshire is especially well-suited for underdogs who might not have
the kind of staff and resources to launch a campaign with lots of bells and
whistles.

“Oftentimes, you’ll see candidates borrowing someone else’s crowd,” said
Fergus Cullen, a former state Republican Party chairman who’s working on a
book about the history of the New Hampshire primary.

Local civic organizations – like, say, a rotary club or a VFW post – can
help on this front. Often, these groups can also boost a candidate’s
turnout by spreading the word to their existing members and encouraging
them to share with their networks.

Likewise, Cullen and other strategists said, long-running traditions like
“Politics and Eggs” can be ideal for candidates in the early stages of a
campaign. That event, hosted by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics and
the New England Council, has the added benefit of bringing out people from
both parties – regardless of who’s speaking.

“Those are great events for the beginning of a campaign and newer
candidates,” said Terry Shumaker, a Hillary Clinton supporter and a former
co-chair of Bill Clinton’s campaign in New Hampshire. “It doesn’t take a
lot of staff. The event is built – you just pretty much have to show up,
make your remarks and take questions.”

These pre-packaged events, however, can only take a candidate so far.

“The real point of graduation is, can they start doing events where they’re
responsible for their own audience?” Cullen added. “Some of them never get
to that point.”

Setting the stage

Back in the 1960s, when Rath was getting his start working on political
campaigns as a student at Dartmouth, his pre-event responsibilities mostly
consisted of showing up somewhere in Grafton County a few hours before the
event and making some coffee.

“The advance was not nearly as glamorous,” he said, now with the benefit of
decades of presidential campaigns under his belt.

Today, Rath and others said campaigns live and die by their ability to
solicit interest and size up a potential crowd before an event even begins.
A candidate can use his or her list of supporters (or in some cases, a list
of voters rented from another campaign) to send invitations to precisely
the kind of voters they want to attend.

“It’s not just where you go, it’s how you get the people in the room that
you want there,” Rath said. “That’s become much more focused and pinpointed
as we have data. ‘Oh, you should call Voter X because he or she is likely
to be a Romney supporter.’ ”

With larger venues, it becomes especially important for campaigns to figure
out how many people they think they can get to show up. Too few people to
fill a room, and they risk looking like they’re lacking interest.

“You want to make the point that you are cresting here, that you have
momentum,” Rath said.

Too many people, on the other hand, and they run the risk of getting into
trouble with local authorities. Though, as Shumaker can attest, that’s not
always necessarily a bad thing.

Recalling a Clinton campaign event back in October 1991 at a Merrimack
venue, Shumaker said: “The place was so full you couldn’t move, the fire
marshal threatened to close the event down.” When the press heard about it
and pushed out reports over the wires, he said, “the national campaign was
ecstatic.”

Both Rath and Shumaker said it’s important, too, to strike a balance
between creating an environment that allows for robust press coverage
without allowing the media circus to overtake the event. Clinton’s team
used a press pooling system to cover some of the private stops during her
first New Hampshire visits, and other campaigns’ staffers have privately
floated the possibility of pooling events to keep the media logistics more
manageable.

“You don’t want the gaggle to get in the way of the others, you’ve got to
think that through. You want the coverage, but you don’t want to make the
voters unhappy with it,” Rath said. “You’ve got to be very careful with the
care and feeding of the press.”

Scaling back

The Clinton campaign, in particular, has drawn some criticism for its
approach thus far on the campaign trail. During her first visit to New
Hampshire as a 2016 presidential candidate, Clinton stuck to small
gatherings at supporters’ homes, roundtables at a small business and NHTI,
and a meeting with Democratic legislators at the party’s headquarters in
Concord this time around.

The contrast between 2008 and 2016 isn’t lost on the campaign or its
closest supporters. Last time around, Clinton launched her campaign here
with larger public events. Vlacich says the initial roll-out with smaller
events is meant to breed more meaningful discussions.

“While that might result in us not necessarily being able to see thousands
of people as you would in a gym, you’re able to have that more intense
conversation,” Vlacich said.

Shumaker, who’s been through campaign cycles with both Clintons, said
balancing the need for a certain level of security with access is a
challenge – but not necessarily a new one. When Bill Clinton was running
for re-election in the mid-1990s, Shumaker said, the president’s secret
service teams came up with all sorts of new security approaches to allow
him to mingle with crowds without being too inhibited by bodyguards.

Now, Shumaker said Hillary Clinton’s high profile – and a heightened
sensitivity to security, overall – also necessitates a certain layer of
protection for the candidate.

“You just have to grin and bear it,” Shumaker said. “It’s a sign of the
times. We’re learning how to work with it.”

Playing host

Outside of diner stops or town halls, there’s also the living rooms, the
backyards and – in some cases – the barnyards. For candidates who are
really looking to solidify their first-in-the-nation credentials, it’s hard
to overstate the importance of getting an influential local to invite them
into their home.

These events are ideal for making personal connections with potential
voters who can then go and tell all of their friends about the presidential
hopeful they just met, strategists on both sides say.

“If a really important supporter or somebody you want to be a supporter
wants you to do a house party at (their) house, it would probably be unwise
not to do it,” Shumaker said. “And also people are generally able to make
sure that house is full.”

If that supporter also happens to own one of New Hampshire’s famous
political farms, even better. Luckily for those on both sides, each party
has one of their own: For the Democrats, it’s been former State senator
Peter Burling’s farm in Cornish; for Republicans, it’s been former state
lawmakers’ Doug and Stella Scamman’s farm in Stratham. These settings can
offer the best elements of a New Hampshire campaign – a connection to a
politically active host, an atmosphere that feels personal but still offers
plenty of space for crowds, and a great backdrop for photos.

In Burling’s case, the events at his place also acted as prime fund-raising
opportunities for the House Democratic Caucus. When it came to preparing
food, setting up chairs or otherwise preparing, Burling also said he was
lucky to have plenty of help.

“At the very least there were 100 active Democrats who were eager to help
and participate in whatever event there was,” Burling said. “I started out
with one of the largest armies of volunteers anybody in the country could
assemble.”

Doug Scamman said he hasn’t yet finalized plans to host another party at
his farm this year.

“People keep asking me if we’re going to, we haven’t decided whom we’re
going to support yet,” he said in an interview a few weeks ago.

Like Burling, he doesn’t see the ordeal of hosting candidates to be too
much of a burden, and he likes giving crowds – in one case, several
thousand who turned out to see George W. Bush – another chance to see a
candidate.

“I think people put a little stock in the fact that we’ve studied
candidates and we feel strongly about it,” Scamman said. “To allow people
who come and listen to see what candidates have to say, and they decide if
they agree with us or not.”

And while Burling said he, too, hasn’t finalized any plans for hosting a
party this year, he’s watching eagerly as the Democratic field – while
substantially smaller than the Republican one – starts to take shape.

“One of the reasons I’m so delighted to see Bernie Sanders and Martin
O’Malley get into the Democratic primary – that’s going to make all of this
possible,” Burling said of traditional New Hampshire campaign festivities.
“Otherwise, I think it’s very easy to have Secretary Clinton’s campaign
become a scripted, controlled event.”

*Alexandria Phillips*

*Press Assistant | Communications*

Hillary for America | 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.