Subject: H4A News Clips 6.2.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 07:29:55 -0400
List-Id: <HRCRapid.hillaryclinton.com>

*H4A News Clips*

*June 2, 2015*

*SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS*

Yesterday Hillary for America announced that the location of her official
campaign launch speech will be in New York City on Roosevelt Island. On
June 13, she is expected to lay out her vision for the future of the
country and explain to voters why she is the right person to lead it there.
The speech will be followed by an organizing meeting in Iowa with
volunteers that will be simulcast with volunteers in every Congressional
district. And, the meeting will be followed by HRC travel through the early
primary states.

Hillary Clinton said Monday that past advances made by the LGBT community
should be recognized during Pride celebrations this month, but noted that
more work remains. In a statement to the Washington Blade, she recognized
June as Pride month, calling for a rededication to complete the work of
improving the lives of people everywhere. Tuesday the Hillary for America
merchandise store will launch the new limited edition Hillary for America
Pride shop.

There is a new national CNN poll Tuesday morning which shows an increase in
HRC's unfavorable rating but the polling just puts in it line with other
previously released national polls.

On Monday, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham announce his candidacy for
President. He is the ninth GOP candidate to announce.

*LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS*

ABC and CBS both reported on Lindsey Graham entering the presidential race,
noting that he said he has more national security and foreign policy
experience than any other contender in the race, including HRC. NBC had a
brief report on NSA telephone surveillance, noting that Rand Paul is
insisting that the government should be required to have a warrant when
monitoring private phones.

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

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

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

*Hillary sets venue for first big rally: Roosevelt Island* // Politico //
Annie Karni – June 1, 2015....... 4

*EXCLUSIVE: Clinton looks to the future in Pride statement* // Washington
Blade // Chris Johnson – June 1,
2015..................................................................................................................................................
5

*Poll: New speed bumps for Clinton* // CNN // Jennifer Agiesta – June 2,
2015................................ 7

*Republican Lindsey Graham Announces 2016 Presidential Campaign* //
Bloomberg // David Weigel – June 1,
2015...........................................................................................................................................
9

*SOCIAL
MEDIA...............................................................................................
**12*

*David Axelrod (5/31/15, 8:23 AM)* - O'Malley is a dynamic, accomplished
guy. But he was all in for HRC in '08, so isn't it  a bit awkward to rail
against "royal families"
now?........................................................... 12

*America Rising PAC (6/1/15, 8:14 AM*) - Watch what happens when a
@HillaryClinton supporter asks her to sign
something.................................................................................................................................
12

*Philip Rucker (6/1/15, 9:24 AM)* - Clinton to show organizational force by
simulcasting its meeting in nearly all 435 cong districts. What other camp
can pull that
off?................................................................. 12

*Alexis Levinson (6/1/15, 2:28)* - Kathleen Matthews, wife of Hardball's
Chris Matthews, will make Wednesday anncmt about House bid for #MD08, per
release........................................................................
12

*Paul Steinhauser (6/1/15, 6:48 PM)* – 2016 News: @HillaryClinton to
headline Manchester #NH Democrats Flag Day Dinner on n June 15 #nhpolitics
#fitn #nh1news ................................................................
12

*HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE.........................................................................
**12*

*Clinton Lawyer Accuses Wisconsin of Trying to Suppress the Vote* // NYT //
Maggie Haberman – June 1,
2015.................................................................................................................................................
12

*Journalists Meet To Discuss Frustration With Clinton Campaign's Control
Over Access And Information* // HuffPo // Michael Calderone – June 1,
2015...........................................................................................
13

*Hillary Clinton Focuses on Drug Addiction After Learning Scale of Problem*
// NYT // Amy Chozick – June 1,
2015.................................................................................................................................................
15

*It's time for the media to admit that Hillary Clinton is popular* // Vox
// Matthew Yglesias – June 1, 2015       16

*Hillary Clinton Still Strong in Iowa Poll, Though Negative News Is a
Concern* // NYT // Trip Gabriel – June 1,
2015................................................................................................................................................
18

*Here’s the best news for Hillary Clinton in that new Iowa poll* // WaPo//
Chris Cillizza – June 1, 2015               19

*Meet the woman behind Hillary Clinton's Twitter account* // Fortune //
Nina Easton – June 1, 2015 20

*Hillary Clinton camp seeks to both raise and lower expectations* // WaPo
// Anne Gearan – June 1, 2015        21

*Clinton campaign emails Ready for Hillary list* // Capital NY – June 1,
2015................................. 22

*Watchdog accuses Clinton campaign of illegally obtaining email list from
super PAC* // Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – June 1,
2015.................................................................................................
23

*Hillary Clinton to Rally in New York, Then Tour Early Voting States* //
NYT // Amy Chozick – June 1, 2015     24

*For Clinton, a big rally on a small island* // Reuters // Jonathan Allen –
June 1, 2015................... 24

*Hillary Clinton to launch campaign from one of New York’s least-accessible
public places* // Washington Post //Philip Bump – June 1,
2015....................................................................................................
26

*Hillary Clinton’s “Grassroots Campaign” Sets $1,000 Minimum for a
Conversation* // Firstlook // Lee Fang – June 1,
2015......................................................................................................................................
27

*Hedge Fund Giant Tells Hillary Clinton to Cut the 'Crap'* // Bloomberg //
David Knowles – June 1, 2015          27

*Journalists Meet To Discuss Frustration With Clinton Campaign's Control
Over Access And Information* // HuffPo // Michael Calderone – June 1,
2015...........................................................................................
29

*New York Times reporter blows up Clinton campaign’s ‘background’ e-mail*
// WaPo // Erik Wemple –June 1,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
31

*Hillary Clinton coming back to S.C.* // The State – June 1,
2015.................................................... 32

*Secret effort to sell Hillary Clinton to rich liberals* // Politico //
KENNETH P. VOGEL – June 2, 2015 32

*Hillary Clinton Returning to L.A. for June 19 Fundraising Swing* //
Variety // Ted Johnson – June 1, 2015      36

*Tobey Maguire among Hollywood players hosting Hillary Clinton in June L.A.
swing* // WaPo // Matea Gold – June 2,
2015..............................................................................................................................
36

*Clinton supporters target Vermont* // Burlington Free Press // April
Burbank – June 1, 2015........ 37

*Hillary Clinton back in Bay Area on June 20* // San Jose Mercury News //
Josh Richman – June 1, 2015           37

*Marco Rubio And Rand Paul Pose Greatest Threat To Hillary Clinton* // The
Federalist // Emily Ekins – June 1,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
38

*Dan Pfeiffer: Hillary Is ‘Going To Have To Engage The Press’* // Daily
Caller // Al Weaver – June 1, 2015          41

*20 things for Hillary Clinton to worry about* // WaPo // Jennifer Rubin –
June 1, 2015.................. 42

*The Presidential Candidates’ 404 Pages, Ranked* // Yahoo // Daniel Bean –
June 1, 2015............. 43

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE............................................ **45*

*The race is on to become Hillary Clinton alternative*// CNN // Eric
Bradner - June 2, 2015............ 45

*Martin O’Malley’s first challenge: Bernie Sanders* // MSNBC // Alex
Seitz-Wald – 6/1/15.............. 47

*Martin O’Malley misses his chance: How Hillary Clinton closed off his
biggest 2016 opening* // Salon // Simon Maloy – June 1,
2015.................................................................................................................
49

*O’Malley’s Bad Timing* // Washington Monthly // Ed Kilgore – June 1,
2015................................ 51

*O'Malley on changing his mind about Clinton: 'Times change'* // Politico
// Nick Gass – June 1, 2015 52

*O'Malley, stumping in N.H., sells himself as alternative to Clinton * //
Baltimore Sun // John Fritze – May 31,
2015................................................................................................................................................
52

*Martin O’Malley is targeting Latino voters* // WaPo // Arelis H. Hernández
– June 1, 2015........... 55

*Martin O'Malley's ritzy taste can be off-putting* // Page Six // Richard
Johnson – June 1, 2015...... 56

*Martin O'Malley: 2016 Democratic Candidate Says, 'We Need to Get Things
Done Again'* // ABC News // Maryalice Parks – June 1,
2015...................................................................................................
57

*Martin O'Malley's Hometown Challenge* // ABC News // Maryalice Parks – May
31, 2015............. 58

*Martin O’Malley, mild-mannered man: Why the media are yawning* // Fox News
// Howard Kurtz – June 1,
2015................................................................................................................................................
59

*What are Martin O'Malley's chances of being Mr. Liberal 2016?* // Yahoo
News // Peter Grier – June 1, 2015  61

*New Evidence That Bernie Sanders Is Gaining Ground in One Key State* //
Policy.Mic // Zeeshan Aleem – June 1,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
61

*Bernie Sanders pleads for more debates* // Politico // Dylan Byers – June
1, 2015........................ 63

*GOP................................................................................................................
**64*

*Lindsey Graham on the Issues* // NYT // Gerry Mullany- June 1,
2015.......................................... 64

*Lindsey Graham, in announcing White House run, gets personal* // Politico
// Katie Glueck – June 1, 2015    65

*Graham Begins Foreign Policy-Focused Bid* // Bloomberg // Mark Halperin –
June 1, 2015.......... 68

Style: B- Substance: B- Overall:
B-.............................................................................................
68

*Lindsey Graham has a plan to win the GOP nomination. If it works, it’d be
a first.* // WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – June 1,
2015..............................................................................................................................
68

*Lindsey Graham joins crowded 2016 presidential field* // MSNBC // Benjy
Sarlin – June 1, 2015... 70

*The Lindsey Graham record: A lot like John McCain, who also ran for
president* // Yahoo News // Meredith Shiner – June 1,
2015...........................................................................................................................
72

*Little Sister Lauds Lindsey Graham, the Bachelor, for Raising Her* // NYT
// Alan Rappeport – June 1, 2015  73

*Paul: I was exaggerating on my terror attack claim* // MSNBC //Aliyah
Frumin and Anthony Terrell – June 1,
2015................................................................................................................................................
74

*Paul campaign video appears to run afoul of Senate rules* // Politico //
Burgess Everett – May 31, 2015            76

*Rand Paul’s “sugar daddy” problem: Billionaires don’t love him — but that
could be a blessing in disguise* // Salon // Jim Newell – June 1,
2015......................................................................................................
76

*GOP senators tear into Paul* // Politico // Manu Raju and Burgess Everett
– May 31, 2015............ 77

*Mike Huckabee to Rand Paul: Decide what job you want* // CNN // Gregory
Wallace – June 1, 2015 80

*Rand Paul's Stand Against the Patriot Act Is About More Than Mass
Surveillance* // Policy.Mic // Mark Kogan – June 1,
2015..............................................................................................................................
81

*Rand Paul is getting way too much credit for killing 3 Patriot Act powers*
// Vox // Timothy B. Lee – June 1,
2015................................................................................................................................................
83

*Dick Cheney and Daughter Push Hawkish Stances for G.O.P. Hopefuls* // NYT
// Jonathan Martin – June 1,
2015................................................................................................................................................
85

*How Bobby Jindal lost everything: A one-time GOP hope, gutted by Grover
Norquist worship and his own ambition* // Salon // Stephanie Grace – June
1, 2015...................................................................
87

*UPDATE: Walker backs 20-week abortion ban with or without exemption* //
NBC 15 – June 1, 2015 90

*Jeb Bush Faces Challenge in Winning Over Brother’s Team* // NYT // Peter
Baker – June 1, 2015. 91

*Huckabee: Two-State Solution Is “Irrational, Unworkable” — Room For
Palestinian State Elsewhere* // Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski – June 1,
2015...........................................................................................
94

*Marco Rubio's appealing ambiguity* // The Week // Michael Brendan
Dougherty – June 1, 2015... 95

*Trump: I won’t do straw poll if everyone backs out* // The Des Moines
Register // Josh Hafner – June 1,
2015..............................................................................................................................................
100

*TOP
NEWS....................................................................................................
**102*

*DOMESTIC................................................................................................
**102*

*Senate to Take Up Spy Bill as Parts of Patriot Act Expire* // NYT //
Jennifer Steinhauer – June 1, 2015              102

*Muslim Woman Denied Job Over Head Scarf Wins in Supreme Court* // NYT //
Adam Liptak - June 1, 2015   105

*Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Online Threats Case* // NYT // Adam
Liptak – June 1, 2015 106

*Caitlyn Jenner, Formerly Bruce, Introduces Herself in Vanity Fair* // NYT
// Ravi Somaiya – June 1, 2015       107

*California Senate votes to raise state minimum wage to $13 in 2017 - LA
Times* // LA Times // Patrick McGreevy – June 1,
2015............................................................................................................................
109

*INTERNATIONAL......................................................................................
**110*

*Islamic State Advances Further Into Syria’s Aleppo Province* // WSJ //
Raja Abdulrahim – June 1, 2015          110

*What’s actually in Obama’s secret trade deal?* // Politico // Michael
Grunwald – June 1, 2015..... 112

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS................................................................
**114*

*The more the merrier: Democratic candidates for 2016* // CNN // Dan
Pfeiffer – June 1, 2015....... 115

*Why Hillary should stop running as the incumbent* // WaPo // Joel
Achenbach – June 1, 2015... 116

*Populism Strains Both Parties; Can They Adapt?* // WSJ // Gerald F. Seib –
June 1, 2015............ 117

*How to Kill the Background Briefing* // National Journal // Ron Fournier –
June 1, 2015............. 119

*NYT The Upshot: G.O.P. Women in Congress: Why So Few?* // NYT // Derek
Willis – June 1, 2015 123

*A Bad Voting Ban in Maryland* // NYT // The Editorial Board – June 1,
2015.............................. 125

*Congress Should Extend PATRIOT Act Provisions to Keep Us Safe* //Medium //
Jeb Bush – June 1, 2015        126

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES*

*Hillary sets venue for first big rally: Roosevelt Island
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-rally-roosevelt-island-118500.html>
// Politico // Annie Karni – June 1, 2015*

The solemn memorial park at the southern tip of Roosevelt Island, Four
Freedoms Park, will serve as the backdrop for Hillary Clinton’s first
significant speech as a presidential candidate on June 13, when she is
expected to lay out her vision for the future of the country and explain to
voters why she is the right person to lead it there.

The park, designed by architect Louis Kahn and dedicated in 2012, honors
the “four freedoms” Franklin D. Roosevelt outlined in his 1941 State of the
Union address — freedom of speech, religion, freedom from want and freedom
from fear. The symbolic backdrop won out over other potential sites for
Clinton’s “vision” speech that were floated to the campaign by supporters,
such as Seneca Falls, N.Y., the site of the first women’s rights convention
in 1848.

In announcing the venue for the much-anticipated speech, the campaign
emphasized Clinton’s long admiration of both Franklin and Eleanor
Roosevelt. Clinton is expected to be joined at the kick-off speech by her
family, Chelsea and Bill Clinton. It won’t mark their first time there:
Bill Clinton was one of the speakers at the 2012 dedication ceremony of the
park.

Clinton’s New York speech will be open to the public and tickets will be
free, according to the campaign website. But that message came with a big
disclaimer: tickets do not guarantee admission and the rally will fill up
on a first-come, first-served basis. A spokesman said it was not clear yet
how many supporters the venue would accommodate.

The big rally will mark a break from the intimate roundtables Clinton has
participated in during the first two months of her campaign. The speech
comes almost two months to the day after Clinton formally announced her
presidential bid, and will be followed up by her busiest week on the trail
yet: Clinton will fly directly to Iowa Saturday night, marking her third
visit there since announcing, followed by stops in New Hampshire, South
Carolina and Nevada — all early states she has already visited at least
once during the ramp up phase of her campaign.

The Iowa organizing meeting that Clinton will participate in on Saturday
evening will be simulcast at organizing meetings planned for nearly all of
the country’s 435 congressional districts, campaign officials said.

Clinton’s campaign is already lowering expectations as they explain how the
former secretary of state will fight for every vote and not take the
primary for granted — even while her challengers so far remain side players
in the 2016 drama. In Iowa, the campaign pointed out, no Democratic
presidential candidate has ever received more than 50 percent of the caucus
vote, unless they were a sitting president, vice-president, or Iowa Sen.
Tom Harkin, who ran in 1992. In New Hampshire, the campaign underscored, no
Democrat in a contested primary in the last 25 years has won by more than
27,000 votes, or received more than 50 percent of the vote.

But the campaign is building up the rally as a dramatic beginning of a new
phase of the campaign. “Thousands of Americans coming together to hear
Hillary lay out her vision for the future of our country,” is how campaign
chairman John Podesta described it in an email. “All at one of the most
spectacular locations you’ll ever see.”

*EXCLUSIVE: Clinton looks to the future in Pride statement
<http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/06/01/exclusive-clinton-looks-to-the-future-in-pride-statement/#sthash.n6QIln0h.qxCmVE3D.dpuf>
// Washington Blade // Chris Johnson – June 1, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Monday past advances
made by the LGBT community should be recognized during Pride celebrations
this month, but noted that more work remains.

In an exclusive statement to the Washington Blade, the former secretary of
state recognized June as Pride month, calling for a rededication to
complete the work of improving the lives of people everywhere.

“Each June, we honor the contributions of the LGBTQ community and proudly
reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that every member of the American
family can live, work, and marry the person they love without enduring
discrimination or prejudice,” Clinton said. “As we celebrate the
hard-fought progress that has been made toward advancing the rights of
LGBTQ Americans, we must also recognize that this work is far from
finished. I hope that each and every one of us will dedicate ourselves to
building a future in which every person can live in dignity, free from
violence or fear, free to be themselves, free to live up to their God-given
potential no matter where they live or who they are — this month and every
month.”

Clinton made the statement on the same day she issued a message via Twitter
hinting that, like many LGBT Americans, she’s awaiting good news from the
Supreme Court on same-sex marriage. This month, justices are expected to
issue a decision on whether same-sex couples have a right to marry
nationwide.

As of the time of this posting, neither former Maryland Gov. Martin
O’Malley nor U.S. Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) — other Democratic
candidates in the race — had issued statements this year recognizing June
as Pride month, nor had any of the Republican presidential candidates.

Clinton, who enjoys considerable support in the LGBT community, issued the
statement shortly after calling on the Supreme Court to issue a nationwide
ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. She’s also spoken out against
religious freedom measures in Indiana and Arkansas seen to enable
discrimination against LGBT people.

Among her achievements on behalf of the LGBT community as a U.S. senator
are advocating for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and twice voting
against a U.S. constitutional amendment that would have barred same-sex
marriage throughout the country.

During her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton coined the phrase “gay
rights are human rights” during a Pride celebration at the State Department
and delivered a high-profile speech in Geneva in favor of LGBT human rights
across the globe.

But Clinton didn’t articulate support for same-sex marriage until 2013 and
before that time said her position was that she opposed gay nuptials. In a
later interview with National Public Radio, she advocated a state-by-state
approach to advancing marriage rights for same-sex couples. Two weeks
before oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Clinton made clear she believes
same-sex couples should have a constitutional right to marry.

According to a Clinton aide, staff and volunteers are set to participate in
a number of Pride events and parades throughout the country during the
month of June.

*Poll: New speed bumps for Clinton
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-gop-field-close/>
// CNN // Jennifer Agiesta – June 2, 2015*

More people have an unfavorable view of Democratic front-runner Hillary
Clinton now than at any time since 2001, according to a new CNN/ORC poll on
the 2016 race.

While Clinton remains strikingly dominant in the Democratic field, the poll
shows that her numbers have dropped significantly across several key
indicators since she launched her campaign in April.

A growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy (57%, up
from 49% in March), less than half feel she cares about people like them
(47%, down from 53% last July) and more now feel she does not inspire
confidence (50%, up from 42% last March).

In head-to-head match-ups against top Republicans, her margin is tighter
than it has been at any point in CNN/ORC's polling on the contest.

On the Republican side, though, no candidate has successfully broken out of
the pack.

The group of seven that have come to dominate most polling on the race hold
the top of the charts in this poll, Sen. Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush leading
the pack with Mike Huckabee, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Ted Cruz,
Ben Carson and Sen. Rand Paul all in the hunt.

Much of Clinton's fade is attributable to shifts among independents, but
she's also losing some ground among her own partisans. Her support in the
Democratic nomination contest has dropped 9 points since April, and though
more than 8-in-10 Democrats said they thought she was honest and
trustworthy earlier this year; now, just 73% say so.

The new CNN/ORC poll looking at the shape of the race for the presidency in
2016 finds these warning signs for Clinton, alongside some concerns for the
Republican Party's best-known contender, Jeb Bush.

Jeb Bush's family ties

Bush's efforts to separate himself from his brother have worked to some
extent. Only about half of Americans say Bush is "a lot like his brother."

But most -- 56% -- say his connection to two former presidents would make
them less likely to back him for the presidency. Just 27% say that
connection would make them more likely to back the former Florida governor.

That's virtually the opposite situation of what his brother faced when
George W. Bush made his initial run for the presidency in 1999. Back then,
42% said Bush's connection to his father made them more likely to back him,
while only 24% said it was a deterrent.

Bush's family ties are slightly more of a draw for Republicans, but not by
much. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 42% say
they're more likely to back Jeb Bush because of his connections, while 38%
say they are less likely to vote for him because of that.

No leader emerges in the GOP pack

For the bulk of the GOP field, however, the race for the Republican
nomination remains an effort to distinguish themselves from the pack and no
one has yet succeeded at that.

Though there has been some shuffling at the top of the GOP order since the
last CNN/ORC poll in April, no individual candidate's movement lies outside
of the margin of sampling error.

Rubio tops the field with 14%, with Bush near even at 13%. Huckabee and
Walker follow at 10% each, with Cruz (8%), Paul (8%) and Carson (7%) all
within striking distance of double-digit support.

Paul prompts the largest gender gap on the GOP side, drawing 13% and tying
for first among men while garnering just 2% support among women.

The top of the field is similar among conservative Republicans to the
overall horse race numbers, but among those who consider themselves tea
party supporters, there's a clear leader: Scott Walker with 19% support.
His closest competitor is Ted Cruz with 12%.

Overall, about half of Republicans (49%) would like to see the field
resolve early, saying it would be best for the party if one strong
candidate emerged early as a clear frontrunner. But 46% say they would
prefer a longer campaign, with a number of strong contenders competing over
the next year.

One possible differentiator emerges: The poll finds a distinct difference
in which candidates Republicans view as representing the future rather than
the past.

Three-quarters of Republicans describe Marco Rubio (77%) or Scott Walker
(75%) as representing the future, nearly 7-in-10 say so about Rand Paul
(68%), but Bush (51%) and Christie (51%) are far less likely to be seen as
representative of the future.

The growing Democratic field

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they would like a
competitive primary (53% say that would be best for the party), but their
preferences so far don't portend a close contest.

Clinton continues to hold a massive lead in that race, with 60% of
Democrats saying she would be their top choice for the nomination. Behind
her, 14% would favor Vice President Joe Biden, and 10% prefer Vermont Sen.
Bernie Sanders.

Martin O'Malley, the former Maryland governor who announced his candidacy
on Saturday, barely registers with 1% support.

Sanders does fare better among liberals than overall, carrying 18% support
among that group, but Clinton still notches 61% among the liberals in her
party.

Getting closer to the general

In general election match-ups, Clinton now runs about even with Rand Paul,
Scott Walker and Marco Rubio, while she continues to top Bush and Ted Cruz
by a significant margin.

As noted above, those shifts stem largely from a change among independents,
though Republicans appear to be solidifying their support for GOP
candidates while Democrats are slightly less certain about Clinton.

One feature of the race that has held even as the numbers shifted: These
match-ups prompt enormous gender gaps. According to the poll, the gender
gaps remain over 20 points in each of the five match-ups tested, including
a whopping 34-point gender gap in Clinton's match-up with Scott Walker.

Her declining support in those general election match-ups, alongside
falling favorability ratings and worsening impressions of her, suggests
recent news about her actions as secretary of state may have taken a toll.

Though most -- 61% -- think the release of Clinton's emails over the next
months from her time as secretary of state will not reveal any previously
hidden wrongdoing, the poll also finds 58% are dissatisfied with the way
she handled the attack in Benghazi in 2012.

A narrow majority feel the Republican-led congressional hearings on the
attack have been handled appropriately, just 41% say the GOP has gone too
far with them.

Clinton's family ties to a president are more of a wash than Bush's. While
39% say her marriage to Bill Clinton makes them more likely to vote for
her, the same share say it's a turn-off. And most Americans say Clinton is
not like her husband at all (54%).

The CNN/ORC Poll was conducted by telephone May 29-31, among a random
national sample of 1,025 adults. The margin of sampling error for results
among the full sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points. It is 4.5
points for results among the 433 Democrats and Democratic-leaning
independents and the 483 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

*Republican Lindsey Graham Announces 2016 Presidential Campaign
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-01/republican-lindsey-graham-announces-2016-presidential-campaign>
// Bloomberg // David Weigel – June 1, 2015*

Senator Lindsey Graham announced his campaign for president on Monday,
emphasizing his centrist challenge to the Republican Party's base.

"I intend to be president not of a single party, but of a nation," Graham
said in a speech in his hometown of Central, S.C. "I want to do more than
make big government smaller. I want to help make a great nation greater."

Graham's speech finishes a months-long exploratory process, one that found
the Republican bantering with town hall audiences and baiting rivals into
fights on foreign policy and immigration. Polling in single digits, joking
about his chances, Graham combines the candor of a dark-horse candidate
with the media profile of a front-runner.

He left little doubt as to his intentions during a May interview on CBS
This Morning: "I'm running because I think the world is falling apart. I've
been more right than wrong on foreign policy," he said.

Graham, 59, joins three younger Senate colleagues—Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand
Paul of Kentucky, and Marco Rubio of Florida—in the Republican nomination
fight. (Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is seeking the Democratic
nomination.) Elected in 2002 to replace the retiring Strom Thurmond, and
previously elected to four terms in the House of Representatives, he is
likely to have the longest Washington resume of anyone on the Republican
stage.

He's also the only declared candidate with a military record, having been a
judge advocate in the United States Air Force since 1982. Last week he
announced he would leave the reserves as he reaches the mandatory
retirement age of 60 this summer.

Since the January launch of his exploratory committee, Security Through
Strength, the possibility of a Graham bid has been a puzzle. His is a
resume not calculated to appeal to Republican primary voters. Graham's
early Washington career was defined by the impeachment of President Bill
Clinton, a case on which he served as a prosecutor, which quickly came to
look like a debacle for Republicans. In the Senate, he's advocated for an
aggressive foreign policy and strong security state even as his party's
libertarian tendency has grown. And every time legislation to change
immigration policy moved in the Senate, Graham was a co-sponsor.

"We are going to solve this problem," he told the National Council of La
Raza in a 2007 speech. We're not going to run people down. We're not going
to scapegoat people. We're going to tell the bigots to shut up."

Talk like that infuriated conservatives. In 2008 and 2014, Graham's enemies
searched for credible primary challengers. Both times, they came up far
short, and convinced Graham that the fringe could bark but not bite. In
2010, he predicted that the Tea Party would "die out." After securing his
2014 victory, he seemed to be proven right.

"There's a growing element in our party that would like me to speak up,"
Graham said earlier this year in an interview. "Where is the Republican
Party on problem solving? Is there a rational way forward on immigration?
Do you deport 11 million people? I don't think so."

Wry and affable, Graham's approach to presidential politicking owes much to
his friend and mentor John McCain. In 2000 and 2008, Graham campaigned hard
for the Arizona senator, who was running for president. In the Capitol,
both men share an open-door approach to the media and a hunger for deals
with Democrats. Graham shares McCain's readiness with a joke and talent for
TV debate.

"In debates, he'll shred 'em," McCain said when Graham announced his
exploratory committee. "He has my all-out complete support."

Graham may be kept out of the first Fox News debate, in August, which the
network intends to limit to the top 10 candidates according to national
public polling. Despite his steady presence in green rooms, Graham's
focusing more on the New Hampshire primary than any "national" race. Like
McCain, Graham is looking to prove that he can reason with the Republican
primary electorate one room at a time. Alone among the candidates, he
favors laws that would limit campaign spending–an issue that boosted McCain
in 2000.

When challenged on immigration, he enters into a Socratic dialogue with
audiences, to convince them that reform and pathways to citizenship are
sensible but not amnesty.

And like McCain, Graham is a hawk whose confidence is not dimmed by events.
"I think the world is falling apart," he often says, "and I've been right
more than wrong." Graham supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2007
military surge, and has insisted that the conflict was won, a victory
squandered by Barack Obama. He favored a more muscular intervention in
Libya than the no-fly zone favored by the Obama administration, and favored
an early military intervention on the side of Syria's rebels.

Graham's foreign policy contrasts completely with that of Rand Paul, and
the two men have sparred across the primary states. Paul tends to avoid
using Graham's name when he refers to "a senator" who favors NSA
surveillance and treating captured terrorists as enemy combatants. Graham
has no such filter, and has said that Paul "would have the worst chance of
anybody to make a case against Barack Obama’s foreign policy."

That confidence grows out of a personal story that Graham has become more
comfortable telling on the trail. Born in Central, near Greenville, he
worked at a pool hall and was compelled at an early age to take care of his
younger sister. "My mom's disease, Hodgkin's disease, wiped us out
financially," Graham told Fox News in April. "We eventually lost our
businesses. I understand we're all one car wreck from needing help. But
what it told Lindsey Graham, above all else, is that family, friends and
faith really do matter."

In politics, since winning a state legislative seat in 1992, Graham has
defended the existence of the welfare state while arguing for reform.
Raising the Social Security retirement age, like an immigration overhaul
and foreign policy, has been a focus of Graham's early pitch. He starts
with less support than McCain–but unlike the Arizonan, he hails from one of
the GOP's vital early primary states.

"Get ready," Graham told a dinner audience in his native South Carolina
last month. "Get ready for a debate that's been long overdue within the
party. Get ready for a voice that understands you can't save America
without someone willing to sacrifice and die for America."

Graham holds undergraduate and law degrees from the University of South
Carolina. On Sunday, while the Senate debated the Patriot Act, he
officially retired from the Air Force reserves, which he joined while
attending school and caring for his sister in the absence of his late
parents.

"There are a lot of so-called 'self-made' people in this world," Graham
planned to say in Central. "I'm not one of them. My family, friends,
neighbors, and my faith picked me up when I was down, believed in me when I
had doubts. You made me the man I am today."

*SOCIAL MEDIA*

*David Axelrod (5/31/15, 8:23 AM)*
<https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/605031777267290113>* - O'Malley is
a dynamic, accomplished guy. But he was all in for HRC in '08, so isn't it
a bit awkward to rail against "royal families" now?*

*America Rising PAC (6/1/15, 8:14 AM*
<https://twitter.com/AmericaRising/status/605392037723172865>*)** - Watch
what happens when a @HillaryClinton supporter asks her to sign something*

*Philip Rucker (6/1/15, 9:24 AM)*
<https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/605409540138483712>* - Clinton to
show organizational force by simulcasting its meeting in nearly all 435
cong districts. What other camp can pull that off?*

*Alexis Levinson (6/1/15, 2:28)*
<https://twitter.com/alexis_levinson/status/605485997732724736>* - Kathleen
Matthews, wife of Hardball's Chris Matthews, will make Wednesday anncmt
about House bid for #MD08, per release.*

*Paul Steinhauser (6/1/15, 6:48 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/steinhauserNH1/status/605506197563637761?s=03>* – 2016
News: @HillaryClinton to headline Manchester #NH Democrats Flag Day Dinner
on n June 15 #nhpolitics #fitn #nh1news*

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*Clinton Lawyer Accuses Wisconsin of Trying to Suppress the Vote
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/01/clinton-lawyer-accuses-wisconsin-of-trying-to-suppress-the-vote/>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 1, 2015*

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s top campaign lawyer has filed a second
voter-access lawsuit accusing a Republican-led state of trying to suppress
the vote — this time in Wisconsin, home to Scott Walker, the governor and
likely Republican 2016 presidential candidate.

Marc Elias, the general counsel for the Clinton campaign and an election
law expert, filed the suit in federal court on Friday. It was reported in
the blog of Rick Hasen, an election law expert who works at the University
of California, Irvine.

“This lawsuit concerns the most fundamental of rights guaranteed citizens
in our representative democracy — the right to vote,” the complaint states,
then refers to a curtailing of early voting in the state, among other
changes that affect minority voters and other groups. “That right has been
under attack in Wisconsin since Republicans gained control of the
governor’s office and both houses of the State Legislature in the 2010
election.”

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said the suit was not filed on behalf of the campaign,
but they offered their support for it.

“We are aware of it and strongly support its goal of ensuring the right to
vote is not unduly burdened,” Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton,
said in a statement.

Mr. Elias filed a similar lawsuit in Ohio recently, accusing the state of
trying to suppress the votes of traditional Democratic constituencies like
blacks, Hispanics and young people.

Mr. Walker, as he travels around the country, often talks about his efforts
to push through changes in the voting rights laws to require people to
bring identification to the polls.

*Journalists Meet To Discuss Frustration With Clinton Campaign's Control
Over Access And Information
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/journalists-clinton-campaign_n_7487076.html?1433194660>
// HuffPo // Michael Calderone – June 1, 2015*

NEW YORK -- Journalists covering Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign
met for nearly two hours in Washington on Monday to discuss concerns about
what they believe is inadequate access to cover the Democratic
front-runner, according to people who attended.

The grievances discussed at the private gathering, which was held at the
Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington offices, go beyond Clinton’s
unwillingness so far to substantively engage with the press, a topic that
has already been discussed publicly on cable news and social media.
Attendees of the meeting, who were not authorized by their news
organizations to speak on the record, charge the Clinton campaign with
keeping an excessively tight grip on information, even when it comes to
logistical details that don't seem particularly sensitive or revelatory.

Among the problems discussed were the campaign's failure to provide
adequate notice prior to events, the lack of a clear standard for whether
fundraisers are open or closed press and the reflexive tendency to opt to
speak anonymously. The complaints mirror concerns that a number of
political journalists have also raised in recent conversations with The
Huffington Post.

While the White House Correspondents' Association has worked for greater
media access for over a century and elects representatives to present the
group's concerns to the administration, there isn't any comparable,
established body working on behalf of the campaign press. Monday's meeting,
which included about 17 journalists from outlets such as The New York
Times, The Washington Post, Politico, Time and McClatchy, was an attempt
not only to discuss such concerns, but eventually to present them to the
campaign in a unified way.

Attendees discussed the feeling that the campaign hasn't provided enough
notice for events, resulting in logistical difficulties for those trying to
cover them. It’s still too early in the election cycle for the campaign to
be chartering the flights and buses that news organizations, at the cost of
thousands of dollars, can sign up for to follow the candidate from stop to
stop. For now, reporters are booking commercial flights to reach Clinton’s
events, and networks need to make sure satellite trucks and camera
equipment make it there on time. The group discussed urging the Clinton
campaign to provide information outlining the upcoming week so they can
plan accordingly.

Another concern raised, according to attendees, was that the campaign had
initially said that fundraisers of more than 100 people would be open to
the press through a pool system. Under this arrangement, certain reporters
are designated to cover events that cannot accommodate large numbers of
journalists, and those reporters then provide information to the larger
press corps. But recent Clinton fundraisers have been closed press.

Meeting attendees also expressed dissatisfaction with the ground rules
established for a Thursday briefing at the campaign's Brooklyn headquarters
that was attended by dozens of news outlets, including The Huffington Post.

CNBC’s John Harwood wrote Friday that reporters who attended the briefing
were not allowed to quote top campaign officials directly, even when it
came to information that appeared to be basic talking points. Harwood noted
that he could not show readers what campaign staffers’ desks looked like
because “the post-briefing tour was deemed off-the-record.” (A week
earlier, the Nashua Telegraph, a New Hampshire newspaper, similarly mocked
the Clinton campaign for holding a conference call in which mundane
information was provided under ground rules that those speaking should not
be quoted.)

Coincidentally, Monday's meeting wrapped up just before the campaign sent a
mass email to journalists with details of an upcoming event. The campaign
said the details could only be attributed to a “campaign official,” which
prompted New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney to out the sender on
Twitter. Such rules for anonymity, Nagourney noted, are not done
unilaterally but established between two parties. He also pointed out that
the information itself didn't "rise to [the] level" of requiring anonymity.

There was a general consensus at Monday's meeting that the ground rules for
the Thursday headquarters briefing were unacceptable. Attendees say they
expected that the group will urge the campaign to agree that similar
briefings need to be on the record in the future.

When asked about the reporters' complaints and how the campaign is
reacting, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill responded in an email to HuffPost.

“I’d say two things,” he wrote. “First, we want a happy press corps as much
as the press corps does. Not in an effort to obtain favorable coverage, but
because we're decent humans who want people to be able to plan their lives.
It's a long campaign, and we are going to do our best to find equilibrium.
Griping on background is not a constructive solution though, and I can't
help but point out the irony here."

The group also discussed its system for disseminating pool reports, which
The Washington Post criticized Friday for turning some reporters "into
second-class journalists in the hunt for Clinton info.”

The pool system, established at the urging of the Clinton campaign but run
by campaign reporters, places journalists on a rotation and disseminates
reports in real-time to fourteen news organizations. Those organizations,
which do not bear the costs of being in the pool, receive the reports at
the end of the day.

Though the Post put forth the idea of the system creating two classes of
reporters, attendees at Monday’s meeting stressed that the system allows
for wider dissemination of traveling pool reports than was possible during
Mitt Romney's campaign four years ago. At that time, only reporters
physically present for Romney campaign trips received pool reports, and
there was no wider dissemination to news organizations not in the rotation.

*Hillary Clinton Focuses on Drug Addiction After Learning Scale of Problem
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/01/hillary-clinton-focuses-on-drug-addiction-after-learning-scale-of-problem/>
// NYT // Amy Chozick – June 1, 2015*

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s carefully choreographed round-table discussions
with voters don’t lead to many moments of surprise. But Mrs. Clinton has
seemed to have had some legitimate jolts when conversations in Iowa and New
Hampshire repeatedly drifted back to drug abuse.

Mrs. Clinton called heroin and methamphetamine addiction in rural America a
“quiet epidemic” and told her policy advisers in Brooklyn to put it on the
list of priorities as her campaign inched closer toward presenting a
specific policy platform.

As part of that effort, last week senior campaign policy advisers held
Google Hangout discussions with local officials and substance abuse
activists in Iowa and New Hampshire to see how the campaign could best
address the problem, the first of such discussions that will take place in
the early nominating states, according to the campaign.

In the six years Mrs. Clinton has been mostly out of the discussion on
domestic policies, heroin use has swept rural communities, and although
aides say she was aware of problem in an abstract way, from reading policy
briefings and talking to academics and advisers, her discussions with
voters on the issue were particularly eye opening.

She instructed her policy team “to go beyond standard policies and really
take a hard look at some of the more creative or forward-looking policy
positions,” said Jake Sullivan, the campaign’s senior policy director.

The Google Hangouts, led by the senior policy advisers Ann O’Leary and Maya
Harris, are part of that effort. Moving forward, drug addiction, according
to aides, will be a central part of the “four fights” that Mrs. Clinton
routinely references in her prepared remarks.

Participants in the hangouts included Candace Accord, of the Community
Based Correctional Facility in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Abigail Shockley,
executive director of the New Hampshire Alcohol and Other Drug Service
Provider Association, among other local community leaders and elected
officials.

Based on their suggestions, Mrs. Clinton is likely to propose
better-financed prevention and treatment options before criminalization and
better access to mental health services (an area that aides and voters have
said is lacking under the Affordable Care Act). She has already called for
reform to the criminal justice system and a prison system overflowing with
low-level drug offenders.

Drug abuse has not been a central campaign issue since the 1980s and early
1990s, when crime was on the rise and the crack cocaine epidemic threatened
American cities. Candidates, particularly Republicans, and the more
centrist-minded Bill Clinton were elected by vowing to be tough on drugs.
Under President Bill Clinton’s administration, drug offenders received
stiffer penalties under federal law.

In the 2016 election, Mrs. Clinton enters a very different situation, in
which rural areas, like the ones she has visited in Iowa and New Hampshire,
are seeing an increase in addiction. She is expected to present more
specific policy proposals after her campaign’s official kickoff event on
June 13.

“We have an increasing problem that is only beginning to break through the
surface so that people – I think a lot of people are thinking, well, that’s
somebody else’s problem, that’s not my problem,” Mrs. Clinton has said.

*It's time for the media to admit that Hillary Clinton is popular
<http://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/8676727/hillary-clinton-popularity> // Vox //
Matthew Yglesias – June 1, 2015*

Quinnipiac is out with a new poll that confirms something the national
media is loathe to admit and essentially never surfaces in their coverage
of one of the most-covered people in the world today: Hillary Clinton is
the most popular politician in America.

It would be genuinely silly to think that her early leads in general
election polling tell us anything interesting about what will happen in
November 2016. But they tell us a lot about how people feel in May 2015,
and the way they feel is pretty good about Hillary Clinton.

According to Gallup, for example, she is the most admired woman in the
world. What's more, she has been the most admired woman in the world for 17
out of the past 18 years.

Journalists don't like Hillary Clinton

But the press hates to admit this. For Clinton, good news is never just
good news. Instead it's an opportunity to remind the public about the
media's negative narratives about Clinton and then to muse on the fact that
her ratings somehow manage to hold up despite these narratives.

Here's how the Wall Street Journal wrote up an earlier poll showing Clinton
beating all opponents:

Hillary Clinton's stature has been battered after more than a month of
controversy over her fundraising and email practices, but support for her
among Democrats remains strong and unshaken, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC
News poll finds.

And here's how the New York Times wrote up yet another poll showing Clinton
beating all opponents:

Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have initially weathered a barrage of
news about her use of a private email account when she was secretary of
state and the practices of her family's foundation, an indication that she
is starting her second presidential bid with an unusual durability among
Democratic voters.

This framing is not surprising, since, among journalists, Clinton is one of
the least popular politicians. She is not forthcoming or entertaining with
the press. She doesn't offer good quotes. She doesn't like journalists,
respect what we do, or care to hide her disdain for the media. She feels
that the right-wing press has tried to destroy her for decades, that the
mainstream press got played like a cheap fiddle by the conservative press,
and that even the liberal press was overwhelmingly hostile to her during
her 2008 campaign.

The public also hates journalists

Journalists are obviously free to dislike politicians who are uncooperative
with the press, and to celebrate those who embrace a more freewheeling
media-friendly style. But reporters all-too-often confused the conventional
wisdom of the journo-pack with the opinions of actual voters.

The reality is that Clinton's disdain for the press is largely shared by
the public, which does not think journalists are credible or contribute to
society's well-being.

At the same time, most of the "bad" narratives about both Clintons that
exist in the media are essentially self-centered. From an impeachment
grounded in Bill's effort to keep an extra-marital affair out of the
newspapers to a scandal about an email server designed to keep the contents
of Hillary's messages out of the newspapers, the Clintons have continually
run afoul of the press' fervent desire to know everything.

But few regular people evaluate public figures on the basis of their level
of cooperation with media inquiries. Clinton's brand of cautious
center-left politics and her genuine passion for trying to bring people
together and make deals more-or-less reflects what the public wants from a
politician.

*Hillary Clinton Still Strong in Iowa Poll, Though Negative News Is a
Concern
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/01/hillary-clinton-still-strong-in-iowa-poll-though-negative-news-is-a-concern/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Politics&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body>
// NYT // Trip Gabriel – June 1, 2015*

Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to command a sizable lead in a poll
released on Monday of Iowa Democrats, who will cast the first votes of the
presidential nominating race early next year. At the same time, Democrats
are worried that revelations about Mrs. Clinton could hurt her in the
general election.

Mrs. Clinton is the choice of 57 percent of likely Democratic Iowa
caucusgoers, followed by 16 percent for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
and 2 percent for former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland. Vice President
Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has shown little interest in running, received 8
percent.

The poll was conducted for The Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics
from May 25 to 29. Mr. Sanders, who drew large crowds in the state during
the end of that period, was up from 5 percent in a January survey by the
same pollsters. He has inherited the support of his party’s most liberal
wing that once favored Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who was
not included in the poll after repeatedly saying she was not a candidate.

Mr. Sanders or Mr. O’Malley, who officially entered the race on Saturday
and is also carving out a lane to the left of Mrs. Clinton, seem to have
room to grow: 37 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers said their
political beliefs were closer to Ms. Warren’s than Mrs. Clinton’s.

Support for Mrs. Clinton stayed steady since the earlier Iowa poll in
January. It showed no softening despite the continuing spate of negative
news accounts of foreign donations to her family foundation while she was
secretary of state, her use of a private email account in office, and a
Republican-led investigation of her handling of the attacks in Benghazi,
Libya.

But 66 percent of Democrats said that at least one of those issues will
hurt Mrs. Clinton in the general election if she is the nominee.

*Here’s the best news for Hillary Clinton in that new Iowa poll
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/01/heres-the-best-news-in-that-new-iowa-poll-for-hillary-clinton/>
// WaPo// Chris Cillizza – June 1, 2015*

It's not been a very good last month for Hillary Clinton's presidential
campaign. She's been dogged by questions regarding donations made to the
Clinton Foundation, bad publicity surrounding the release of her State
Department e-mails and a continued unwillingness to engage the media.

Doesn't matter! That's according to a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg
poll of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers, who in large majorities believe the
Clintons are getting a raw deal in all of this. Seven in ten respondents
(71 percent) said that regarding the "controversies surrounding Bill and
Hillary Clinton," the couple is getting a "bad rap." Just 14 percent said
the controversies were indicative of a "pattern of unethical behavior" by
the former first couple.

Yes, these are Democrats. And Iowa Democrats, as we've learned over the
past decade or so, are on the liberal side of the ledger.  So if anyone was
going to rally to Clinton's side against the perceived attacks of
Republicans and the mainstream media, it's true believers like the ones
tested in the DMR poll.

Still, the fact that there is a widespread belief that things like the
private e-mail server or the donors to the Clinton Foundation are trumped
up is extremely good news for Clinton.

The key for Clinton — in both the primary and, to a certain extent, the
general election — is to rally Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, to
her cause. In the early days of her presidential campaign, she has staked
out decidedly liberal positions on hot-button issues like immigration and
income inequality. But oftentimes, the best way to convince people you are
one of them is to come under attack from enemies of those people. (Enemy of
my enemy and all that.) And Republicans and, increasingly, the media, are
very much enemies in the eyes of dyed-in-the-wool liberals.

If liberals — like those in Iowa — continue to see stories about the e-mail
server and the Clinton Foundation as part of a broader witch hunt against
Clinton being organized by her political enemies and reporters with an ax
to grind, that's a best-case scenario for the former secretary of state.
Why? Because with every report on her e-mails or her donors, it affirms the
sense within her liberal base that she's being unfairly maligned.  The more
the merrier, from Clinton's point of view.

The alternate reality is that these scads of stories raise doubts about
Clinton's ability to win next November and, as a result, people begin to
shop for a different candidate. While there is some evidence that
Democratic voters are slightly worried about that possibility (four in ten
Democrats in the DMR poll say that keeping a private e-mail server will
hurt Clinton in the general election), they remain largely united behind
her.

The more Clinton can turn the negative storylines around her into an "us
versus them" (no matter who the "them" really entails) conversation, the
better for her chances.

*Meet the woman behind Hillary Clinton's Twitter account
<http://fortune.com/2015/06/01/meet-the-woman-behind-hillary-clintons-twitter-account/>
// Fortune // Nina Easton – June 1, 2015*

Katie Dowd is the campaign’s digital director, in charge of putting the
swagger in Clinton’s Twitter–not to mention Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr and
all the rest.

With many of the power players from Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run
are sitting this one out, the big question is: Who’s in?

What follows is the latest installment of a Fortune series looking at the
the most influential women on Clinton’s 2016 team. When this series wraps,
we’ll turn our attention to the most powerful women on the GOP side of the
race.

Katie Dowd may be in charge of the Clinton campaign’s digital strategy, but
she’s not all about pixels. Indeed, Dowd is a self-described “people
geek”—a sociology major drawn to politics because she’s interested in
understanding what makes people tick. After graduating from Illinois’
Wittenberg University, she headed to D.C. and wound up working for a direct
mail firm, learning old-style political persuasion that would later become
useful in the exploding universe of social media. She worked at the two
organizations charged with electing Democratic members of Congress—the
Democratic Senate Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee.

Most recently, Dowd worked on a State Department project called TechCamp,
which helped civil society groups around the globe harness web tools for
social action. A prime example: The Lithuanian activist who wanted to make
the buildings in his town wheelchair accessible. Through TechCamp, he was
able to use Google Maps to “tag” buildings and prove to authorities that
physically disabled residents were being excluded. Before this project,
Dowd worked on STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) issues as
senior adviser to the chief technology officer at the White House.

When Dowd started out in political campaigns a decade ago, early engagement
with voters was mostly an exercise in fund-raising; operatives viewed the
Internet as an ATM machine. That has changed dramatically. Now, engaging
voters online means a lot more than asking them to write checks. On the
Democratic side, the presidential campaigns of Howard Dean and John Kerry
set the bar for using the web to create a grassroots network of passionate
voters–a trend that Obama all but perfected in 2008. When Dowd was part of
the 2008 Clinton campaign, the team experimented with new digital
techniques, like enabling volunteers to make internet calls to fellow
voters from their own homes.

This time around it’s a far bigger, more complicated ball game. Dowd and
her staff (likely to grow to 150) will have to manage a range platforms,
from Twitter and FaceBook to Instagram, Tumblr, Pintrest—and likely other
emerging networks we haven’t even heard of yet. “We have to think about
where the audiences are,” says Dowd. Real-time video platforms like Meerkat
and Periscope will change how campaigns operate. In the 2016 race, says
Dowd, the focus will be on “letting people feel like they are part of the
real-time movement of a campaign.”

And of course, there is the low-tech, but essential challenge: How to give
voters a lasting personal connection to Hillary connection. Already, Dowd
has helped craft the candidate’s famous Twitter bio: Wife, mom, grandma,
women+kids advocate, FLOTUS, Senator, SecState, hair icon, pantsuit
aficionado, 2016 presidential candidate.

What’s her next move? Keep an eye on your screens.

*Hillary Clinton camp seeks to both raise and lower expectations
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-camp-seeks-to-both-raise-and-lower-expectations/2015/06/01/6302ac86-0882-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html?tid=HP_politics?tid=HP_politics>
// WaPo // Anne Gearan – June 1, 2015*

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign spokesman on Monday sought to raise and
lower expectations at the same time, announcing a New York City venue for
her first big rally while also suggesting that she does not expect to break
50 percent in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

The dueling messages reflect the Democratic front-runner’s desire not to be
seen as an inevitable nominee — a posture that hurt her during her failed
run in 2008 — while also ramping up excitement at the prospect of the
nation’s first female president.

At her first major rally, to be held June 13 on New York’s Roosevelt
Island, Clinton will lay out the main principles of her campaign. The rally
will be followed in the subsequent week by a blitz of the four first
primary states, according to spokesman Jesse Ferguson.

“Her speech will lay out her view of the challenges facing this country and
her vision and ideas for moving the country forward,” Ferguson said.

The rally on Roosevelt Island marks a shift away from a deliberately
low-key rollout intended to take the edge off what both Democrats and
Republicans had regarded as a steamroller to the 2016 nomination. The event
will also include the first campaign appearances by her husband, former
president Bill Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea Clinton.

The choice of Roosevelt Island is a nod both to Hillary Clinton’s adopted
home state of New York and her longtime admiration of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt-style government and ideals. She has often invoked the
Depression-era president in speeches, and she cites Eleanor Roosevelt as a
role model for her own public service.

In a memo Monday, Ferguson noted that no Democratic candidates have
surpassed 50 percent in the Iowa caucuses unless they were a sitting
president, vice president or Iowa senator; similarly, he wrote, no Democrat
has received more than half the vote in a contested primary in New
Hampshire.

Clinton will travel to Iowa immediately after the New York rally for a
meeting with organizers that night. Her address to that meeting will be
simulcast to similar meetings across the country, the campaign said.

Clinton will campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada
that week.

She is expected to do her first media interviews about the same time.
Clinton has briefly responded to some questions from reporters traveling
with her since the campaign’s launch but has held no formal news conference.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement
that Clinton should answer questions about foreign donations to her
family’s foundation and her use of a private e-mail server while she was
secretary of state.

“After dodging questions for months, she should take this opportunity to
finally come clean and discuss the issues important to everyday Americans,”
Priebus said.

*Clinton campaign emails Ready for Hillary list
<http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/05/8569107/clinton-campaign-emails-ready-hillary-list>
// Capital NY – June 1, 2015*

The Clinton campaign has sent its first email to the Ready for Hillary
supporter list after obtaining access to it last week.

Politico reported Saturday that the campaign obtained the list of almost
four million contacts through a swap with another independent group a
Democratic source would not identify.

Capital reported in April that Emily's List, which took over Ready for
Hillary's social media accounts, had begun emailing the Ready for Hillary
list in March. It has continued to do so through May.

Politico reported Saturday that the campaign has not had access to the
Ready for Hillary list in the first six weeks of its campaign as lawyers
were working out what the best option would be for the campaign to receive
access to the independent super PAC's list. Until now, Politico reported,
in addition to signing up its own supporters, campaign staffers were
working with a list of old 2008-era supporters that was often unproductive.

As Politico noted, Ready for Hillary had also sent out several e-mails
after the Clinton campaign's official launch urging supporters to sign up.

In the email Sunday, with the subject line"Ready for your free sticker?,"
Robby Mook, campaign manager for the Clinton campaign, writes that "You and
I have something in common: We’ve both been ready for Hillary for a long
time." The email urges recipients to provide a mailing address to receive a
bumper sticker.

*Watchdog accuses Clinton campaign of illegally obtaining email list from
super PAC
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/watchdog-accuses-clinton-campaign-of-illegally-obtaining-email-list-from-super-pac/article/2565394>
// Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – June 1, 2015*

A watchdog group is asking the Federal Election Commission to review
whether Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign legally obtained a massive
email list from a political action committee associated with the candidate.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust pressed the FEC Monday on
how the Clinton campaign was able to "swap" unknown items for a collection
of nearly 4 million supporters' email addresses that had been compiled by
the Ready for Hillary super PAC.

"Federal law explicitly prohibits a candidate from coordinating with and
accepting donations, including an in-kind donation of a mailing list, from
a super PAC," wrote Matthew Whitaker, FACT's executive director, in a
letter Monday supplementing a complaint filed in April.

The original FEC complaint alleged Clinton had used Ready for Hillary to
vacuum up supporter information and contributions in a manner befitting a
full-fledge campaign long before announcing her candidacy.

Whitaker cited a Saturday report from Politico that suggested the Clinton
campaign had "gained entry to the independent super PAC's list through a
swap with another independent group," although Politico did not name the
third group involved in the transfer.

A spokesman for the Clinton campaign declined to comment on the swap.

Larry Noble, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, said the debate
over whether the transaction was legal boils down to the "fair market
value" of Ready for Hillary's email list.

"It would be considered an illegal in-kind contribution to the campaign if
the campaign did not pay, in monetary or list-swap terms, what the fair
market value is for the list that it's getting," Noble said.

The FEC would be the ultimate arbiter of the fair market value if a
question was raised, he noted.

"I think we're going to run into an issue here because, as far as I know,
the campaign hasn't identified the groups involved and until we know more
about that, there are going to be a lot of serious questions raised," Noble
said. "The concern is that the Clinton campaign is getting a list of
tremendous value and paying little or nothing for it."

Whitaker said his group had long suspected Ready for Hillary was preparing
to transfer the email list to Clinton's campaign.

"If the campaign swapped lists with the super PAC, what value would a list
have to a closing super PAC?" Whitaker said. "Right now, we do not know who
the Clinton campaign swapped lists with or how, if not the super PAC, that
group got the lists."

Ready for Hillary reportedly began to shutter its operations in April.

The super PAC survived an FEC review earlier this year after an
anti-Clinton group complained about Ready for Hillary's decision to rent an
email list from the candidate-in-waiting's prior Senate race.

The commission had an "insufficient number of votes" to find the super PAC
in violation of a number of campaign laws and dismissed outright several
other allegations, including that Ready for Hillary had sent an email to
supporters in January 2014 that was authorized by Clinton herself.

*Hillary Clinton to Rally in New York, Then Tour Early Voting States
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/01/hillary-clinton-to-rally-in-new-york-then-tour-early-voting-states/>
// NYT // Amy Chozick – June 1, 2015*

Hillary Rodham Clinton will hold the first major rally of her presidential
campaign on June 13 on Roosevelt Island in New York City, before embarking
on a five-day swing through the four states with the earliest Democratic
nominating contests, her campaign said on Monday.

In a midday speech at Four Freedoms Park — a memorial to Franklin D.
Roosevelt, for whom the East River island is named — Mrs. Clinton will
sketch out her view of the problems facing the nation and her “vision and
ideas” for how to move the country forward, a top spokesman, Jesse
Ferguson, said in an email to reporters that also noted Mrs. Clinton’s
admiration for both F.D.R. and Eleanor Roosevelt.

From New York, she will travel to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and
Nevada.

In the email, Mr. Ferguson also sought to lower expectations for Mrs.
Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire. He noted that no Democratic candidate
had won more than 50 percent of the Iowa caucus who was not a sitting
president, vice president or Iowa senator; and that no Democrat had
received more than 50 percent of the vote in a contested New Hampshire
primary in the last 25 years.

*For Clinton, a big rally on a small island
<http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2015/06/01/for-clinton-a-big-rally-on-a-small-island/>
// Reuters // Jonathan Allen – June 1, 2015*

NEW YORK – Hillary Clinton will hold her first large rally of her campaign
this month on Roosevelt Island, the little slip of land in New York’s East
River best known as the site of the former New York City Lunatic Asylum.
According to an email from her campaign, the June 13 rally will be held in
the Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park, which belatedly opened in
2012, four decades after architect Louis Kahn first began designing the
memorial to the former president.

Clinton can count on an impressive backdrop of the skyscrapers of Midtown
Manhattan as she gives what her campaign says will be her fullest
explanation yet of why she should be elected president next year.  How a
crowd of thousands might reach the island is less clear at this point – it
has a single subway station that rarely deals with large crowds, and a tram
car system, memorably featured in the climactic battle scene in the 2002
“Spider-Man” film, that can deliver about 100 people to the island at a
time. There is also a small bridge connecting the mostly car-free island to
the borough of Queens.

Clinton, who moved to New York in 1999 ahead of a successful run to become
a Democratic U.S. senator for the state, picked the park in part because
she said she was inspired by Roosevelt’s presidency and considered his
wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, a role model, according to the announcement email.
When she last ran for president in 2007, she held her first rally at school
gym in Des Moines, Iowa, a few days after her initial announcement. This
time around, Clinton has been an announced candidate for about seven weeks,
but has only held small events with little or no access for the general
public.

The hospitals and prisons that once made the island infamous have long been
replaced by small clusters of middle-class housing, popular with people who
work at the United Nations headquarters just across the water. Although
Clinton is yet to discuss much in the way of specific policies, she has
said she is concerned both about reducing the number of people the U.S.
sends to prison and making it easier for people with mental health problems
to get treatment. Given the setting of her rally, Clinton may be tempted to
invoke the work of Nellie Bly, the celebrated journalist whose 1887 book
“Ten Days in a Mad-House”, written after she feigned insanity and got
herself committed, caused outrage for exposing the abusive treatment of
mentally ill inmates on the island.

Hillary Clinton: First stop is New York City’s Welfare Island
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/1/hillary-clinton-sets-first-big-rally-new-york-city/>
// Washington Times // S. A. Miller – June 1, 2015

Attempting to draw a connection with a liberal hero, Hillary Rodham Clinton
arranged for her first big campaign rally to take place this month in New
York City’s Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park — a landmark
previously known as Welfare Island.

The Clinton campaign stressed the Roosevelt connection rather than the
welfare moniker that until 1973 was the name for the narrow island in New
York’s East River, campaign officials said.

They said the location will showcase her ties to the city as a former
senator from New York, who also put her campaign headquarters in Brooklyn,
and reflect how her life’s work was inspired by former President Franklin
D. Roosevelt.

Memories of Welfare Island, which was named after the City Hospital located
there, are not the location’s only drawbacks. It also put Mrs. Clinton
conspicuously close to the Wall Street banks with which liberal activist
already say she is too cozy.

Still, the June 13 rally will mark the official kickoff of Mrs. Clinton’s
campaign and will be followed by a six-day whirlwind tour through the first
four early voting states: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

The former first lady, senator and secretary of state announced her White
House bid in April, but she limited her campaign stops to small events and
roundtable discussions, a sort of listening tour to ease her into the
campaign and help her get to know the voters that she referred to as
“everyday Americans.”

The campaign announced the date of the big rally Friday but kept the
location secret until Monday.

In her speech, Mrs. Clinton will lay out her view of the challenges facing
this country and her vision and ideas for moving the country forward, the
official said.

She’ll also describe how her lifelong commitment to working on behalf of
children and families took her from Illinois, where she grew up, through
Arkansas and Washington, D.C., to New York were she was elected as the
state’s first female senator.

With a nod to the city, the park and the island named after her hero, Mrs.
Clinton will tell the crowd how her work championing the needy followed in
the tradition of Mr. Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt, the campaign official
said.

*Hillary Clinton to launch campaign from one of New York’s least-accessible
public places
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/01/hillary-clinton-to-launch-campaign-from-one-of-new-yorks-least-accessible-public-places/>
// Washington Post //Philip Bump – June 1, 2015*

There is only one island in New York City harder to get to than Roosevelt
Island, where Hillary Clinton will hold her campaign kickoff later this
month. That island is Riker's Island.

I'm not the type to go looking for metaphors in things! I am not that type!
I am merely here to offer insights as a New Yorker-American into the ins
and outs of New York life. Including the details of Roosevelt Island.

First of all: Roosevelt Island is a cool place to visit. It use to house a
smallpox quarantine center at its southern end, which is still in the
process of being restored (after partially collapsing a few years back).
It's got a bunch of new housing and a spectacularly painted public pool.
But it is about as inconvenient a place to get to in New York as is
conceivable.

There are three ways onto the island.

By car: The red line shows the one route onto the island by car. You have
to get to Queens and make your way through back streets in an industrial
area to do so. The Queensboro Bridge (or whatever it is called now that New
Yorkers ignore) passes over the island, but has no outlets onto it. (It
would be hard to do so, given how high the bridge is.)

What's left, then, is that little scroungy two-lane bridge from Queens,
limiting how many people can get across it. But most people don't.

By train: Instead, they usually use the subway (the black line). Now, here
is a secret about taking the subway to Roosevelt Island: It is terrible.

In order to get under the East River, the train tunnel is very deep
underground, meaning you have to take about six escalators up to get to the
surface. Maybe more, I haven't counted. I tried to take the stairs once,
instead, and actually almost passed out. I'm not an athlete. But still.

By tram: The cool way to get to the island, the way that's mentioned
inHollywood Movies, is to take the newly refurbished tram, seen here in
blue.

It holds maybe 20 people at a time and takes probably 10 minutes. It's
beautiful! I recommend it to visitors. However, it is not mass transit in
the sense of accommodating masses of people for rapid transit.

I am not the type to find metaphors in things, as I said. I am just
reporting that the Hillary Clinton campaign is launching from one of the
least accessible parts of New York City. That is all I am doing here in
this article. Nothing

*Hillary Clinton’s “Grassroots Campaign” Sets $1,000 Minimum for a
Conversation
<https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/01/costs-2700-participate-hillary-clintons-grassroots-campaign/>
// Firstlook // Lee Fang – June 1, 2015*

An Intercept reader forwarded me the following invitation from Hillary
Clinton’s presidential campaign, asking him to join the candidate for a
series of events in Massachusetts. To take part in a “Conversation with
Hillary” at a home in Chestnut Hill on June 10th, three days before the
Clinton campaign’s official launch in New York, attendees are asked to pay
$2,700 per person. For the “Conversation with Hillary” earlier that day in
Boston, a “Friend” of the campaign can attend for as little s $1,000.

The private events are described in the invitation as part of Clinton’s
“grassroots campaign.”

The Clinton campaign website lists other upcoming fundraisers, including
one on June 17th with McGuireWoods, a lobbying firm that represents
ExxonMobil, the Washington Redskins, and America’s Natural Gas Alliance, a
trade group for fracking companies.

*Hedge Fund Giant Tells Hillary Clinton to Cut the 'Crap'
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-01/hedge-fund-giant-tells-hillary-clinton-to-cut-the-crap->
// Bloomberg // David Knowles – June 1, 2015*

In the early days of Hillary Clinton's latest presidential campaign, hedge
fund managers have taken it on the chin.

“There’s something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than
nurses or the truckers that I saw on I-80 as I was driving here over the
last two days,” Clinton declared in mid-April as she campaigned in Iowa.

“People aren’t getting a fair shake. Something is wrong when CEOs earn more
than 300 times than what the typical American worker earns and when hedge
fund managers pay a lower tax rate than truck drivers or nurses,” she
repeated a month later when she returned to the state.

“I don't need anybody crapping all over what I do for a living.”

Leon Cooperman

Now, one such manager is firing back.

"I don't need anybody crapping all over what I do for a living," Leon
Cooperman, the billionaire founder of the Omega Advisors hedge fund told
CNN on Monday, adding that she 'hangs out with all these people in Martha's
Vineyard and in the Hamptons and then the very first thing she has to say
is to criticize hedge funds."

Cooperman says he and other maligned hedge fund managers have given
millions of dollars back to society in the form of donations to
universities, charitable organizations, and cultural institutions.

"I have nothing to apologize for. I've made a lot of money. I'm giving it
all back to society," he said.

Clinton's populist critique of hedge fund manager tax rates has also come
under scrutiny for its accuracy.

"Her broad-brush assertion does not hold up to scrutiny, even when the
talking point is uttered correctly," the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler
wrote in May. "Overall, even hedge fund managers pay higher taxes—and tax
rates—than middle-class Americans."

The Tampa Bay Times' Politifact concurred.

"She is certainly wrong for dollar amounts, which is what her statement was
about. If she meant to say tax rates, that's more complicated, and the data
doesn't clearly back up the point. Here, we're looking at just taxes paid,
so we rate her claim False," Louis Jacobson wrote.

Clinton's own son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky is a founding hedge fund manager
for Eaglevale Partners, LP, and her ties to Wall Street have provided
ammunition to rivals like Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. On Sunday,
O'Malley renewed that criticism by noting that Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd
Blankfein allegedly said that he would be happy if either Clinton or Jeb
Bush was elected president in 2016.

Blankfein is an investor with Eaglevale Partners, which Mezvinsky started
with his former Goldman Sachs colleagues Bennett Grau and Mark Mallon.

*Journalists Meet To Discuss Frustration With Clinton Campaign's Control
Over Access And Information
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/journalists-clinton-campaign_n_7487076.html?1433194660>
// HuffPo // Michael Calderone – June 1, 2015*

NEW YORK -- Journalists covering Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign
met for nearly two hours in Washington on Monday to discuss concerns about
what they believe is inadequate access to cover the Democratic
front-runner, according to people who attended.

The grievances discussed at the private gathering, which was held at the
Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington offices, go beyond Clinton’s
unwillingness so far to substantively engage with the press, a topic that
has already been discussed publicly on cable news and social media.
Attendees of the meeting, who were not authorized by their news
organizations to speak on the record, charge the Clinton campaign with
keeping an excessively tight grip on information, even when it comes to
logistical details that don't seem particularly sensitive or revelatory.

Among the problems discussed were the campaign's failure to provide
adequate notice prior to events, the lack of a clear standard for whether
fundraisers are open or closed press and the reflexive tendency to opt to
speak anonymously. The complaints mirror concerns that a number of
political journalists have also raised in recent conversations with The
Huffington Post.

While the White House Correspondents' Association has worked for greater
media access for over a century and elects representatives to present the
group's concerns to the administration, there isn't any comparable,
established body working on behalf of the campaign press. Monday's meeting,
which included about 17 journalists from outlets such as The New York
Times, The Washington Post, Politico, Time and McClatchy, was an attempt
not only to discuss such concerns, but eventually to present them to the
campaign in a unified way.

Attendees discussed the feeling that the campaign hasn't provided enough
notice for events, resulting in logistical difficulties for those trying to
cover them. It’s still too early in the election cycle for the campaign to
be chartering the flights and buses that news organizations, at the cost of
thousands of dollars, can sign up for to follow the candidate from stop to
stop. For now, reporters are booking commercial flights to reach Clinton’s
events, and networks need to make sure satellite trucks and camera
equipment make it there on time. The group discussed urging the Clinton
campaign to provide information outlining the upcoming week so they can
plan accordingly.

Another concern raised, according to attendees, was that the campaign had
initially said that fundraisers of more than 100 people would be open to
the press through a pool system. Under this arrangement, certain reporters
are designated to cover events that cannot accommodate large numbers of
journalists, and those reporters then provide information to the larger
press corps. But recent Clinton fundraisers have been closed press.

Meeting attendees also expressed dissatisfaction with the ground rules
established for a Thursday briefing at the campaign's Brooklyn headquarters
that was attended by dozens of news outlets, including The Huffington Post.

CNBC’s John Harwood wrote Friday that reporters who attended the briefing
were not allowed to quote top campaign officials directly, even when it
came to information that appeared to be basic talking points. Harwood noted
that he could not show readers what campaign staffers’ desks looked like
because “the post-briefing tour was deemed off-the-record.” (A week
earlier, the Nashua Telegraph, a New Hampshire newspaper, similarly mocked
the Clinton campaign for holding a conference call in which mundane
information was provided under ground rules that those speaking should not
be quoted.)

Coincidentally, Monday's meeting wrapped up just before the campaign sent a
mass email to journalists with details of an upcoming event. The campaign
said the details could only be attributed to a “campaign official,” which
prompted New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney to out the sender on
Twitter. Such rules for anonymity, Nagourney noted, are not done
unilaterally but established between two parties. He also pointed out that
the information itself didn't "rise to [the] level" of requiring anonymity.

There was a general consensus at Monday's meeting that the ground rules for
the Thursday headquarters briefing were unacceptable. Attendees say they
expected that the group will urge the campaign to agree that similar
briefings need to be on the record in the future.

When asked about the reporters' complaints and how the campaign is
reacting, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill responded in an email to HuffPost.

“I’d say two things,” he wrote. “First, we want a happy press corps as much
as the press corps does. Not in an effort to obtain favorable coverage, but
because we're decent humans who want people to be able to plan their lives.
It's a long campaign, and we are going to do our best to find equilibrium.
Griping on background is not a constructive solution though, and I can't
help but point out the irony here."

The group also discussed its system for disseminating pool reports, which
The Washington Post criticized Friday for turning some reporters "into
second-class journalists in the hunt for Clinton info.”

The pool system, established at the urging of the Clinton campaign but run
by campaign reporters, places journalists on a rotation and disseminates
reports in real-time to fourteen news organizations. Those organizations,
which do not bear the costs of being in the pool, receive the reports at
the end of the day.

Though the Post put forth the idea of the system creating two classes of
reporters, attendees at Monday’s meeting stressed that the system allows
for wider dissemination of traveling pool reports than was possible during
Mitt Romney's campaign four years ago. At that time, only reporters
physically present for Romney campaign trips received pool reports, and
there was no wider dissemination to news organizations not in the rotation.

*New York Times reporter blows up Clinton campaign’s ‘background’ e-mail
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/06/01/new-york-times-reporter-blows-up-clinton-campaigns-background-e-mail/>
// WaPo // Erik Wemple –June 1, 2015*

Adam Nagourney is the Los Angeles bureau chief for the New York Times.
Though he’s the paper’s former chief political reporter, he’s not currently
assigned to cover the campaign of Democratic 2016 hopeful Hillary Rodham
Clinton. But he receives the campaign’s e-mails.

And tweets about them:

That tweet was an apparent reference to a June 1 e-mail from the Clinton
campaign that included this data point: “In Iowa, no Democratic candidate
for president has ever received more than 50% of the caucus vote unless
they were a sitting President or Vice-President, or incumbent Iowa
Senator.” More Nagourney:

As Nagourney noted, the e-mail addressed Clinton’s June 13 campaign kickoff
speech at Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park in New York City. The
e-mail instructed recipients to attribute its contents to a “Clinton
campaign official.” Those contents were pedestrian and, in some cases,
Wikipedia-style pedestrian. For example:

Hillary Clinton grew up in Illinois, and her career spent working on behalf
of children and families has taken her from Massachusetts to Washington,
D.C., Arkansas to New York. But it was the voters of New York who elected
her to serve as their first female senator.

Now let’s attribute that snippet in accordance with the rules of the e-mail:

Hillary Clinton grew up in Illinois, said a Clinton campaign official in an
e-mail sent to reporters, and her career spent working on behalf of
children and families has taken her from Massachusetts to Washington, D.C.,
Arkansas to New York. But it was the voters of New York who elected her to
serve as their first female senator, noted the campaign official.

In a chat with the Erik Wemple Blog, Nagourney said, “Reporters negotiate
the terms of information with sources….you can’t go preemptively.” He
called the information in the e-mail “anodyne stuff.” “It’s like give me a
break,” he says. Nagourney isn’t writing a piece on Clinton’s campaign
launch, nor has he heard any complaint from the Clinton people about his
tweets. The Twitter commentary from Nagourney, furthermore, lands on a heap
of other backlash pieces against the Clinton campaign team for generally
worthless press briefings.

And Nagourney has some experience torpedoing background e-mails. Way back
in December 2003, Nagourney did a story on how the capture of Iraqi
strongman Saddam Hussein would affect the then-incipient race for the
Democratic presidential nomination. Around that time, Howard Dean was
viewed as a threat to vanquish his rivals, who included eventual nominee
Sen. John Kerry. Nagourney wrote:

The strains this created were evident on Sunday. Mr. Kerry’s press
secretary, Stephanie Cutter, sent an e-mail message to news organizations
listing remarks Dr. Dean had made over the past six months that she said
demonstrated that his opposition to the war was ”politically driven.”

But Ms. Cutter, reflecting the concern among the campaigns that they not be
viewed as turning a foreign policy victory to political advantage, put a
note on the top of the statement demanding that it be reported as
”background” and attributed only to a Democratic campaign.

“She was upset,” Nagourney recalls, when asked how Cutter reacted to the
outing. Cutter told the Erik Wemple Blog via e-mail, “[B]ackground has to
be agreed to, not assumed.”

Of course, there’s a problem when reporters gripe about the “background”
tendencies of campaigns and Cabinet officials and White House officials and
so on. That problem is that media execs also run away from on-the-record
accountability whenever possible.

*Hillary Clinton coming back to S.C.
<http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article22801125.html>
// The State – June 1, 2015*

Hillary Clinton will return to South Carolina on June 17 in what will be
the 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner’s second trip to the Palmetto
State in three weeks.

Details were not announced.

Her latest trip will come after Clinton formally launches her campaign in
New York on June 13. She also will visit other early-primary states: Iowa,
New Hampshire and Nevada .

The former Secretary of State visited Columbia on Wednesday in her first
visit to South Carolina since she ran for president in 2008.

Clinton’s South Carolina campaign is holding an open house with community
leaders at its Columbia office on Tuesday.

*Secret effort to sell Hillary Clinton to rich liberals
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/secret-effort-to-sell-hillary-clinton-to-rich-liberals-118528.html>
// Politico // KENNETH P. VOGEL – June 2, 2015*

Winning over such donors is seen as critical to Clinton’s White House

prospects.

Hillary Clinton’s allies are working to win over unenthusiastic rich
liberals by pitting her against the Koch brothers and prospective GOP
rivals rather than more progressive Democrats, according to a draft of a
secret memo obtained by POLITICO.

The memo was prepared for Clinton enforcer David Brock ahead of an April
major donor meeting in San Francisco. But the concerns it reveals about
liberal donors’ coolness toward her presidential candidacy – with some even
holding out hope for a robust primary challenge from the left – are just as
acute today, Clinton allies say.

Winning over such donors is seen as critical to Clinton’s White House
prospects.

The Clinton forces are counting on a constellation of allied outside groups
to raise as much as $500 million to take on a Republican big-money machine
that has been raking in cash from dozens of super-rich and highly engaged
partisans. By contrast, the main super PAC supporting Clinton, Priorities
USA Action, has struggled to collect million-dollar checks.

Part of the reticence stems from liberal queasiness about the expanding
role of big money in politics since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens
United decision. But there’s also some discomfort with Hillary Clinton, the
former New York Senator and Secretary of State, who is seen as too hawkish
on foreign policy and insufficiently progressive on key issues like
fighting climate change, income inequality and the role of big money in
politics. Additionally, Democratic finance operatives say, efforts to
rustle up seven-figure checks are suffering from a lack of a single,
unifying enemy on the right.

All those concerns are addressed in the Brock memo, which appears to have
been drafted in preparation for his appearance at the annual spring meeting
of the Democracy Alliance major liberal donor club in April in San
Francisco. The memo is written as a question-and-answer exchange between
Brock and Democracy Alliance donors .

The memo suggests that Brock, who has built a fleet of deep-pocketed groups
aligned with Clinton, is taking a conciliatory approach to assuage donors’
concerns – conceding she’s not as liberal as some donors wish, but
emphasizing her progessiveness in public service and minimizing the
prospects of a vigorous Democratic primary.

“You say the Kochs represent all that is bad in this broken system, yet our
presumptive nominee is in the pocket of big Wall Street banks,” begins one
of the memo’s hypothetical donor questions. “Aren’t we going to have a hard
time going after the Kochs’ big money when some could argue that Sec.
Clinton is bank rolled by Wall Street and therefore there is a pox on both
our houses?”

The answer Brock should give, according to the memo: “It is no secret that
Sec. Clinton is fair-left and not far-left. I think it is safe to say that
there will be a dramatic difference between Sec. Clinton and whoever is the
Republican opponent. She has spent a lifetime advocating for women and
children and fighting for the middle class and there is not one GOP
candidate who has that record.”

Brock did not dispute the authenticity of the memo, which leaves a pair of
questions about the internal politics of the Clinton big-money effort
unanswered. But he declined to comment on the memo, or whether it reflected
his fundraising approach or his presentation at the Democracy Alliance,
which was closed to the press.

The three-day meeting of the Democracy Alliance — a group that includes
more than 100 individual and institutional donors and various unions — took
place at San Francisco’s Four Seasons Hotel just as Clinton officially
launched her campaign.

While some of the group’s major donors — including billionaires George
Soros and Tom Steyer — have displayed varying levels of support for
Clinton, others have grumbled mostly privately that she doesn’t reflect
their worldviews. Many Democracy Alliance members supported then-Illinois
Sen. Barack Obama over Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary
and urged Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016.

The group’s importance to Democratic big-money efforts was underscored by
the attendance of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, who held a
briefing on the sidelines of the San Francisco meeting. Podesta founded the
Center for American Progress think tank, which has benefited from Democracy
Alliance support, and he has close relationships with many club members. At
least one – CREDO Mobile co-founder Michael Kieschnick – told Podesta
during the side session that his campaign role made Kieschnick more
supportive of Clinton.

Another donor who attended, Utah-based investor Art Lipson, told POLITICO
that Podesta didn’t overtly seek support for Clinton’s campaign. “First of
all, that would have gone over badly. And he is much too smart to say it
and doesn’t need to say it,” said Lipson, who has donated about $2.5
million over the years to Democratic candidates and committees.

Lipson said he recently donated to a super PAC trying to draft Warren into
the Democratic presidential primary. In an assessment that could apply to
many Democracy Alliance members, he said “her message is exactly my
message, so I am 100 percent behind her. But there is no chance she is
going to run.” Lipson plans to attend a fundraiser this month in Salt Lake
City for Martin O’Malley’s Democratic presidential campaign and said the
former Maryland governor “comes across as being highly intelligent.”

Lipson said he’s “fine with Hillary” given “that it would take some sort of
a national disaster to have some other Democratic candidate” win the
nomination. But he said that, while he’ll vote for her over prospective
Republican rivals, he does not plan to donate to her campaign, let alone
any supportive super PAC..

Brock has sought to rally donors who might not otherwise give to Clinton by
highlighting expected attacks against her from the most reviled of liberal
bogeymen – the billionaire industrialist mega-donors Charles and David Koch
and their conservative political and policy network.

“They have their sights on Sec. Clinton,” reads the memo prepared for Brock
ahead of the meeting.

He spoke on a panel called “The Electoral Arms Race,” focused on the
unprecedented $889-million spending spree planned by the Koch network in
the 2016 run-up, according to an agenda obtained by POLITICO.

At the meeting, sources say, Brock detailed a new initiative of his
American Bridge political outfit to highlight key 2016 states in which Koch
Industries, the brothers’ multinational manufacturing conglomerate, could
be used against GOP candidates. The model for this project, the sources
said, were the attacks that Democrat Gary Peters and his allies leveled
against the Kochs and Republican Terri Lynn Land in his successful 2014
Michigan Senate race.

“This is a brand new project and we project it will cost around $3
million,” reads Brock’s memo. “We think it is critical to start the project
early and we are looking for support to get staffed up very soon. We are
hoping to get immediate support coming in at the $250,000 level.”

The memo also includes responses to questions about how liberals could
justify their criticism of the Koch groups for not disclosing their donors
when some of Brock’s groups – including Media Matters and American Bridge
21st Century Foundation – also do not disclose the identities of their
donors.

“How can we stand up here and expect to be taken seriously talking about
what they are doing when we are doing the same thing?” reads one question.
In the suggested answer, Brock expresses disapproval for the proliferation
of so-called “dark money,” which Clinton herself has criticized, but adds,
“We will play by the existing rules in this election because we cannot
unilaterally disarm – too much of what we care about is at stake.” And he
asserts: “There is a major difference here – the Kochs are flooding the
political system with money for pure self interest and self gain,” alleging
Koch-backed groups back policies and candidates committed to “slash(ing)
government regulations so they can pollute with abandon and increase their
bottom line. People in this room are not motivated by personal gain, and
often work against their own self-interest.”

The Kochs’ allies reject this argument on its face, contending that their
activism is motivated by a belief that society as a whole stands to benefit
from small-government policies that allow the free market to thrive.

Told of the characterization in the memo, James Davis, a spokesman for the
Koch network umbrella group Freedom Partners, said its members are focused
on “advancing a future with more economic opportunities for every American.”

Davis accused the Kochs’ liberal critics of “launching personal attacks and
taking away those freedoms.” And, alluding to support by Democrats
including Clinton for reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, which Freedom
Partners opposes, Davis said “many of them are rigging the system to fatten
their wallets with taxpayer-funded corporate welfare. This is the culture
of corruption in Washington that we’re fighting against.”

*Hillary Clinton Returning to L.A. for June 19 Fundraising Swing
<http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/hillary-clinton-visiting-l-a-june-19-fundraiser-1201509648/>
// Variety // Ted Johnson – June 1, 2015*

Hillary Clinton is returning to Los Angeles on June 19 for a fundraising
swing that includes an event at the home of HBO’s Michael Lombardo and
husband Sonny Ward, sources said.

The event will be a day after President Obama treks to L.A. for a
fundraiser at the home of Tyler Perry. That event will raise money for the
Democratic National Committee.

Other events are expected on her L.A. schedule.

Clinton’s visit to L.A. will be her second since announcing her
presidential bid in April. In May, she raised money at three different
events, including one at the home of Steven Bochco and another at the home
of Haim Saban.

The $2,500-per-person event at the home of Lombardo and Ward is aimed in
part at LGBT donors. The couple hosted a DNC fundraiser at their home last
year with guest First Lady Michelle Obama.

Clinton will officially announce her campaign on June 13, with a speech in
New York at Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park, followed by treks to
Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

*Tobey Maguire among Hollywood players hosting Hillary Clinton in June L.A.
swing
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/02/tobey-maguire-among-hollywood-players-hosting-hillary-clinton-in-june-l-a-swing/>
// WaPo // Matea Gold – June 2, 2015 *

LOS ANGELES — Actor Tobey Maguire is among the Hollywood players who will
host Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton later this
month when she makes her second fundraising swing through Los Angeles.

Maguire, star of the “Spiderman” franchise, and his wife Jennifer are
opening their home for one of two “conversations” with Clinton on June 19
that benefit her presidential campaign, according to an invitation obtained
by The Washington Post. A similar event earlier in the evening is being
held at the home of HBO executive Michael Lombardo and his husband Sonny
Ward, who were top fundraisers for President Obama.

Tickets for both events cost $2,700, the maximum allowed donation to
Clinton’s campaign. Co-hosts are asked to raise $27,000 and hosts are asked
to bring in $50,000.

Clinton was just in Los Angeles May 7, when she headlined three fundraisers
hosted by figures such as “NYPD Blue” producer Steven Bocho, “Homeland’s”
Howard Gordon and billionaire media mogul Haim Saban. Those events together
drew more than 800 people, generating at least $2.2 million for her
campaign.

*Clinton supporters target Vermont
<http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/01/hillary-clinton-vermont/28334195/>
// Burlington Free Press // April Burbank – June 1, 2015*

Presidential candidate and former Hillary Clinton's campaign surely can woo
Vermonters away from their independent senator in a Democratic primary,
supporters of the former U.S. secretary of state agreed at a campaign
gathering in Burlington.

A group of several dozen people brainstormed ideas Monday: Emphasize her
gender and the historic nature of a potential presidency. Underscore her
experience. Appeal to Vermonters' pragmatic side. Stock house parties with
Vermont beer.

And, perhaps above all, stay on friendly but noncommittal terms with a
rival, Vermont's "almost native son," Bernie Sanders, the independent
senator seeking the Democratic nomination.

Nearly everyone at the organizing event mentioned Sanders as a point of
comparison.

"The slogan should be, 'Cheer for Bernie. Vote for Hillary,' " said Beach
Conger of Burlington.

To the extent the strategy works in Vermont, Democrats suggested they'd
drive across the river to stump for Clinton in the more influential New
Hampshire primary.

"We all know that Vermont's primary somehow seems never to make or break
presidential politics," said Gov. Peter Shumlin, who spoke at the
organizing meeting at Main Street Landing on a rainy Monday evening. "Let's
be honest about this. But let's also remember that to our east is a state
with great people where they seem to have a great impact on the outcome of
presidential primaries."

Vermont is among the 12 states holding a primary on Super Tuesday, March 1.

The state's Democratic establishment has lined up largely behind Clinton.
In addition to Shumlin, former Gov. Madeleine Kunin spoke in Clinton's
favor Monday.

"I've known Hillary through the years both personally as a very bright,
competent and compassionate woman," said Kunin, who was Vermont's first
female governor, "and in her public presence, the issues she's fought for
all of her life."

*Hillary Clinton back in Bay Area on June 20
<http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2015/06/01/hillary-clinton-back-in-bay-area-on-june-20/>
// San Jose Mercury News // Josh Richman – June 1, 2015*

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will be back in the Bay
Area to raise campaign money in a few weeks, just a little more than a
month since her last sweep through the region.

Clinton will attend a brunch reception on Saturday, June 20 in San
Francisco’s Mission District, hosted by real estate broker, former planning
commissioner, and attorney Rick Hills. Tickets start at $2,700 per person;
co-hosts who raise $27,000 or more and hosts who raise $50,000 or more will
be invited to a pre-reception and photo line with Clinton.

An email sent Monday to announce the event noted that Clinton’s campaign
recently unveiled a finance committee structure in which someone who raises
$27,000 in 30 days will be a “Hillstarter” with a seat on the Northern
California finance committee; someone who raises $50,000 by Dec. 31 will be
a “Hillraiser” with a seat on the Northwest regional finance committee; and
someone who raises $100,000 by Dec. 31 will be a “Hillblazer” with a seat
on the national finance committee.

“We hope you will use this opportunity to help reach your goals and take
part in the wonderful benefits (soon to be revealed) associated with each
committee,” the email said.

The former U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator and First Lady held two
fundraisers in San Francisco on Wednesday, May 6, one hosted by hedge fund
billionaire turned environmentalist Tom Steyer and the other by longtime
friend and support Susie Tompkins Buell, cofounder of Esprit and the North
Face. She held three fundraisers on May 7 in Los Angeles before returning
to the Bay Area on Friday, May 8 for a luncheon at the Portola Valley home
of eBay President and CEO John Donahoe and Eileen Donahoe, global affairs
director for Human Rights Watch and former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Human Rights Council.

Clinton declared her candidacy April 12 and has been busily visiting
early-primary states since, but her campaign announced Monday that she’ll
give her “official campaign launch speech” on Saturday, June 13 at the
Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park on New York City’s Roosevelt
Island. The event is open to the public, and members of the public can
register for tickets online. She has yet to hold any public campaign events
in California.

*Marco Rubio And Rand Paul Pose Greatest Threat To Hillary Clinton
<http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/01/marco-rubio-and-rand-paul-pose-greatest-threat-to-hillary-clinton/>
// The Federalist // Emily Ekins – June 1, 2015*

A recent CNN/ORC poll finds 75 percent of Republican partisans prefer that
their party nominate a “presidential candidate who can beat the Democratic
candidate,” while only 25 percent prefer a nominee who agrees with them on
issues that matter most to them. This clashes with partisans’ reported
preferred candidates for the Republican nomination. Numerous polls find
disproportionate support among partisans for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush
and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; however, U.S. senators Rand Paul and Marco
Rubio perform better in general election matchups against likely Democratic
candidate Hillary Clinton.

Despite this, 2016 election coverage has tended to pay more attention to
Bush and Walker over Rubio and Paul. In fact, a May Fox News poll even
excluded Paul from its general-election matchups with Hillary Clinton.

One reason less attention is being paid to these candidates is that only a
quarter of Republican voters believe either Rubio or Paul have the “best
chance of beating the Democratic nominee in the general election,”
according to another recent CNN/ORC poll. But the matchup data say
differently.

To be sure, Clinton enjoys a sizable lead against all Republican
contenders. That being said, Quinnipiac’s latest poll shows that in a
hypothetical general-election matchup, Paul and Rubio come the closest to
beating Clinton. Paul would garner 42 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 46
percent and Rubio would capture 41 percent to Clinton’s 45 percent.

Higher Heights, Lower Lows for Paul and Rubio

This poll is not an anomaly. In fact, an analysis of major polls conducted
in 2015 shows that Paul has fared best against Clinton from January-March
of this year, with Rubio pulling ahead in April. Quinnipiac found that Paul
and Rubio are the only widely known candidates whose favorables are not
“under water.”

If Republicans care about nominating a candidate who can beat the
Democratic nominee in 2016, they might want to pay more attention to Rubio
and Paul.

Why might Paul and Rubio lead other Republicans in match-ups with Hillary
Clinton? There are a number of possible explanations. One likely
explanation is that Paul and Rubio beat Clinton on empathy.

Perception of candidate empathy matters. Readers may recall going into the
2012 presidential election that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama were tied on
several candidate qualities, including being honest and trustworthy and
being strong leaders. But Obama trounced Romney on “cares about the needs
and problems of people like you” 60 to 48 percent. In fact, a slim majority
(51 percent) of Americans thought Romney did not care about the needs of
people like themselves.

How could anyone honestly expect to win if a majority of the people doesn’t
think he or she cares about them?

Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama. The Quinnipiac Poll finds that only 48
percent of Americans think Hillary cares about the needs and problems of
people like themselves and 47 percent think she does not care about them.

Republicans Who Care

But Paul and Rubio are the only GOP contenders who Americans are more
likely to believe “cares about the needs and problems of people like
[them]” than don’t. In this, Paul has a +6 point advantage and Rubio has a
+3 point advantage. In fact, Paul and Rubio are the only Republican
candidates in the poll who Americans believe care about their needs. For
instance, Jeb Bush has a -7 point deficit, Walker has a -5 point deficit,
and Donald Trump has a -53 point deficit on empathy.

Why might Americans think Paul and Rubio care about people like them?
Perhaps because they have taken stands on issues most Republicans avoid.
For instance, Paul has actively sought reform of the criminal-justice
system and is an outspoken critic of police misconduct and the justice
system’s disparate impact on African-American and Hispanic communities.
Further, Paul has twice filibustered (or quasi-filibustered) over drone
assassinations of citizens in the United States and renewal of the Patriot
Act.

Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the six presidential
elections since 1992. However, candidates like Rubio and Paul who expand
their scope of issue ownership beyond conventional Republican issues may be
expanding their base of support. It’s worth noting that what Rubio and
Paul’s unique stances share in common is expanding freedom and choice, and
this may be attractive to new GOP voters.

Pickups Among Independent Voters

Independent voters seem to largely drive these results. Paul (+5) and Rubio
(+1) are the only Republicans who lead Clinton among independent voters.
Instead, Walker trails Clinton by 2 points, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
by 3 points, Bush by 5 points, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee by 7
points, Sen. Ted Cruz by 8 points, and Trump by 15 points.

Who are these voters that would not vote for any other Republican candidate
besides Paul or Rubio in a matchup with Clinton? Unfortunately, little raw
data are publicly available, besides a December 2014 CNN/ORC poll available
via the Roper Center that included Paul, but not Rubio. Furthermore, sample
sizes are small so data should be interpreted with caution.

However, data from this survey suggest that national-security issues, such
as the U.S. government’s use of torture, may attract new voters into the
Paul camp. Indeed, civil liberties are precisely the issues on which Paul
has distinguished himself from the Republican pack. More publicly available
data are needed to investigate Rubio’s voters.

Examining respondents from a Gallup March 2015 survey who are not favorable
of Republican presidential candidates besides Paul or Rubio provides
further insight into these non-traditionally Republican voters. Paul seems
to attract younger, white, male liberals who are non-religious, and Rubio
seems to attract middle-age, Hispanic moderates, and particularly women.
(Once again, sample sizes are small, so data should be interpreted with
caution.)

Right-Wing, or Leftist?

Some might find it ironic that Rubio and Paul, who were catapulted to high
elected office via what many call the “far right-wing” Tea Party movement,
are also the very candidates posing the most formidable challenge to the
potential Democratic nominee. In fact, Dana Milbank from the Washington
Post even argued that Paul had taken a “left turn,” and that his positions
would work well if he were challenging Hillary for the Democratic
nomination. How can one come from the “far right” and compete for the
Democratic nomination at the same time?

While many Republican lawmakers are known by their stances on gay marriage,
taxes, and spending, these issues are simply not a high priority for many
outside of the GOP base. Instead, many Americans are more worried about
being unnecessarily (and unjustly) hassled by the police than by the
Internal Revenue Service. Many fear being profiled by law enforcement,
worry their grandmother may be deported, and wonder if they will eventually
be accepted by their communities.

Americans gravitate to politics of inclusivity, of empathy. This is not the
same as handing out “gifts,” as Romney suggested. Americans do not need to
be bought—they want to be asked for their vote (well in advance of Election
Day).

*Dan Pfeiffer: Hillary Is ‘Going To Have To Engage The Press’
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/01/dan-pfeiffer-hillary-is-going-to-have-to-engage-the-press-video/>
// Daily Caller // Al Weaver – June 1, 2015*

On his first day as a CNN contributor, former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer
argued that Hillary Clinton is “going to have to engage the press” if she
wants to have a success in her presidential campaign.

Appearing on “The Lead” with host Jake Tapper, Pfeiffer said that her
dealings with the press will be “critical to her success” as the campaign
drags on.

JAKE TAPPER: Let’s talk about Hillary Clinton who is obviously way favored
on the Democratic side of the aisle. You said that the political world had
lost its mind about the Hillary Clinton e-mails. You don’t think that this
is something the American people should care about? She wiped her server
cleaned, she used a private server for official business?

DAN PFEIFFER: No. I don’t mean that it’s not something that should be
looked at. I think it is. My point was when this all happened, every, you
know, political prognosticator and pundit was saying that this is going to
be an existential threat to her campaign, some said. We have a poll for out
in Iowa last night, or the other night that said she’s still doing quite
well there. So I think it’s a legitimate issue that people should look at,
but not the threat to her long-term political viability and some say it is.

TAPPER: One could argue that reason that she’s been able to avoid any harm
from this is that she has avoided any questions about it. She has really
kept the press at arms length during all of her various trips. She hasn’t
given any significant interviews. Is this a smart strategy or do you think
it will ultimately backfire?

PFEIFFER: Over the course of time..she hasn’t even done the official
announcement of her campaign yet. Over the course of time, she’s going to
have to engage the press. I think it will be critical to her success. I
think that whenever you’re in a situation like this…you want to make sure
you run your campaign strategy, and don’t do it on the schedule the press
sets. But what you can’t do is go so long without talking to the press that
it bubbles over into a world where every single little interaction you have
becomes carried on live television. So you have to find the balance. As the
campaign goes on I think they’ll be able to do that.

*20 things for Hillary Clinton to worry about
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/06/01/20-things-for-hillary-clinton-to-worry-about/>
// WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – June 1, 2015*

For a presidential candidate who is so “inevitable,” Hillary Clinton is in
an odd position. She’s far ahead of any challenger but seems more
vulnerable than ever. Here are 20 reasons for her to worry:

1. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is being taken seriously in the media and is
drawing big crowds in Iowa.

2. Once Sanders breaks 25 to 30 percent, other, stronger candidates may
consider getting into the race.

3. The war against the Islamic State is going poorly, making her decision
to tie herself to President Obama’s mast on foreign policy more problematic
by the day.

4. Ditto for the Iran negotiations.

5. She has to re-launch her campaign, suggesting that it didn’t get off the
ground the first time.

6. The appearance of so many quality candidates on the GOP side who have
interesting things to say highlights how little she offers in the way of
new or interesting ideas.

7.  The media buy that the Clinton Foundation scandals — with her greed and
lack of candor front and center — are real scandals. Media discussion of
her antics remains vicious. Not even her allies seem inclined to defend
her. And to top it off, the monthly release of e-mails will give the media
new fodder for months to come.

8.  The premise of her campaign — working for everyday Americans — has been
swamped by scandal and her own fear of freely interacting with everyday
Americans.

9. Neither Sanders nor former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley has
anything to lose, so they might as well go after her biggest liabilities —
her character and staleness. They’ve begun already.

10. She still can’t manage a one-on-one news anchor interview. Will she
ever?

11.  Other candidates are improving, but she shows no sign of doing so.

12. Bill Clinton continues to sound off and sound out of touch.

13. A listless economy does not offer impetus for a “third term.”

14. The GOP not only has a lot of quality candidates, but also a lot of
young ones. Whether it is age, longevity or simply cultural cluelessness,
it’s hard to see how Clinton generates excitement, particularly among young
voters.

15. Republican operatives can still focus their fire almost exclusively on
her, while Democrats can’t yet single out one or even a couple of GOP
targets. The general election campaign against Clinton is well underway.

16.  There does not appear to be anyone in her inner circle willing to tell
her hard truths about her campaign skills, strategy and unethical behavior.

17. She has reminded us that with the Clintons come a retinue of unsavory
characters.

18. With 100 percent name identification, it is hard to imagine there are
many persuadable voters out there. By contrast, many GOP contenders are
largely unknown to the electorate and can gain followers. Clinton’s
plunging favorable ratings suggest she may have peaked already.

19.  She doesn’t have to lose the Iowa caucuses to get rotten headlines.
She’s flunking the expectations game.

20. She is charmless.

*The Presidential Candidates’ 404 Pages, Ranked
<https://www.yahoo.com/tech/the-presidential-candidates-404-pages-ranked-120445718829.html>
// Yahoo // Daniel Bean – June 1, 2015*

Career politicians are acutely sensitive to taking wrong turns. So it’s no
surprise that many of the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates are paying
attention to where their campaign website visitors land when they veer
off-course.

Instead of a simple error message, the 404 pages for the online
headquarters of Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, and others
offer family photos, personal videos, and, of course, plenty of puns.

Below, we’ve ranked all of these novelty 404 pages with respect to
creativity, technical prowess, and also arbitrariness. You probably should
not base your vote in the upcoming election on this.

LAST PLACE: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Lindsey Graham, and Carly
Fiorina

If you don’t put any effort into making your 404 page fun at all, you make
last place on our list. The candidates listed above feature standard “page
not found” or “error” messages when visitors get lost on their campaign
sites. In the case of Ted Cruz’s website, trying to access a page that
doesn’t exist will simply spit you back out to the home page.

Thanks for not playing along, guys and gals!

6. Rick Santorum

We like 404s that are fun and lighthearted. So since former Pennsylvania
senator Rick Santorum decided to use his as a nasty poke at the Hillary
Clinton email scandal, we’ve pushed him down on our list. More demerits
were calculated in for the Republican since his site ostensibly lifted the
“mean Hillary Clinton joke 404″ idea from his party’s official website.
(Also, the GOP’s Hillary 404 is way funnier.)

5. Marco Rubio

Nothing is more American than throwing a little pigskin, right Marco? The
Florida Senator’s 404 page wants you to know that he’s a big fan of family
and football. It’s a nice-looking and technically savvy landing page with
an embedded video, but the charm of it all might be lost on its alignment
with a sport that’s under fire for safety concerns.

FUMBLE!

4. Martin O’Malley

Martin O’Malley’s horse-mounted general 404 gives us too much of a
Dukakis-on-a-tank feel to rank highly on our list. We get the joke, and
it’s good to see that the Maryland governor knows how to poke a little fun
at himself. But if the Democrat wants to upend favorite Hillary Clinton for
the 2016 party nomination, he’ll want to bring something a little more
relatable than looking regal on a horse.

3. Bernie Sanders

Senator Bernie Sanders’ 404 redirection video message is no-frills
personified. (Go watch it.) And it’s helpful, even! We can appreciate those
traits in and of themselves, but imagining the conversation Bernie had with
some web designer intern just before filming the vid, that’s the part that
makes us smile the most.

“What’s that?! You want me to point at the bottom of the screen?!”

2. Mike Huckabee

The fishing Mike shown in Governor Huckabee’s 404 page cleverly reinforces
the Republican’s good ol’ boy persona. The bonus points added for
incorporating a dog bring him to second on our list. Simple and appealing.
And a dog!

1.       Hillary Clinton

Right now, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s cute and punny 404
gets our vote for number one. Hers, featuring a family picture at Disney
with Bill and Chelsea, was the first we came across this election cycle and
none of the other candidates have been able to dethrone the queen yet.

*

Of course, the party primaries leading up to the 2016 election are still a
long way away, and plenty of candidates have yet to officially launch their
campaign websites. (We hold high hopes for Donald Trump’s 404, for
example.) So between now and then, we’ll be updating our ranking as other
hopefuls launch their respective Internet campaign home pages.

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*The race is on to become Hillary Clinton alternative
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-democratic-primary/>//
CNN // Eric Bradner - June 2, 2015*

Washington – The race to become the liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton
is on.

Thanks to a new poll, which shows Clinton has some serious vulnerabilities
when it comes to trustworthiness and likeability, contenders like Vermont's
Bernie Sanders and Maryland's Martin O'Malley may have more room to make
their case than previously thought.

A more alarming sign for Clinton: Prospective Republican opponents have
closed on her in head-to-head matchups, with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul,
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker all now polling
within the margin of error.

Clinton's favorability rating is now 46% -- down from 53% in March. And
just 42% said they view Clinton as honest and trustworthy, compared to 50%
in March, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

The greatest threat to her chances of securing the Democratic nomination --
the potential for a Sen. Elizabeth Warren candidacy -- is apparently over.
But the polling shows she'll still have to come to play against the likes
of liberal folk hero Sanders and the willing-to-throw-a-punch O'Malley.

Clinton's share of Democrats' support has slipped from 69% in April to 60%
six weeks later. Second, though, is Vice President Joe Biden, at 14%.
Sanders is at 10%, double his support from March, while O'Malley still
barely registers at 1%.

The former Maryland governor officially launched his campaign over the
weekend, and Sanders made news by attracting crowds of hundreds to events
on his first swing through Iowa.

"That was an indication of the fact that Iowa voters definitely want to get
engaged," said Tom Henderson, the Democratic chairman in Polk County,
Iowa's most populous county.

Though there are apparent cracks in the armor, top Democratic hands say
Clinton is still on safe territory.

"If either one of them were to win, it would be the greatest upset in the
history of politics," said Dan Pfeiffer, a CNN political commentator and
former senior White House aide to President Barack Obama.

And Clinton's campaign is making as clear as it can that the former
secretary of state is preparing for a real primary battle -- particularly
in early-voting states like Iowa.

On June 13 -- the same day Clinton holds her first major speech and rally
of the campaign in New York City -- she'll meet with key supporters and
volunteers in the Hawkeye State, and simulcast that meeting to similar ones
in nearly all 435 congressional districts across the country.

In the 2008 campaign, Clinton was stunned by a third-place finish behind
Barack Obama and Sen. John Edwards. It's a lesson that seems to have been
taken to heart for her 2012 campaign.

Team Clinton already employs 21 field organizers and six regional
organizing directors in Iowa, and those organizers are working down to the
precinct level. The staff includes state director Matt Paul and deputy
state director Molly Schermann, who both worked for former Iowa governor
and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, as well as political director Troy
Price, the former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party.

That said, her advisers know Iowa has always been a game of expectations,
and they are doing their best to temper them.

Clinton campaign spokesman Jesse Ferguson on Monday highlighted a number
many Clinton allies have cited: No Democrat who wasn't a sitting president,
vice president or Iowa senator has ever topped 50% of the state's caucus
vote.

Still, Clinton is far from a typical candidate.

Henderson, the Polk County Democratic chair, said it's unfair to compare
low-profile candidates like Sanders and O'Malley with Clinton.

"We keep comparing these candidates to Hillary Clinton, who may be the most
famous women in the world, and a lot of them are still emerging -- people
are getting to know them," he said. "It's still early in the campaign."

The biggest danger to Clinton's candidacy is the emergence of a damaging
narrative -- that she acts like she's above reproach when it comes to
questions over her use of private email while heading the State Department
or the controversial donations accepted by the Clinton Foundation. Or that
she's completely untrustworthy.

*Martin O’Malley’s first challenge: Bernie Sanders
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/martin-omalley-first-challenge-bernie-sanders>
// MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – 6/1/15*

Martin O’Malley was supposed to be the main liberal alternative to Hillary
Clinton. But when he announced his candidacy Saturday in Baltimore, he
found that spot already taken by someone else.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is now Clinton’s top rival in early polls,
beat the former Maryland governor to a presidential announcement by exactly
a month, and to a outdoor kickoff rally by five days.

Both men served two terms as mayor in the largest city in their states.
Both were then elected statewide. And both returned to those cities this
week to announce their underdog presidential campaigns. But the scenes were
very different.

O’Malley had several hundred, perhaps a thousand, supporters to cheer him
on Saturday at a park overlooking Baltimore’s skyline. There were also
about a dozen protesters, who heckled O’Malley over his policing policies
as mayor.

Sanders, on the other hand, drew more than 5,000 supporters in Burlington,
a city of 40,000. A sea of fans overflowed the lakefront park Sanders
helped build as mayor, and packed in behind portapotties and platforms,
where they had no hope of a view.

And it was just the kickoffs. Both candidates this week visited Iowa where
Sanders drew 700 in Davenport for the biggest rally any candidate of either
party has seen in the state this election season, according to the New York
Times. In a tiny town of Kensett, population 240, Sanders drew 300.

O’Malley visited Davenport three days later and spoke to 50 supporters. He
met another 200 in Des Moines later that night, according to the Des Moines
Register.

Meanwhile, Sanders headed to Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he fired up an
overflow crowd of more than 3,000 in a basketball gym, according to the
Minneapolis Star Tribune. Hundreds more listed from outside, unable to get
in.

On the Internet, 84,000 Facebook users generated 120,000 interactions about
O’Malley in the 24 hours after his launch, according to the social
networking company. In the same period after Sanders’ announcement,
Facebook record 10 times the interactions – 1.2 million – from 592,000
different users. (Hillary Clinton blew both of them out of the water with
10.1 million interactions from almost 5 million users.)

Craig Varoga, who served as O’Malley’s chief strategist on his 2010
reelection campaign, but is not involved with the candidate today, said
O’Malley needs to find a way to deal with Sanders soon.

“His first real challenge is dealing with Bernie Sanders’ campaign, rather
than directly going after Hillary Clinton,” said Varoga.

Only perhaps 30-40% of Democrats are currently not supporting Clinton. If
O’Malley and Sanders split that bloc, neither will be seen as credible,
Varoga said.

“They have to find a way to talk about Sanders without talking about him.
The worst thing is for one longshot to get in a fight with another
longshot,” Varoga said.

O’Malley’s camp, however, insists they’re not concerned about Sanders – in
fact they welcome his success.

As they see it, O’Malley’s more immediate challenge is breaking through the
psychological barrier of Hillary Clinton’s inevitability. No candidate will
be taken seriously until the idea that Clinton can lose is taken seriously.
So the more any progressive alternative to Clinton rises in the polls, the
better for everyone running to her left.

“I think it’s an encouragement to my candidacy,” O’Malley said of Sanders
on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday. Why should progressive support O’Malley over
Sanders? “Because I have a track record of actually getting things done,
not just talking about things,” O’Malley added.

The former governor’s allies view Sanders as essentially a protest
candidate, while O’Malley is presidential. If they can convince voters
there’s a chance for an alternative to actually win against Clinton, they
think Sanders’ supporters will flock to the more electable O’Malley.

Team O’Malley looks to the 2012 Republican presidential primary, in which
nearly every candidate had a moment in the sun, and sees Sanders’ fling
with Democratic primary voters as fleeting.

And O’Malley’s allies are pointing to another historical parallel as well.
“Bernie Sanders is in some ways like Sen. McCarthy was in 1968,” said
former Maryland governor Parris Glendening, who is supporting O’Malley.

The 1968 Democratic primary featured a thought-to-be-inevitable frontrunner
in Lyndon Johnson, the incumbent president. None of the party’s top
prospects dared challenge Johnson. But the Vietnam War created an opening
for an anti-war progressive, exploited by underfunded longshot candidate
Sen. Eugene McCarthy.

After McCarthy came shockingly close to winning the New Hampshire primary,
Robert F. Kennedy sensed Johnson’s weakness and jumped into the race. That
prompted the once-inevitable president to throw in the towel on his
reelection bid entirely and quit. Kennedy won a string of contests, but
tragically did not make it to the Democratic Convention when he was
assassinated after winning the California primary in June.

In O’Malleyland’s eyes, Sanders is McCarthy and O’Malley is Kennedy, the
young, handsome Catholic pol.

While they agree on most issues, Sanders is an anti-politician at a time
when politicians are liked, while O’Malley looks like a central casting
candidate. And without a critical issue like the Vietnam War where the
candidates differ, it’s unclear if O’Malley can draw a clear contrast with
his rivals and distinguish himself.

“O’Malley’s advantage is that he’s not just out there on these issues, but
he’s been very effective on these issues,” Glendening said, pointing to
O’Malley’s track record in Maryland. “His other big advantage is
organization,” Glendening added, pointing to the former governor’s years as
a political organizer and operative before he sought elected office himself.

“Sanders’ support is just a representation of the explosiveness of these
issues,” he added.

Indeed, even many of Sanders supporters don’t necessarily see him as
presidential. And a danger for the self-proclaimed democratic socialist was
on display this weekend, when he had to answer questions about a
controversial 1972 essay, in which he wrote that women fantasize about
being raped. Sanders called it “stupid” and said he was imitating the voice
of the male chauvinist he was criticizing.

For the meantime, though, both candidates will be focused squarely on
Clinton, not each other.

*Martin O’Malley misses his chance: How Hillary Clinton closed off his
biggest 2016 opening
<http://www.salon.com/2015/06/01/martin_omalley_misses_his_chance_how_hillary_clinton_closed_off_his_biggest_2016_opening/>
// Salon // Simon Maloy – June 1, 2015*

After months and months of hemming, hawing, and dithering, Martin O’Malley
is finally an official candidate for the presidency. He’s entered the race
with literally nowhere to go but up – his RealClearPolitics national
polling average is, as of this writing, a clinically dead 0.8 percent. That
puts him at the very bottom of the Democratic primary barrel. He’s being
badly outpolled by Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, neither of whom have
taken any steps towards 2016 bids, and he’s even behind bored vanity
candidates Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb. It’s a weird position for an
accomplished two-term governor of a reliably blue state to find himself in.

So what hope does O’Malley have of snatching the nomination away from
runaway favorite Hillary Clinton? At the moment, not much, but he’s at
least going to try and make things interesting. Both O’Malley and Clinton’s
current chief rival, Bernie Sanders, have indicated that they’re going to
come at Hillary from the left and appeal to the slice of the Democratic
base that is maybe a little uneasy over her perceived centrist tendencies.
Unfortunately for O’Malley, Clinton has already moved to cut him off at the
knees on one issue he clearly hopes to challenger her on: immigration.

Remember last summer’s border crisis? Thousands and thousands of
undocumented immigrant children were pouring over the southern border,
straining the resources of immigration agencies and causing a major
political controversy. The crisis had the weird effect of dividing
Democrats on immigration, an issue that typically unites the party in the
face of Republican fractiousness. At the time, the White House moved to
accelerate deportation proceedings for the undocumented minors to send a
message to Central American countries that there was no benefit in making
the dangerous journey through Mexico.

O’Malley, who was still governor of Maryland, very publicly broke with
President Obama and condemned the White House for pursuing a cruel and
immoral policy. “It is contrary to everything we stand for as a people to
try to summarily send children back to death,” he said, “in a place where
drug gangs are the greatest threat to stability, rule of law and democratic
institutions in this hemisphere.” It was smart politics for O’Malley, as he
simultaneously galvanized liberals on a contentious issue, put daylight
between himself and a president whose popularity wasn’t so hot at the time,
and directly challenged Hillary Clinton, who had said the undocumented
minors “should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible
adults in their families are.”

Picking a fight with Clinton on immigration made sense. She’d stumbled
badly on the issue in 2007 when she refused to directly answer whether or
not she’d back driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. That
experience, combined with her support for Obama’s policy towards the border
crisis, seemed to indicate that there’d be at least some space to attack
her from the left on the issue. As for O’Malley’s own record, he could
point to legislation he signed allowing undocumented immigrants access to
driver’s licenses and his support for a state-level version of the DREAM
Act.

But O’Malley waited too long, and while he sat on the sidelines, Clinton
seized the initiative. Last month she laid out her own vision for
immigration reform that preserves and expands upon the policies Obama has
put in place through executive action. She spoke to the urgency liberals
and Latino voters feel about passing immigration reform, and aggressively
challenged the Republican presidential candidates, attacking them for not
“clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship.” At the very
least, O’Malley could have used the issue to be perceived as the person who
was forcing Hillary to the left. Instead, she went there on her own.

O’Malley still has a strong record on immigration issues, and he’s hired
Obama’s former director of Hispanic media to help craft policy and conduct
outreach. And all indications are that he’s still going to make an issue of
Hillary’s response to the border crisis as part of a broader critique of
her immigration stance. He’s absolutely right to do that, but Hillary’s
already making moves to align herself more closely with the portion of the
electorate that he’ll be targeting. There wasn’t a whole lot of room on
Hillary’s left to begin with, and if this keeps up, O’Malley could soon
find himself with nowhere left to go.

*O’Malley’s Bad Timing
<http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_06/omalleys_bad_timing055835.php>
// Washington Monthly // Ed Kilgore – June 1, 2015*

When I was first in the vicinity of Martin O’Malley, right after he was
first elected mayor of Baltimore (in 1999), the prevailing question wasn’t
if but when he’d run for president. In the New Democrat circles I ran in
back then, he was a pretty hot property, interested in policy innovations
on a wide range of issues that transcended his current position on the
political career ladder. Even then, there was a sort of ambivalent feeling
about him: he had a bit of the Bobby Kennedy aura about him—a prized
quality for Democrats regardless of their ideological tendencies—but there
were also questions about his depth and vision. And then there was the
personal image: the wonky Irish rocker whom a lot of women found very
attractive (I don’t get the sense this last credential has survived the
intervening decade-and-a-half, though I could be wrong).

So now after two ostensibly successful terms as mayor and then as Governor,
the appointed time for the O’Malley presidential run has arrived, and you
get the sense his timing is just completely off. His earlier time served in
Hillary Clinton’s orbit makes him an unlikely and very long-shot challenger
to her nomination. His sudden emergence as a would-be “true progressive”
champion is singularly undermined by the prior presence in the presidential
field of Bernie Sanders, who has a few decades on O’Malley in rousing
crowds with attacks on Wall Street and centrist “sell-outs.” And he’s
definitely been wrong-footed by recent events in Baltimore, where fairly or
unfairly the suspicion has been sowed that his supposedly wonky policing
strategies fed a old-school habit of harassing young black men for who they
were, and created a poisonous atmosphere that is now boiling over in
violence and mistrust of government. It doesn’t help O’Malley that his
chief accuser on this front is television writer and producer David Simon,
whose depiction of Baltimore in the HBO series The Wire probably represents
99% of what political and journalistic elites in the rest of the country
know about that city.

Add in the disillusionment with O’Malley among Democrats in his home state
after his tax policies helped sink his designated successor in 2014,
Anthony Brown, and you have a guy who at the age of 52 should probably
think about deferring his presidential ambitions until 2020 or 2024. For
all I know, of course, this campaign is mostly strategic, aimed at
positioning O’Malley to become HRC’s running-mate or a lively prospect for
the future. But right now he’s in a position where if he doesn’t get some
attention by going after both Sanders and Clinton, his candidacy could sink
like a stone.

At FiveThirtyEight Harry Enten put up a rather deadly post about O’Malley
over the weekend that suggested the lack of support for his candidacy in
Maryland made him a really unusual presidential aspirant compared to, well,
just about everybody else past or present. He’ll have a brief window of
interest in his candidacy before it closes for the cycle (barring some
calamity hitting Clinton). If he can reverse all the indicators pointing
downward in that time, then the promise a lot of people saw in him back in
the day can yet be redeemed.

*O'Malley on changing his mind about Clinton: 'Times change'
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/martin-omalley-hillary-clinton-no-support-2016-118479.html>
// Politico // Nick Gass – June 1, 2015*

Martin O’Malley supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2012, but “times
change,” the Democratic presidential candidate and former governor of
Maryland said Monday in an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos.

“I believe that the presidency is a sacred trust,” O’Malley said, echoing
remarks from his weekend campaign announcement in which he railed against
Wall Street’s preference for Clinton and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

The Democratic Party has not “delivered” on its promise to “make the
American dream real again for more families,” O’Malley said in the
interview aired on “Good Morning America.”

On Sunday, former top White House adviser David Axelrod tweeted that
O’Malley’s support of Clinton in 2008 might make it “a bit awkward” to slam
political “royal families” during his campaign. O’Malley responded, saying
that while people don’t change, the times do, noting that his support of
Clinton preceded the financial collapse.

“Well I was for Secretary Clinton in 2008. She and I both worked hard to
elect the president and to re-elect the president. But times change, and
different challenges require new leadership,” he said, noting that he keeps
hearing from people that new leadership is necessary.

He also fired back at a Wall Street Journal editorial published Sunday that
went after his gubernatorial record.

“Mr. O’Malley may attract some Democrats as an alternative to Clintonian
inevitability and cynicism, but he has little chance at the nomination
unless Mrs. Clinton unexpectedly washes out, and then other Democrats would
join the race. Republicans would be only too happy to run against the
Maryland progressive model,” the editorial said.

O’Malley touted his leadership of the state, mentioning the state’s
Triple-A bond rating, the best public schools in America, the highest
median income of any state, and a better rate of job creation than
neighboring states.

*O'Malley, stumping in N.H., sells himself as alternative to Clinton
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/martin-omalley/bs-md-omalley-new-hampshire-20150531-story.html>
//
Baltimore Sun // John Fritze – May 31, 2015*

Attempting to push back on the idea that his presidential campaign is a
nearly insurmountable long shot, Martin O'Malley arrived in New Hampshire
on Sunday to sell himself as a fresh voice and progressive alternative to
front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Visiting the key presidential primary state a day after announcing his
long-expected candidacy in Baltimore, the former two-term Maryland governor
used phrases like "new leadership" and "trying different things" almost
immediately upon hitting the ground here — and it was a theme he repeatedly
returned to throughout the day.

As he spoke with voters at a diner, addressed a small house party and
delivered pizza to Dartmouth College students on the eve of their finals,
O'Malley engaged in exactly the kind of retail politicking analysts say he
needs to perfect in order to climb out of the single-digits in polls.

"I've always been drawn to the toughest of fights," O'Malley told a group
gathered in Gilford, N.H., recounting his first run for mayor in 1999.

"The people I've met in New Hampshire refuse to be intimidated by big
money, pundits, or the concentration of power [and] insisted on meeting
every candidate, looking them in the eye, asking them questions and making
up their own mind," he said.

O'Malley is far less well known than either Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist who has carved out space
on Clinton's left since announcing his own campaign in April. Perhaps
because of that, O'Malley made himself perpetually available as he traveled
the state — to voters, to elected officials and to reporters.

The informal, less scripted interactions stood in contrast to the view of
O'Malley many have seen in national television appearances and the
sometimes stilted speeches he has delivered during his career.

After eating a few spoonfuls of a cup of Milky Way ice cream, O'Malley
worked a small crowd gathered inside the Goldenrod Drive-In Restaurant in
Manchester. He walked from table to table, fielding questions on college
affordability, the economy and the country's nuclear posture.

His message appeared to resonate with several people in the room.

"I don't think Hillary's a lock," said Peter Morin, a 55-year-old
Manchester resident after speaking briefly with O'Malley. "I don't like to
see anyone anointed."

But whether O'Malley's focus on his past executive leadership or his
increasingly strong admonishments of Wall Street will be enough to build
momentum for his campaign is an open question. More than 60 percent of
Democrats in New Hampshire identified Clinton as their first choice in a
Bloomberg Politics/Saint Anselm poll in early May.

O'Malley was the first choice for 3 percent.

The former governor spoke with several dozen Democrats gathered at the home
of Jerry Slagle, a Maryland native who worked with O'Malley on Gary Hart's
1984 presidential campaign. He stuck mainly to lines from his announcement
speech, but also took questions from attendees.

As he spoke from atop a piano bench —- so he could be heard in the back of
the room — O'Malley did not mention Clinton or Sanders directly. But he
addressed both of his declared rivals with subtle political code.

To draw a distinction with Clinton — a former secretary of state, senator
and first lady — O'Malley repeatedly described himself as a next-generation
leader and argued that elections should not be coronations for political
royalty. To distance himself from Sanders, he notes he hasn't "just talked
about" liberal ideals, but has achieved them.

O'Malley announced his presidential campaign in Federal Hill Park on
Saturday, entering a race many believe he has been considering for years.
During his address, O'Malley cast the election in broad economic terms,
suggesting middle class families have not benefited from the recovery as
much as they should have.

He reiterated that point in an interview on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday,
while also suggesting he is no friend of Wall Street.

"I don't know what Secretary Clinton's approach to Wall Street might be.
She will run her own campaign and I will run mine," O'Malley said. "I can
tell you this. I am not beholden to Wall Street interests. There are no
Wall Street CEOs banging down my door and trying to participate or help my
campaign."

Another presidential candidate with Maryland ties, former Johns Hopkins
neurosurgeon Ben Carson, also spoke on the program. The Republican was
asked about a national poll that showed him tied for first place for his
party's nomination with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov.
Mike Huckabee, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

"Whether I'm a front-runner or not doesn't matter," Carson said. "What
matters is that the people themselves are starting to listen and evaluate
for themselves rather than listening to what people say I said and what
people say that I meant."

O'Malley will spend significant time in early primary states such as Iowa,
New Hampshire and South Carolina. That's partly because the Iowa caucuses
dramatically shifted the course of the race for the Democratic nomination
in 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama upset Clinton there by running as a
change candidate.

The trip Sunday was O'Malley's fourth to New Hampshire this year.

Patrick Gosselin, a Hooksett, N.H., resident, wondered whether O'Malley
couldn't do the same next year. Gosselin spoke with the former governor at
the diner for several minutes before revealing that he had come to hear him
speak despite never before voting for a Democrat.

"I'm tired of the old politics, tired of the Democrats and Republicans
getting entrenched with their old ideas," Gosselin said as O'Malley walked
away. "It just seems like he has the right personality to challenge the
status quo, to challenge Hillary."

*Martin O’Malley is targeting Latino voters
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/01/martin-omalley-is-targeting-latino-voters/?wprss=rss_politics>
// WaPo // Arelis H. Hernández – June 1, 2015*

Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley is making a special effort to
target Latino voters during the first week of his presidential campaign,
appearing on the Spanish-language television channel Univision, offering
interviews on immigration policy to major news outlets and speaking to the
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

"I believe Latino Americans, like all Americans, want the American Dream to
be truthful and real,” O’Malley (D) told The Washington Post on Monday. “I
believe my record speaks to my heart.”

Immigration is among the issues where O’Malley has sought to draw
distinctions between himself and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the overwhelming
front-runner in the Democratic primary race. While he was governor,
Maryland passed its version of the Dream Act, which extended in-state
tuition benefits to undocumented immigrants at public universities and
colleges provided their families meet certain conditions. The state also
adopted a two-tiered system that allows undocumented immigrants to get
limited driver's licenses that can't be used for other purposes, such as
boarding an airplane.

During the battle over the state's adoption of the Dream Act, “we met every
week with O’Malley,” said Gustavo Torres, executive director of the
advocacy group CASA of Maryland.

In April, after Clinton announced her support for providing immigrants with
limited driver's licenses, O'Malley said he was “glad she’s come around to
that position now, too.” He declined on Monday to name specific differences
between himself and other Democratic presidential candidates, saying only
that “the distinctions will be made clear.”

O’Malley said that as president he would “forge a new consensus” and
revisit the criteria used by law enforcement to lock-up and deport
immigrants — a sticking point for immigrant advocacy groups who have
criticized the Obama administration’s record number of deportations.

In a brief interview with Maria Elena Salinas -- the well-known anchor on
Univision, the nation’s largest Spanish-language news network -- O'Malley
said he doesn't think any candidate can win the White House "without the
Latino vote." Asked what he would want to say to Spanish-speaking voters,
O’Malley replied: “Por favor,” or please. The rest of the interview with
Salinas will air on Univision on Sunday.

On Wednesday, O’Malley is scheduled to participate in a question-and-answer
session with Hispanic Chamber of Commerce president Javier Palomarez at the
Newseum in Washington. The event is the latest in a series of forums with
presidential candidates hosted by the organization, which says it
represents 3.2 million Hispanic business owners.

O’Malley recently hired Gabriela Domenzain, director of Hispanic media for
Obama’s 2012 campaign, as his director of public engagement. His campaign
launch on Saturday included remarks from Jonathan Jayes-Green, who worked
on the governor’s Hispanic affairs commission and is the son of
undocumented immigrants.

Jayes-Green said his family came to the United States from Panama in 2005
and, after receiving erroneous legal advice, overstayed their visas and
became undocumented. O’Malley, he added, “understands we are Americans, we
just don’t have documentation yet."

Last summer, O'Malley clashed with the White House last summer over what to
do with migrant children streaming over the border from Central America,
accusing the Obama administration — in which Clinton had served — of being
too eager to return the children.

“When refugee children arrive on our doorstep, fleeing starvation and death
gangs, we don’t turn them away," O’Malley said in South Carolina in April.
"We act like the generous, compassionate people we have always been.”

At his launch on Saturday, he said “the enduring symbol of our nation is
not a barbed wire fence, it is the Statue of Liberty.”

When he talks about immigration, O'Malley recalls his own family history of
coming to this country from Ireland. As governor, he kept an old sign in
his office that says, “No Irish Need Apply.”

“I have always seen, in the eyes of my Latino neighbors, the eyes of the
great grandparents I never met,” he said on Monday.

*Martin O'Malley's ritzy taste can be off-putting
<http://pagesix.com/2015/06/01/martin-omalleys-ritzy-taste-off-putting-to-some/>
// Page Six // Richard Johnson – June 1, 2015*

Martin O’Malley’s minions need a primer on populism.

When the Democratic presidential candidate’s team tried to woo Allen
Roskoff, president of the powerful Jim Owles Democratic Club, they invited
the gay activist to breakfast at Norma’s at Le Parker Meridien, where only
the 1 percent of tourists can afford to nosh.

Oatmeal is $19, French toast goes for $25 and “The Zillion Dollar Lobster
Frittata” — with 10 oz. of Sevruga caviar — costs $1,000. The menu notes:
“Norma dares you to expense this.”

Roskoff told me, “Trying to woo a ’60s lefty with a breakfast that could
feed a homeless shelter was extremely dumb.” He’s leaning toward socialist
Bernie Sanders.

*Martin O'Malley: 2016 Democratic Candidate Says, 'We Need to Get Things
Done Again'
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/martin-omalley-2016-democratic-candidate-things/story?id=31440083>
// ABC News // Maryalice Parks – June 1, 2015*

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who announced Saturday that he will
officially seek the Democratic Party's nomination for president, continued
trying to separate himself from frontrunner Hillary Clinton, telling ABC
News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos during an exclusive interview
Monday morning that the "times have changed" and pointing to the 2008 crash
on Wall Street as evidence for the country needing a new generation of
leadership.

On the campaign trail, O'Malley has attacked Clinton for what he says is a
close relationship to Wall Street.

O'Malley told Stephanopoulos that the "people of the United States, not
Wall Street," should to decide the next president, and leaders on Wall
Street allegedly seeming OK with a Clinton or a Bush in the White House
should be "wake-up call for all of us."

In 2008, O'Malley supported Clinton's first run for president, a fact that
former Obama adviser and campaign strategist David Axelrod noted this week
on Twitter, saying, "O'Malley is a dynamic, accomplished guy. But he was
all in for HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] in '08, so isn't it a bit awkward
to rail against 'royal families' now."

O'Malley responded by saying the country faces "different challenges now."
He told Stephanopoulos the most notable difference between then and now was
the 2008 economic crash, adding that since then the country had failed to
reign in the "excess of Wall Street."

"I believe we need new leadership," he said. "We need to get things done
again."

He said that he called Clinton this week and said he told her he was
looking forward to "a robust conversation about the issues that face our
country."

O'Malley emphasized his experience as an executive, having served two terms
as mayor of Baltimore and two terms as governor of Maryland. In response to
criticism in the Wall Street Journal today that he raised taxes, O'Malley
argued that the state enjoyed its highest median income while he was
governor and had a AAA bond rating. He added that the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, which "hardly ever says nice things about Democratic elected
officials anywhere," named Maryland No. 1 in innovation and
entrepreneurship three years in a row.

For fans of his other talents -- singing and playing guitar -- O'Malley
said stay tuned.

"When I go through Iowa and New Hampshire, guitars seem to fall out of the
rafters," he joked, saying that supporters can expect to see him strumming
again soon.

*Martin O'Malley's Hometown Challenge
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/martin-omalleys-hometown-challenge/story?id=31426720>
// ABC News // Maryalice Parks – May 31, 2015*

Martin O'Malley faces an uphill battle. The former Maryland governor and
Baltimore mayor who officially announced his run for the Democratic
presidential nomination Saturday is relatively unknown nationwide, polling
around 1 percent among Democratic voters across the country, according to a
new poll from Quinnipiac University this week. But perhaps his greatest
challenge comes from his own backyard.

During his campaign kickoff event Saturday in downtown Baltimore, a small
group of protesters made a scene, speaking out against police brutality and
blaming O'Malley for what they see as the negative consequences of his
tough stance on crime.

"If he wants to be president, if he wants to come home, he must atone,"
said Tawanda Jones, one of the protesters. "Our streets are not even safe
no more, because of all of the anger in our city."

Gov. Martin O’Malley Announces Run for President

O’Malley Cites Executive Experience in Comparison to Obama

When he first ran for mayor of Baltimore in 1999, O'Malley promised to cut
crime, and when he came into office he instituted a zero-tolerance policing
policy. Supporters say that while arrests went up, even for minor offenses,
crime came down.

But critics say his methods harmed the relationship between the city's
residents and law enforcement.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News' Chief Anchor George
Stephanopoulos, O'Malley defended his reputation. "I would not have been
elected with 91 percent of the vote first time, or re-elected four years
later with 88 percent of the vote, if we were not making substantial
progress," he said.

"When I was elected in 1999, our city had become the most violent, and
addicted, and abandoned city in America. It was a huge challenge. But we
went on in the next ten years to achieve the biggest reduction of part one
[or serious] crime of any city in America," he continued. "For all of the
progress that we make, there's always so much more that needs to be done."

Last month the violent protests in Baltimore after the death of an
African-American man at the hands of police reignited criticism of
O'Malley's policies. And in a front page article in the Baltimore Sun the
day of O'Malley's campaign kickoff event, a former head of the city's NAACP
chapter hit the former mayor hard, saying, "He's going around now like
[Baltimore] is his claim to fame. I think this should be his greatest
embarrassment."

O'Malley called the unrest in Baltimore last month "heartbreaking" and said
the country should learn from Baltimore and focus on issues like
unemployment and poverty to rebuild American cities.

"What took place here was not only about race, not only about policing in
America. It's about everything it is supposed to mean to be an American,"
he said during Saturday's rally. "The scourge of hopelessness that happened
to ignite here that evening transcends race or geography. The hard truth of
our shared reality is this: Unemployment in many American cities and in
many small towns across the United States is higher now than it was eight
years ago.”

He told Stephanopoulos, "A poet once wrote that the unemployment in our
bones erupts in our hands and stones. We can do better as a country.”

Prior to leaving office as governor in October, O'Malley's approval ratings
in Maryland were at an eight-year low (41 percent, according to a
Washington Post poll), though his presidential announcement rally was full
of energetic elected officials and supporters from across the state.

One fan, Baltimore City Councilwoman Rikki Spector, brought a rock with the
word "Believe" etched in it as a gift for the governor.

Despite all the controversy she said this was their – Baltimore's –
presidential race.

*Martin O’Malley, mild-mannered man: Why the media are yawning
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/01/martin-omalley-mild-mannered-man-why-media-are-yawning/>
// Fox News // Howard Kurtz – June 1, 2015*

On paper, Martin O’Malley should be a serious contender for the Democratic
presidential nomination.

But on paper, the Washington Nationals should have won last year’s World
Series. And campaigns, like sporting contests, have to be fought in the
real world.

And in that world, O’Malley is basically an asterisk—or at least being
treated that way by the media. His official announcement on Saturday didn’t
make much of a pop.

The man was a two-term governor of Maryland and spent seven years as
Baltimore mayor, but hardly anyone knows who he is. I’ve interviewed him
and gone to his events and he’s very fluent in policy, but the few outside
politics who are familiar with him know him mainly as the model for a
character in “The Wire.”

His announcement in Baltimore on Saturday, delivered in shirtsleeves, hit
all the liberal talking points, but O’Malley has a way of just reading his
speeches and there were few emotional high points.

His media drought is partly because Hillary Clinton is a million miles
ahead. It’s partly because Bernie Sanders—who might be viewed as more of a
gadfly candidate—has stolen the spotlight. And it’s partly his own fault.

O’Malley is a careful and cautious guy, and that doesn’t make him an
inspiring figure. He has been highly reticent about attacking Hillary,
limiting himself to some veiled jabs. And when you do that, you forfeit the
coverage you might otherwise get for taking on the front-runner. And you
fuel suspicions that you’re just running to raise your profile and maybe
land a job in the next administration.

Here’s how the liberal New Republic puts it:

“Martin O'Malley has checked enough boxes as a prominent Democrat—big city
mayor, mostly successful governor, chairman of the Democratic Governors
Association—that he probably didn't expect to be trailing in presidential
polls to a Vermont senator who serves as an independent and identifies as a
democratic socialist. But for now he does trail, and pretty badly. O'Malley
is more dependably liberal than Hillary Clinton has been, but the emergence
of a crusading progressive like Bernie Sanders has convinced some analysts
that O'Malley miscalculated, and let Sanders steal his thunder.”

Sanders may be a socialist, but he feels like the leader of a crusade.
O’Malley feels like the head of a good-government association.

And with Sanders polling as high as 15 percent and O’Malley stuck around 1
percent, it’s all too easy for the press to write him off as a
loser—especially since his lieutenant governor lost the race last fall to
Republican Larry Hogan.

“Why do some progressives tend to dismiss him as a mere technocrat who
doesn’t inspire?” Politico asks. It’s in part because he’s a policy wonk
and not a great speaker, as those watching the 2012 Democratic convention
may remember.

The ex-mayor has the additional burden of being closely identified with
Baltimore just as Baltimore has become identified with Freddie Gray,
rioting and surging crime—and questions about O’Malley’s zero-tolerance
police strategy are being revived. He went to the city after the riots but
didn’t make much of an imprint on the national conversation. Even some of
his longtime allies in the state aren’t backing him.

One Baltimore Sun columnist is a big booster:

“Mr. O'Malley, unlike Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, isn't linked to
perpetual scandal and criticism, nor is he beholden to foreign donors,
investment banks or a family surname.”

Perhaps O’Malley, who worked for Gary Hart in 1984, envisions catching fire
if Hillary stumbles. But he’s going to have to raise the temperature for
that to happen.

*What are Martin O'Malley's chances of being Mr. Liberal 2016?
<http://news.yahoo.com/martin-omalleys-chances-being-mr-liberal-2016-162129951.html>
// Yahoo News // Peter Grier – June 1, 2015*

Elizabeth Warren isn’t running. The left has tried and tried, but the
anti-Wall Street firebrand senator from Massachusetts just isn’t going to
challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
Progressives have moved on, for the most part. They’re looking for another
standard-bearer. So who’s going to end up as Mr. (or Ms.) Liberal 2016?

Bill de Blasio seems to be auditioning for the role. The New York City
mayor has lately had an active national travel schedule. But his quest
seems quixotic – he’s only been in office 16 months. Plus, he’s got
troubles back home.

Martin O’Malley might be more likely. He announced his run Saturday, and
he’s going to try and position himself to Mrs. Clinton’s left. The former
Maryland governor had a quiet meeting with a group of key progressives in
New York City in May and promoted himself as Warren-like, but actually in
the race. He said he opposes President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership
trade deal. That’s a litmus test for liberals.

But as far as the left is concerned Mr. O’Malley might be a
Martin-come-lately. His ideology seemed more moderate when he served as
governor, which is unsurprising since state chief executives have to be
pragmatic, even in a blue state. Then there’s O’Malley’s charisma gap. When
you hear him speak, “firebrand” isn’t a word that comes to mind, as it does
with Ms. Warren.

So we’ll go with the safe choice here: Bernie Sanders. The white-haired,
articulate Vermont senator seems the favorite to win liberals’ hearts. He’s
already declared his presidential intentions, and he’s long resided at the
left edge of the Democratic Party – or just beyond it. He’s the only
sitting US lawmaker who uses the word “socialist” to describe himself.

Mr. Sanders’s liberal bent was on full display in a recent Reddit Q-and-A.
He wants public college education to be tuition-free. He said National
Security Agency surveillance was “Orwellian” and that the country needs a
constitutional amendment to limit political campaign contributions. He
advocated a guaranteed basic income and said climate change “is the most
significant planetary crisis we face.”

Sanders is running at nearly 9 percent in HuffPost Pollster’s rolling
average of Democratic nomination surveys. O’Malley gets about 2 percent.
It’s early, but we’d say that’s indicative.

*New Evidence That Bernie Sanders Is Gaining Ground in One Key State
<http://mic.com/articles/119798/here-s-new-evidence-that-bernie-sanders-is-gaining-ground-in-one-key-state?utm_source=policymicTWTR&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social>
// Policy.Mic // Zeeshan Aleem – June 1, 2015*

Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is conventionally
considered to be a long-shot candidate for the Democratic nomination. But
there are new signs that his message has been resonating in the crucial
state of Iowa since kicking off his campaign in Burlington, Vermont, last
week.

According to the New York Times, the hard-charging populist from Vermont
can already claim a noteworthy achievement. Last week, he attracted a crowd
of 700 people in Davenport, Iowa, in what the New York Times notes is the
"the largest rally in the state for any single candidate this campaign
season, and far more than the 50 people who attended a rally there on
Saturday with former Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland."

Sanders also generated other lively turnouts in the state on his first
visit to Iowa since declaring his candidacy. In Ames, he drew a crowd that
spilled out of a brewery, and held an event in Kensett where the size of
the crowd exceeded the population of the town itself, according to the New
York Times.

The spike in attention is reflected in recent polling. According to a new
Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register poll of Iowa voters, Sanders has
more than tripled his support among likely Democratic caucus-goers than he
was in January, with 16% of likely caucus-goers saying Sanders is their
first choice.

As you can see in the chart below, courtesy of Bloomberg Politics, Clinton
is dominant among likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa — she's the first
choice for 57% (one percentage point more than in January). Sanders ranks
second at 16% — still far from Clinton, but notable for the leap from 5% in
January. Vice President Joe Biden, who has not made any overt signals that
he's considering a bid for the White House, came in next at 8%. Former
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley was the first choice for 2%, as was former
Virginia Sen. Jim Webb.

The Iowa caucuses, which are scheduled to be held in February, are the
first contest of the presidential race, and mark a critical juncture for
determining momentum in the early stages of the nomination race. Given that
the voting is several months away, the specific numbers right now aren't as
important as their changes.

Sanders' big bump in recent months reflects a hunger among the Democratic
electorate for a candidate who can serve as an alternative to the Clinton
dynasty. The self-avowed democratic socialist doesn't have a history in the
national spotlight, but he is the king of Reddit, and he has quickly taken
the anti-establishment mantle from Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts,
who shows no signs of interest in running for president.

Sanders still has his work cut out for him. While Clinton's campaign
already has 30 paid staffers devoted to mobilizing caucus-goers in Iowa,
Sanders only has two, according to the New York Times. If Sanders is to
evolve into a formidable player, his organizing apparatus will have to
match the size of his ambitions.

Toward that end, Sanders has called for additional early presidential
debates this year, which would include both Democrats and Republicans. The
debates would provide him with a major (and free) opportunity to make his
case to the public in direct contrast to Clinton, and facilitate his
ability to shed the label of outsider nipping at the heels of an inevitable
heir to the throne. According to the Huffington Post, any such debates
might be in violation of debate rules for Democratic candidates. Clinton is
unlikely to benefit from such an arrangement, and her strategy so far has
largely been to ignore Sanders' criticism. But as she knows all too well
from 2008, she can never take her lead for granted.

*Bernie Sanders pleads for more debates
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/bernie-sanders-pleads-for-more-debates-208036.html>
// Politico // Dylan Byers – June 1, 2015*

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has sent a letter to the
Democratic National Committee requesting more primary debates, including
inter-party debates among candidates from both parties.

In a letter to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Vermont
socialist argued that the candidates "should engage in a series of debates
beginning this summer," in order to increase voter turnout. Inter-party
debates could also be used to convince registered Republican voters that
they would be better off voting for a Democrat, Sanders said.

"I am extremely concerned by the fact that many working-class Americans are
voting against their best economic interests by supporting right-wing
Republicans whose agenda represents the interests of the billionaire class,
and not the needs of working Americans," Sanders wrote. "I believe that
these inter-party debates would put in dramatic focus the shallow and at
times ridiculous policies and proposals being advocated by the Republican
candidates and by their party’s platform."

For Sanders, a relatively little-known candidate with limited resources,
more debates would mean more free air time and publicity. Sanders is
currently polling 54.8 points behind Hillary Clinton in the latest
RealClearPolitics aggregate.

In an email to the On Media blog, DNC spokesperson Holly Shulman
effectively put the kibosh on Sanders' request: "We’re thrilled to see the
Senator is eager to participate in our debates," she wrote. "We’ve already
released our primary debate framework, and we believe that six debates will
give plenty of opportunity for the candidates to be seen side-by-side.
We’ll have more details in the coming weeks, and we look forward to Senator
Sanders and other candidates participating. I’m sure there will be plenty
of other forums for the candidates to make their case to voters, and that
they will make the most out of every opportunity."

The DNC has sanctioned six primary debates for the 2016 cycle, which are
scheduled to begin this fall. Host states will include the early caucus and
primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, though
the committee has yet to announce which national broadcast media and local
media outlets will sponsor and moderate these debates.

Both the Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley campaigns have confirmed that
their candidates will participate in all six of the debates.

In his plea for more debates, Sanders argued that low voter turnout "has
hurt progressive candidates all across our nation" and that "a larger
number of debates beginning in the weeks ahead would encourage such voter
participation."

Sanders also said inter-party debates between Democrats and Republicans
would "serve to engage large numbers of voters who typically do not pay
attention to the process until much later when the general election begins
to come into focus. By engaging these voters early and raising the stakes
around the election I believe we can get people to participate at higher
levels which will undoubtedly benefit Democrats up and down the ticket."

*GOP*

*Lindsey Graham on the Issues
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/politics/lindsey-graham-republican-presidential-candidate-on-the-issues.html?rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article>
// NYT // Gerry Mullany- June 1, 2015*

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina announced Monday that he plans to
seek the Republican nomination for president. In his three terms, he has
focused on military and foreign affairs and developed a reputation for
working together with Senate Democrats. Here are some of Mr. Graham’s
stands on important issues.

Foreign Policy

Mr. Graham has been skeptical of President Obama’s efforts to reach a deal
with Iran over its nuclear program, saying Congress should reject any
agreement that does not include inspections of Iran’s military facilities.
He sees the group calling itself the Islamic State as a threat to the
mainland United States, saying “the likelihood of an attack against our
nation is growing by the day” and calling it a “fantasy” to think that it
can be defeated without American ground forces. Describing Israel as the
“best friend” of the United States, Mr. Graham has vowed that if the United
Nations takes actions against Israel’s interest he will use his powers in
Congress to cut Washington’s financial support of the organization. He has
said the United States should provide lethal weaponry to the Ukrainian
military to battle Russian-backed separatists, a step the Obama
administration has resisted.

Environment

Unlike other Republican presidential contenders, Mr. Graham believes that
climate change is a problem and that it is caused by human activity. But he
is concerned about using federal laws to curb greenhouse-gas emissions,
saying he wants to make an issue of whether “you have to destroy the
economy to solve the problem” of global warming.

Same-Sex Marriage

He has supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a
man and a woman. Mr. Graham has spoken out against the possibility that the
Supreme Court could strike down same-sex marriage bans, saying: “What’s the
legal difference between a ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional
but a ban on polygamy being constitutional?”

Immigration

Mr. Graham differs from many of his fellow Republican contenders in that he
is a strong proponent of making it possible for immigrants who are in the
country illegally to become citizens. “If I were president of the United
States, I would veto any bill that did not have a pathway to citizenship,”
he told USA Today, adding: “You would have a long, hard path to
citizenship.” He says Republicans have been losing Hispanic support because
of hostility toward immigrants.

Economy and Budget Issues

Mr. Graham supported giving Mr. Obama “fast track” authority to negotiate
the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. He opposed the president’s $789
billion stimulus package in 2009. He believes the federal government’s debt
limit should be increased only when that is accompanied by spending cuts,
but he has not ruled out tax increases, as many other Republicans have.

*Lindsey Graham, in announcing White House run, gets personal
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/lindsey-graham-2016-presidential-election-announcing-bid-118489.html#ixzz3bpsFTrnZ>
// Politico // Katie Glueck – June 1, 2015*

CENTRAL, S.C. — He’s spent a third of his life in Congress and is a fixture
on the Sunday morning news-show circuit, making nearly 70 appearances in
the past five years.

But as he announced his presidential bid Monday here in the tiny town where
he grew up, Lindsey Graham sought to knock down the idea that he’s a
creature of Washington and instead told a personal story that’s largely
been overlooked over the course of his two decades in the House and Senate.

It’s the tale of a son of pool-hall owners, who grew up near-impoverished
in the back room of his parents’ bar. As a college student, he raised, and
eventually adopted, his little sister after their parents died, before
going on to have a career as an Air Force lawyer and then rising to become
South Carolina’s senior senator.

“Those of you who’ve known me a long time know I had some ups and downs as
a young man,” he said. “I lost my parents, and had to struggle financially
and emotionally … There are a lot of so-called ‘self-made’ people in this
world. I’m not one of them. My family, friends, neighbors and my faith
picked me up when I was down, believed in me when I had doubts. You made me
the man I am today.”

Graham’s sister, Darline Graham Nordone, spoke proudly of her brother and
late parents during a brief interview Sunday night before Graham’s
walk-through.

“Our parents were small-business owners here in the town of Central,” she
said. “As any other small-business owners, they understood the long hard
hours that go into running a small business, and just the strong work ethic
that we got from that and the values … It’s just amazing that we come from
this and went on to bigger and better things, but our roots are here.”

The humble-origins narrative is a staple of presidential campaigning, but
it’s a fairly new device for Graham, who has only started to employ it in
recent years. It wasn’t until his 2014 Senate race, when he squared off
with six primary challengers, that he slowly and sometimes reluctantly
began to use that part of his biography in part to fight back against
criticism that he had been in Washington too long.

Now, as a long-shot presidential candidate, Graham once again told that
story in this sleepy speck of a town located about 45 minutes from
Greenville, where Main Street consists of a thrift shop, a hair salon, and
a restaurant or two — including the remnants of the Graham family’s bar.

“I think it’s a good idea for people to realize, he’s certainly a
self-educated, self-made guy,” said Hank Scott, a major donor who is very
close to Graham. “He worked hard to get where he is, he’s not a person that
grew up with privilege, like, say, [Jeb] Bush.”

David Woodard, an operative and professor who managed Graham’s first two
House races in the 1990s, said he never heard Graham talk about his
family’s troubles, even when those issues were fresher for him.

“Did he talk about it? No, he never talked about it,” Woodard said, adding
later, “He’s kind of a self-made story, but he didn’t talk about it.”

During his reelection last year, after some reluctance about getting too
personal, Graham allowed his team to run an ad featuring his sister,
Darline, who grew emotional in the spot when she reflected on how Graham
helped raise her.

“It was hard when we lost my mom and my dad,” she said in the ad. “Lindsey
assured me that he was going to take care of me, he was going to be there
for me. He never let me down. Never. I don’t see how he did it, to take on
the responsibility of raising a little sister. That came from within for
Lindsey.”

Graham won that race just as he’s won every congressional contest in which
he’s run, starting in 1994, many of them with the help of South Carolina’s
top political talent. Yet as he begins his run for president, many of them
are not on board. When he indicated he was serious about running for
president, many of the state’s most well-respected operatives were caught
off guard —and had already agreed to help other candidates.

“I’ve been involved in all of his Senate campaigns, and it was tough, but
my ship has sailed,” said J. Warren Tompkins, a veteran South Carolina
operative who is committed to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. “I had committed
long before I had any inkling he had any interest in running for president.”

In some state political circles, even where Graham is popular, there’s a
sense of bewilderment about why he’s running — and some donors and
operatives say privately that they wish he’d stick to the Senate. In a very
crowded Republican field, Graham barely registers in the national polls; he
has low name identification and his record on issues like immigration
reform is still anathema to the grassroots conservative voters who are so
critical in early-voting states like Iowa.

“I’ll always be supporting Lindsey any and every way I can,” said Scott,
the donor, whose own divided loyalty is revealing — he says he’s supporting
both his friend and Rubio. Noting how crowded the field is, “I tried to
encourage him to play the Strom Thurmond role and stay in the Senate,”
Scott added.

In his announcement speech Monday, Graham highlighted his national security
credentials, another reminder that pushing a more assertive foreign policy
is the core rationale for his run.

“I want to be president to defeat the enemies trying to kill us, not just
penalize them or criticize them or contain them, but defeat them,” he said.

It’s unclear how well Graham is polling in South Carolina presidential
surveys —an NBC News poll from February found him leading the pack but an
April poll from local Winthrop University reported that more than half of
his home state GOP voters would not considering voting for him for the
nomination.

His South Carolina political colleagues aren’t lined up behind him either:
GOP Gov. Nikki Haley has said she won’t be making any early endorsements
and several of the state’s House members appeared at a presidential launch
event for Rand Paul — Graham’s nemesis on foreign policy matters — though
they stopped short of endorsing.

Graham’s supporters believe he will play a key role in pushing national
security issues to the forefront, and that the senator — who at Republican
cattle calls so far this year has impressed with his sense of humor and
command of foreign policy — will expand his base as more people get to know
him. He’s a natural, folksy campaigner and his hawkish foreign policy
message plays well with a Republican base that’s grown increasingly anxious
about instability in the Middle East and the rise of ISIS.

Despite the seemingly impossible path to the GOP nomination, Graham’s
allies insist he is seriously interested in pursuing a White House bid and
wouldn’t run if he didn’t see a path to victory, even as speculation
abounds in South Carolina about whether he’s positioning for another job,
like secretary of defense, or to be a kingmaker during the
first-in-the-South South Carolina primary.

In the meantime, a super PAC supporting Graham, Security is Strength, is
also gearing up and announced its staff over the weekend. It is largely
driven by former Graham campaign and Senate staffers, and also includes
former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman. Graham is a favorite of hawkish donors
— mega-donor Sheldon Adelson co-hosted a fundraiser on Capitol Hill for him
several months ago, and plenty of people aligned with other candidates
showed up and even served on the host committee.

For Graham, the uphill climb ahead was obvious on Sunday night: a handful
of interested bystanders who appeared in Central before Graham’s
walk-through said they supported him in his Senate bid — but none was ready
to commit to him for president yet.

*Graham Begins Foreign Policy-Focused Bid
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-01/challenges-await-as-lindsey-graham-begins-foreign-policy-focused-bid>
// Bloomberg // Mark Halperin – June 1, 2015*

Style: Played the self-effacing hometown boy, keeping up his colloquial
style even when talking about fearsome international threats. Quite
low-energy for an announcement speech, although the typical Southern crowd
whooped, cheered, and applauded throughout, allowing Graham to piggyback on
their liveliness. Kept unscripted asides to a minimum (for him).

Substance: Heavy rhetorical emphasis on signature issues such as fighting
terror, building alliances around the world, and enacting entitlement
reform, but not much specifics there or anywhere else.

Best moment: Jazzed the audience by declaring he has more foreign policy
experience than everyone else in the race, including Hillary Clinton.

Worst moment: Lapsed into reading his text for several minutes in the
middle of his remarks, further sapping momentum.

Overall: The national security candidate chose to make national security
the center of his announcement by starting with it, seeding it throughout,
and ending with it. While he talked about working with Democrats, he didn’t
emphasize his past efforts on immigration reform and climate change, which
have put him out of step with the party base. Instead, he focused on his
long-time fidelity to the three-legged Reagan stool of national security,
social issues, and the economy. The whole event felt more like a personal
moment for Graham than the launching of a national movement, and he did not
summon the determined air of someone who thinks he can actually win. Still,
it was a well-written speech, and he can move on to life as an official
candidate, where fundraising and poll challenges await.

Style: B- Substance: B- Overall: B-

Note: The overall grade is not an average of the style and substance
grades, but takes into account other aspects of the announcement, such as
staging and crowd reaction.  In addition, a candidate’s overall grade
reflects the degree to which the candidate’s standing in the race is
improved by the event and performance.

*Lindsey Graham has a plan to win the GOP nomination. If it works, it’d be
a first.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/01/lindsey-graham-has-a-plan-to-win-the-gop-nomination-if-it-works-itd-be-a-first/>
// WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – June 1, 2015*

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., gives a thumbs up after being re-elected,
Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2014, in Columbia, S.C. Graham beat Democratic state Sen.
Brad Hutto of Orangeburg. (AP Photo/Rainier Ehrhardt)

As a native South Carolinian, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham’s candidacy could
shake up that early-voting state’s primary.

But that's not the same thing as shaking up the presidential race.

Graham certainly carries an advantage in The Palmetto State, where his name
recognition is nearly universal after having serving the state as U.S.
senator for more than 12 years. And a February NBC News/Marist poll of
South Carolina voters showed Graham leading the GOP pack with 17 percent
support. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) followed Graham with 15
percent, while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) placed third with 12
percent.*

“For a guy like me, it’s pretty simple,” Graham recently told Time
Magazine. “I do well in Iowa and finish in the top tier in New Hampshire,
I’ll win South Carolina. By the end of South Carolina there are three or
four people left at the most.”

In other words, the strategy is: 1) Don't tank in Iowa or New Hampshire. 2)
Come in strong in the home state. 3) ???

As of now, Graham is barely registering in polls anywhere else, including
states he would need to compete in in the later stages of the Republican
primary process. But let's start with Step 1.

A WMUR Granite State poll of likely New Hampshire voters has him far behind
most of his would-be rivals, carrying the support of just around 1 percent
of primary voters. For context, former Florida governor Jeb Bush leads the
pack with 15 percent. Meanwhile, even longshot candidate Donald Trump has 5
percent.**

And in Iowa, Graham is the first-choice candidate for just 1 percent of
likely GOP voters, according to a May Des Moines Register poll.*** He
completely fails to register in another poll by Quinnipiac.

History doesn't seem to be on Graham's side either. Presidential candidates
who hail from early voting states have frequently failed to make a splash
nationwide and have also occasionally been met with resistance from
in-state allies who fear their state's primary could be rendered irrelevant
by a home grown contender.

Put another way: in the modern era, there has never been a presidential
nominee who hailed from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada.

Consider former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who made a short-lived run for
the 2008 Democratic nomination but quickly dropped out of the race – ending
his campaign in February of 2007. Though Vilsack stood a strong chance of
winning the caucuses if he had stayed in the race, Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama’s fundraising strength proved to be an intractable challenge
nationwide. For what it's worth, The Iowa Democratic Party responded to
Vilsack's candidacy by promising to remain neutral for fear that Vilsack’s
candidacy would discourage candidates from competing in the state.

When former New Hampshire senator Bob Smith ran for the 2000 GOP nomination
– also as a longshot – New Hampshire Republicans balked at the thought of
the Granite State losing its sacred status as a must-compete contest. He
too dropped out before the primaries actually began.

Iowa's Tom Harkin, who retired from the Senate last year, ran for the
Democratic nomination in 1992 and swept the Iowa contest, receiving the
support of nearly 80 percent of caucusgoers. But in New Hampshire the next
week, Harkin took just 10 percent of the vote.

Of course, Graham's candidacy will largely rest on his clearly-defined,
hawkish foreign policy positions in an election where foreign affairs have
already taken center stage. That could bode well for him, particularly as
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's strong critique of GOP hawks presents a
headline-grabbing foil for Graham to pit himself against.

*The NBC News/Marist survey of 450 likely South Carolina GOP voters has a
margin of error of plus or minus 4.6 percentage points.

**The WMUR survey of 293 likely GOP primary voters has a margin of error of
plus or minus 5.7 percent.

***That survey of 402 likely caucusgoers was conducted between May 25 to
May 29 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is a Republican contender for the White
House in 2016. Here's his take on Obamacare, guns and more, in his own
words. (Julie Percha/The Washington Post)

*Lindsey Graham joins crowded 2016 presidential field
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lindsey-graham-joins-crowded-2016-presidential-field>
// MSNBC // Benjy Sarlin – June 1, 2015*

CENTRAL, South Carolina – Warning that “the world is exploding in terror
and violence,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced a long-shot
presidential campaign in his small home town on Monday predicated on
aggressively confronting threats from the Islamic State and Iran abroad.

“I’m pretty sure no one here, including me, ever expected to hear me say,
‘I’m Lindsey Graham, and I’m running for president of the United States,’”
he told a cheering crowd of dozens of flag-waving supporters gathered just
steps from the former pool hall on Main Street that he grew up in.

It’s hard to talk about Graham’s candidacy without mentioning his
ideological archrival, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), whose libertarian approach
to civil liberties, dovish take on military conflict and deep skepticism of
an active foreign policy runs directly counter to the South Carolina
lawmaker’s own stance.

“I want to be president to defeat the enemies that are trying to kill us,”
Graham said in his announcement.

Both candidates seem eager to play the mongoose to the other’s snake as the
2016 presidential campaign heats up. Their conflict reached its peak in
recent days after Paul successfully forced the temporary expiration of
PATRIOT Act provisions that govern, among other things, the phone record
spy program revealed by Edward Snowden. Graham favors a maximalist approach
to counterterrorism.

Paul frequently fires up supporters by quoting Graham’s latest jingoisms on
the trail – this week he criticized Graham’s boast that he would drone
strike an American citizen suspected of terrorism rather than “call a
judge.” During Paul’s PATRIOT Act filibuster, Graham gave an eye roll
worthy of the surliest teenager and a clip of it from a live C-Span
broadcast went viral. Paul went on to lambast the “eye roll caucus” in an
e-mail to supporters last week and a pro-Paul super PAC responded with a
web ad going after Graham.

Graham didn’t mention Paul directly in his announcement Monday, but he
alluded to conflicts with rival lawmakers back in Washington.

“We’ve made some dangerous mistakes in recent years,” Graham said. “The
Obama administration and some of my colleagues in Congress have substituted
wishful thinking for sound national security strategy.”

Graham boasted that he has “more experience with our national security then
any other candidate in this race – that includes you, Hillary.”

The tension put USC senior Anna Chapman, 21, in an awkward spot. A devoted
Paul supporter, she volunteered at the event as a favor to her fellow
College Republicans.

“I’m here to support Graham … kind of,” she said. “He is from South
Carolina, it’s cool that he’s running. I’m not going to bash him, but I
don’t think he’s going to win the nomination.”

Foreign affairs may be Graham’s calling card, but it’s hardly all he’s
known for. At times he has split from GOP conservatives to broker
bipartisan deals, most notably as co-author of the immigration reform bill
that passed the Senate in 2013 but never came up for a vote in the House
amid intense conservative opposition. Graham’s speech included a message
for fellow Democrats, whom he pledged to work with the to make progress on
areas of agreement should he win the White House.

“Our differences are real and we’ll debate them, but you’re not my enemy,
you’re my fellow countrymen,” he said.

Language like this appealed to attendees like Jim Eshelman, an engineer in
Greenville, who is interested in Graham but still not committed to backing
him.

“I love his spirit of bipartisanship – the gridlock has been awful,” he
said.

Graham’s advisers also see potential in showcasing his humble roots, which
2016 candidates like Scott Walker and Marco Rubio have used to great effect
in campaign speeches to connect with voters. The senator grew up in the
back of a bar owned by his parents, who died within 15 months of each other
while he was in his early 20s, leaving him to raise his younger sister
himself. Graham put himself through law school and took officer training in
the Air Force, where he ended up serving as a judge advocate.

Graham, who was introduced by his sister, mentioned the Social Security
benefits he received after his parents’ death in pledging to reform the
program to sustain it in the long term.

“As president I will gladly do what it takes to save the program that once
saved my family,” he said.

A fixture on Sunday political talk shows, Graham is among the most
prominent and frequently quoted lawmakers in the national media on a
variety of issues. Despite his high visibility, he’s considered well short
of the top tier in the presidential race, and polls show he may have a
tough time qualifying for primary debates, which will choose participants
based on their support in national surveys.

He may have a bigger impact in South Carolina, however, a crucial early
primary state that helped galvanize conservative opposition to Mitt Romney
in 2012 by going for Newt Gingrich and sealed John McCain’s nomination in
2008 against Mike Huckabee.

Many of the supporters who gathered here on Monday knew Graham personally
or mentioned his dedicated constituent work. He once threatened to shut
down the Senate to fast track a project deepening a major port. This
attention to detail back home helped keep him safe from primary threats in
his easy 2014 re-election despite major tea party opposition.

Vendors at the rally sold “Lindsey Graham: Native Son” buttons. If he takes
even a sizable minority of votes, it’s possible he could peel votes from
other candidates in a way that affects the race. In 2008, for example,
former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was widely credited with pushing McCain
past the finish line by splitting southern conservative support with
Huckabee.

*The Lindsey Graham record: A lot like John McCain, who also ran for
president
<https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-lindsey-graham-record-a-lot-like-john-mccain-120369603781.html>
// Yahoo News // Meredith Shiner – June 1, 2015*

On Monday, Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina will become the
fifth sitting senator to formally announce a presidential bid, but his
biggest challenge to prove he’s a viable candidate likely won’t come
directly from the crowded field of colleagues he’s currently running
against. It will be from the one senator who already has waged (and lost)
multiple bids for the White House: John McCain of Arizona.

For those who follow congressional politics, Graham and McCain have been
inseparable — and practically indistinguishable — from each other for more
than a decade, since Graham arrived to the Senate in 2003. Graham is often
spotted just feet from the Senate floor, barking into a flip phone to a
staffer about coordinating press strategy with McCain, meaning that
“Statement by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham on [foreign policy
issue X]” is a frequent refrain in reporters’ mailboxes. A search of
McCain’s Senate website, for example , found 239 press releases mentioning
“Lindsey Graham” since 2005, many of which are from the past two years.

Graham and McCain also make up the core two-thirds of a group known
colloquially in Washington as the “Three Amigos,” which basically is a
small nucleus of senators who have consistently advocated for more U.S.
military intervention in the Middle East and have been searching for a
permanent third “amigo” since “friend” Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., left the
Senate in 2013. A Graham bid now completes an unofficial fraternity
pledging ritual for the original group’s triumvirate: a presidential run.

With a 2016 Graham campaign, four of the last five presidential elections
have featured an “amigo” vying for a place at the top of the ticket
(Lieberman, 2004; McCain, 2000, 2008). But there’s no requirement for
success in this political hazing process. Only once has a major party
selected an amigo as its nominee — McCain in 2008 — and America has never
elected one as president.

*Little Sister Lauds Lindsey Graham, the Bachelor, for Raising Her
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/01/little-sister-lauds-lindsey-graham-the-bachelor-for-raising-her/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Politics&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport – June 1, 2015*

CENTRAL, S.C. — If elected, Senator Lindsey Graham would be the first
bachelor to win the White House since Grover Cleveland. But that does not
mean he will be on the campaign trail without any family members in tow.

Mr. Graham, 59, a Republican who is a hawk on foreign policy, featured his
relatives prominently at his announcement here on Monday — none more so
than his sister, Darline Graham Nordone, who introduced him. Ms. Nordone
did her best to show Mr. Graham’s softer side by sharing stories of how he
taught her to ride a bicycle and recalling the pain of losing both their
parents, one after the other, at young ages.

“Lindsey was always my parent,” Ms. Nordone said in an interview in the bar
on Main Street that their family once owned. “There was no doubt in my mind
or anyone else’s mind that Lindsey was my guardian.”

Mr. Graham and his sister grew up in a small room behind the bar, which was
then known as the Sanitary Cafe. They eventually moved into a trailer and
then into a house next door. In 1976, when he was 20 and his sister was 11,
their mother died of Hodgkin’s lymphoma; 15 months later, their father died
of a heart attack.

Ms. Nordone said she had kept a low profile during her brother’s previous
campaigns, but that she would be willing to attend events with him now and
do anything she could to help him win the White House.

A mother of two whose occupation is helping people with disabilities find
jobs, Ms. Nordone said that her brother’s sense of responsibility, in
caring for her, was why he had never married.

“He was a young man taking on a young girl and teenager to raise,” she
said. “He was just dedicating all of that time to raising me and going to
school and trying to get an education. There’s just only so much time in a
day.”

Mr. Graham later became his sister’s legal guardian while he was in the Air
Force, allowing her to qualify for his military benefits.

Mr. Graham’s bachelorhood has been seized upon by his political opponents
before, most recently last year, when a little-known conservative primary
challenger called him “ambiguously gay.”

Ms. Nordone said that such personal attacks were hard for her to take, but
that she tried to tune out criticism of her brother — while showing people
that Mr. Graham was much more than a politician.

“He’s kind of like a brother, a father and a mother rolled into one,” she
said.

*Paul: I was exaggerating on my terror attack claim
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rand-paul-exaggerating-my-terror-attack-claim>
// MSNBC //Aliyah Frumin and Anthony Terrell – June 1, 2015*

Sen. Rand Paul is backtracking on a controversial suggestion he made over
the weekend: that his opponents secretly want a terrorist attack on the
U.S. so they can pin the blame on the Kentucky lawmaker and Republican
presidential candidate.

When Paul was asked during a Monday morning appearance on Fox News who he
was referring to when he made the comment on the Senate floor Sunday, the
senator said, “Sometimes in the heat of a battle, hyperbole can get the
better of anyone, and that may be the problem there.” He added, “The point
I was trying to make is that I think people do use fear to try to get us to
give up our liberty.”

The National Security Agency’s controversial surveillance program allowing
the government to collect Americans’ phone data in bulk expired on Monday
after Senate GOPers failed to reach an agreement to extend it.

Paul – an outspoken critic of the program – previously insisted “People
here in town think I’m making a huge mistake. Some of them—I think—secretly
want there to be an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me.”

During the Fox interview, Paul called the expiration of key proponents of
the Patriot Act a “big victory for privacy.” Critics like Paul 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.

Meanwhile, some conservative critics have argued Paul sounds more like a
Democrat on national security. Paul insisted on Monday, however, that may
be the case among “Beltway pundits” but not when he’s on the road talking
to Americans.

“I think the American people are actually with me,” said Paul on Fox News.

Paul’s team recently highlighted a survey to msnbc that shows 60% of
Americans want to change the Patriot Act. They further point out that 65%
of millennials and 75% of Independent men are pushing for a modification of
the Patriot Act.

Separately, Mallory Factor, a conservative political analyst who has helped
Sen. Paul raise money, told msnbc that the GOP is “doing some soul
searching” on national security and that the rift on the issue is causing
some shifts in both parties.

“I see a whole realignment in the electorate if the general election is
Rand Paul versus Hillary Clinton,” Factor said, suggesting national
security is changing allegiances in both the Democratic and GOP parties.

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

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.”

On the other side are candidates like Paul, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and
former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Cruz said a recent federal appeals
court ruling the NSA’s collection of millions of Americans’ phone records
is illegal confirmed what many Americans already know—that the NSA “went to
far in collecting the phone records.” Huckabee has gone as far to suggest
authorities should get a warrant if they want to listen in on Americans’
phone calls.

The national security debate has also highlighted a bitter divide between
Paul and fellow Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who wanted to extend the
Patriot Act. On Sunday, Paul objected to the senate  majority leader’s
proposal to extend less controversial aspects of the surveillance programs
– but allow discussions on the telephone program continue. After Paul’s
objection, McConnell took to the Senate floor and in apparent aim at Paul,
accused critics of a “campaign of demagoguery and disinformation.”

*Paul campaign video appears to run afoul of Senate rules
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/paul-campaign-video-appears-to-run-afoul-of-senate-rules-118465.html>
// Politico // Burgess Everett – May 31, 2015*

Sen. Rand Paul may have taken his stand against government surveillance a
little too far in his presidential campaign.

In a campaign video released on Friday that includes explicit links to a
campaign donation page, Paul (R-Ky.) extensively uses footage from his
lengthy speech on the Senate floor on May 20 against bulk data collection
and surveillance in the PATRIOT Act. The Senate “strictly” prohibits any
use of its proceedings for campaign activities.

The video, published under the “Official YouTube Channel of Rand Paul for
President,” says it is paid for by “Rand Paul for President” and includes a
hyperlink to a secure donation page. According to the standing rules of the
Senate, “The use of any tape duplication of radio or television coverage of
the proceedings of the Senate for political campaign purposes is strictly
prohibited.”

The campaign video begins with a clip of Ronald Reagan, quoting him from a
1964 speech on individual liberty saying that “those who would trade our
freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.” The video then
pivots to Paul’s 10-hour speech earlier this month against the PATRIOT Act,
three key provisions of which are set to expire on Sunday at midnight if
Paul refuses to allow quick Senate votes.

“There comes a time in the history of nations when fear and complacency
allow power to accumulate and liberty and privacy to suffer. That time is
now,” Paul says on the Senate floor in the video. “We should be in open
rebellion saying, ‘Enough’s enough, we’re not going to take it anymore.’ We
should be in rebellion saying to our government that the Constitution that
protects our freedoms must be obeyed.”

Paul has come close to running afoul of Senate rules before, using a Fox
News clip of his 2013 filibuster in his campaign launch video, first
reported by Time. But that video clearly showed a Fox News chyron in it,
putting it in a grey area ethically. The most recent video includes no such
indication that it is from news footage.

Campaign and Senate aides to Paul did not respond to a request for
comment.

*Rand Paul’s “sugar daddy” problem: Billionaires don’t love him — but that
could be a blessing in disguise
<http://www.salon.com/2015/06/01/rand_pauls_sugar_daddy_problem_billionaires_dont_love_him_but_that_could_be_a_blessing_in_disguise/>
// Salon // Jim Newell – June 1, 2015*

Citizens United and subsequent court decisions loosening campaign finance
restrictions have made running for president easy-peasy: you can find one
billionaire to give you tens of millions of dollars and then you just do
whatever they tell you to do. It’s a great country. There are billionaires
all over the place nowadays looking to purchase politicians for themselves.

And yet Rand Paul, who has a slender but not-nil chance of winning the
Republican presidential nomination can’t find himself a single willing
billionaire into whose pockets he can dive deep. Tragically, this might
mean that he’ll have to raise money in the boring, old-timey
horse-and-buggy fashion: by soliciting donations from a lot of people
instead of one. Who wants this?

Politico reports that Paul’s inability to secure a “sugar daddy” or two, so
to speak, has “led to considerable frustration in his campaign, which, amid
rising concerns that it will not be able to compete financially, finds
itself leaning heavily on the network of small donors who powered his
father’s insurgent White House bids.” The obvious first choice was
billionaire tech libertarian Peter Thiel, who gave Rand Paul’s father a
bunch of cash in 2012. Thiel is hesitant to play a similar role again for
Ron’s considerably more viable spawn, and staffers don’t know why. Some
suggest he’s “become tired of political giving,” which is understandable,
because politics is bullshit and he could buy all other sorts of cool stuff
with that money like boats and cars and things.

Sean Parker, the Napster cofounder who also made a bunch of money off of
Facebook, was also solicited but may give his money to Hillary Clinton
instead because his politics make no sense.

*GOP senators tear into Pau
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/gop-senators-tear-into-paul-118475.html?ml=po>l
// Politico // Manu Raju and Burgess Everett – May 31, 2015*

The Rand Paul pile-on session began a few hours before sunset Sunday
evening.

Behind closed doors in the Senate’s Strom Thurmond Room, Republican
senators lashed out at the junior Kentucky Republican’s defiant stance to
force the expiration of key sections of the PATRIOT Act, a law virtually
all of them support. Indiana Sen. Dan Coats’ criticism was perhaps the most
biting: He accused the senator of “lying” about the matter in order to
raise money for his presidential campaign, according to three people who
attended the meeting.

The message may have gotten through to Paul except for one thing: The
libertarian-minded senator skipped the hour-long meeting. That only
infuriated his colleagues more.

“Anything that goes against anything he believes, he never comes,” Coats
said in an interview. “It’s always helpful if you’re in there working to
have your position understood, and we all learn a lot and we all try to
come to a much better understanding of what we’re trying to do.”

“He needed to be there,” said Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.). “He really needed
to be there.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) noted that Paul has missed “a number of
meetings” Republicans have held on the PATRIOT Act in recent weeks. He
contended there was an obvious political reason for Paul’s stance, pointing
out how his colleague was tweeting supporters taking “selfies” of
themselves next to Paul speaking on TV.

“I know what this is about — I think it’s very clear – this is, to some
degree, a fundraising exercise,” McCain said Sunday. “He obviously has a
higher priority for his fundraising and political ambitions than for the
security of the nation.”

The stinging personal criticism of Paul showed just how unpopular the
Kentucky Republican’s demands to kill the surveillance law is among party
elders — and portended how this battle is likely to continue to hover over
his presidential campaign, for better or worse. It marked the first time in
Paul’s brief tenure in Washington where he’s become the scourge of much of
his party — not unlike how the party establishment turned on Ted Cruz over
his role in the 2013 government shutdown.

Like Cruz, Paul is clearly relishing it.

“Tonight begins the process of ending bulk collection,” Paul said proudly
on the Senate floor, just hours before the expiration of key provisions in
the law. And in a sign of the ill will between him and his colleagues, Paul
took a personal whack of his own.

“People here in town think I’m making a huge mistake,” he said. “Some of
them, I think, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States so
they can blame it on me.”

Since becoming a senator, Paul has long railed against the PATRIOT Act,
arguing it’s a blatant violation of Americans’ constitutional privacy
rights. His position gained steam among many civil libertarians after
Edward Snowden exposed the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection
program of Americans’ phone records.

Buoyed by Snowden’s leaks, a bipartisan majority in the House moved to
overhaul the bulk data program through the USA Freedom Act by proposing
that phone companies — not the federal government — maintain those records,
though the NSA could access them via a secret court order.

But Paul contends that the USA Freedom Act would be an expansion of the
PATRIOT Act and could torpedo a lawsuit aimed at ending the bulk data
program. The phone companies, he said, “may do the same thing” as the NSA.

Republican leaders in the Senate, after initially resisting the USA Freedom
Act because of concerns it would hamper intelligence gathering, on Sunday
reluctantly accepted it. They did so with a midnight deadline to extend the
surveillance law hours away, their backs against the wall.

That made Paul even more isolated than he was already.

“I think there are some legitimate debates going on in the country over who
should hold the documents,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of GOP
leadership and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “I think there
aren’t very many people in Sen. Paul’s place that believe that none of
these provisions need to be extended or held onto in some way.”

After skipping the GOP meeting, Paul appeared for a tense floor debate
between him and his colleagues, including the man who has endorsed him for
president: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a fellow Kentuckian. The
GOP leader was incensed at Paul’s refusal to allow a two-week renewal of
far-less controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act: The use of roving
wiretaps for terrorism suspects that change phone numbers quickly and “lone
wolf” provisions that allow tracking of suspects who are not affiliated
with known terrorist groups.

Just as McConnell attempted to pass a short-term extension, Paul launched
into his own impassioned speech— only to be shouted down by his colleagues.

“One of the promises that was given when the PATRIOT Act was originally
passed was that in exchange for allowing a less than constitutional
standard, we would only use the actions against …” Paul said before he was
interrupted by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who pounded his desk while
presiding over the Senate.

“Is there objection?” Wicker asked as Paul tried to continue on. A number
of Republican senators began yelling over Paul to restore order in the
chamber and prevent another lengthy speech.

“Regular order!” shouted Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Tom Cotton
(R-Ark.), among others.

“I object,” Paul responded. That prompted McConnell to launch his own
speech. At times glaring at Paul, the Senate leader blasted what he called
“a campaign of demagoguery and disinformation launched in the wake of
unlawful actions of Edward Snowden, who was last seen in Russia.” Paul sat
at his desk quietly, holding his glasses in his hand.

McConnell never named Paul in his passionate speech, but it was clearly
aimed at the man who had been a close political ally — until now.

Other colleagues did criticize Paul by name.

“I don’t stand with Rand on this,” said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). “I want to
make sure the ability to monitor terrorists continues uninterrupted.”

“I think he’s nestled in with a very large bunch of very radical people –
from the left to the right,” said Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the president pro
tempore. “I don’t know if he feels comfortable being with all those
leftists who hate the PATRIOT Act. But he has a right to do what he’s
doing.”

Paul ended up delaying a final Senate vote on the USA Freedom Act until
later this week. After blocking that bill before the Memorial Day recess,
McConnell and GOP leaders agreed to move the House’s measure, saying they
had no other choice. By a 77-17 vote Sunday, the Senate broke a filibuster
and moved to begin debate on the bill.

To overcome Paul’s delay tactics, McConnell was forced to employ a rarely
used prerogative to force senators to debate after a filibuster has been
broken, allowing him to move to final passage as early as Tuesday.

As that vote was occurring, Paul was sitting at his desk. He huddled with
two libertarian-minded House members: GOP Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan
and Thomas Massie of Kentucky. His fellow 2016 rivals, Sens. Ted Cruz of
Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida, were yukking it up nearby with a small
group of senators. (Rubio voted against proceeding to the House bill, while
Cruz supported it.)

In an interview, Amash said Paul’s positions are supported “overwhelmingly”
by voters of “all political affiliations.”

“It’s not politically risky to stand with the vast majority of Americans,”
Amash said. “I’m astonished when I hear Republican candidates in particular
speak as though people want the PATRIOT Act. They don’t.”

“He’s exposing the country to the Constitution,” Massie added. “And the
senators that think that’s dangerous are saying the Constitution’s
dangerous.”

Several dozen Paul supporters sat in the Senate gallery on Sunday night
clad in red “Rand” T-shirts.

But Paul didn’t have many other defenders in the halls of the Senate.

Rubio called the expiration of the PATRIOT Act’s provisions the result of
“political posturing.”

“There are other ways this could have been done,” said Sen. Jeff Flake
(R-Ariz.).

One way Paul could have handled the matter would have been to simply object
to short-term extensions of current law, rather than giving a nearly
11-hour floor speech on the floor before the Memorial Day recess, Heller
said.

“It accomplished just the same, but he couldn’t raise money objecting,”
Heller said. “He could only raise money filibustering.”

*Mike Huckabee to Rand Paul: Decide what job you want
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/mike-huckabee-rand-paul-patriot-act/index.html>
// CNN // Gregory Wallace – June 1, 2015*

(CNN)Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee wants Rand Paul to make a choice:
Protest the Patriot Act either on the Senate floor or on the campaign trail.

He joined a chorus of Republican presidential hopefuls weighing in on the
Kentucky Republican senator's protest of the Patriot Act, key provisions of
which lapsed Sunday.

Paul claimed credit for blocking parts of the renewal of the controversial
law, and his protests included an 11-hour speech on the eve of the
chamber's Memorial Day break, as well as objections to several short-term
extensions of the Act.

In response to a question about Paul, Huckabee said on Fox News Monday
morning that 2016 contenders must "decide what they want to be when they
grow up."

"If you want to be a governor, be a governor. If you want to be a senator,
be a senator," Huckabee said. "If you want to be president, then let go of
what you're doing, because it's a full time pursuit to run for the
presidency."

Those in government positions owe a responsibility to the taxpayer, he
continued.

"If you want a different job, then say I don't want this one anymore. I'm
bored with it," he said. "But be honest about it and go out and give the
taxpayers a break, and let them have someone on the job full time."

Huckabee added in a follow-up question that he did not mean to "impugn his
(Paul's) motives" because "this is not something he just took up because
it's a political cause."

Many of those running for president are out of office, though two of Paul's
Senate colleagues -- Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas -- are in
the race, and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is expected to announce
a bid on Monday. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is running for the
Democratic nomination. Several sitting governors -- including Chris
Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
and Scott Walker of Wisconsin -- are considering joining the GOP field.

Unlike several other Republicans who have hammered Paul for blocking the
Patriot Act renewal, Huckabee believes the original law went too far.

He said the original law was "hastily passed" in the wake of 9/11 without
extensive debate. Public opinion has shifted now, he said.

"Fourteen years ago, we were worried about terrorists. Now we're worried
about our government," Huckabee said, singling out controversies around the
IRS and Justice Departments.

*Rand Paul's Stand Against the Patriot Act Is About More Than Mass
Surveillance
<http://mic.com/articles/119766/rand-paul-s-stand-against-the-patriot-act-is-about-more-than-mass-surveillance>
// Policy.Mic // Mark Kogan – June 1, 2015*

On Sunday night, controversial elements of the Patriot Act were allowed to
expire for the first time since its passage following the Sept. 11 attacks
in 2001.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), whose procedural maneuvers prevented the Senate
from renewing the bill in its entirety, declared in a press release that
"tonight begins the process of ending bulk collection" of data for mass
surveillance.

Paul's efforts, whether motivated by personal beliefs, presidential
aspirations or a healthy mix of both, mark an important moment in American
politics, not just for the debate over mass surveillance, but for
congressional gridlock in general.

In recent decades, as congressional politics became increasingly polarized
and meaningful compromise became less common, the practical challenge for
legislators was the sheer impossibility of moving legislation through the
system without some sort of forcing function.

Legislators began pushing fewer individual bills, instead packing their
projects and policies into "omnibus" bills that addressed entire sectors of
government rather than individual pieces. These amalgamated bills were
often funding bills and therefore "must-pass" legislation. Voting against
omnibus bills became too risky because failing to pass the larger bill over
disagreements with one or two relatively minor provisions carried the
threat of tremendous collateral damage (both real and political).

As this process of smashing through "must-pass" bills became standard
operating procedure, the political leadership made another cynical
discovery. By waiting until the last second and using the subsequent fear
of imminent expiration to force passage, politicians were able to avoid
debating elements of the bill that put them at risk while simultaneously
ensuring passage.

The lead-up to this year's renewal of the Patriot Act played out similarly:
Everyone from President Barack Obama to Senate Republicans warned of the
dangers of failing to pass the bill wholesale.

Urging the Senate to act this week, Obama warned of the dangers of letting
surveillance authorities expire.

"I don't want us to be in a situation in which for a certain period of time
those authorities go away and suddenly we are dark," he said. "And heaven
forbid we've got a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack
or apprehended someone who is engaged in dangerous activity but we didn't
do so simply because of inaction in the Senate."

Others in the administration pushed the same message. In an interview with
CBS, newly minted Attorney General Loretta Lynch declared that failing to
renew the Patriot Act would make us "less safe" and cause us to "lose
important eyes on people who have made it clear ... that their mission is
to harm American people here and abroad."

Republicans also joined in on the fear-mongering as the vote deadline
approached. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the
Senate floor that failure to pass or extend the act "would mean disarming
completely and arbitrarily."

Others were even more direct. "To go dark on this," said Sen. Dan Coats
(R-Ind.), NPR reported, "is a risk on Americans' lives."

Historically, this was a tried and true formula that would have ensured
immediate passage or at least temporary extension while the requisite
arm-twisting was done to secure passage. But for the first time in a long
time, it didn't work.

"The people who argue that the world will end and we will be overrun by
jihadists tonight are trying to use fear... They want you to fear and give
up your liberty," said Paul in his statement. "They tell you if you have
nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. That's a far cry from the
standard we were founded upon."

Now, with two more days of mandatory debate forced by Paul, the contentious
issue of mass surveillance will be brought to the forefront of civic
discourse. This will almost certainly result in meaningful reforms as the
Senate takes up the House-passed USA Freedom Act, which curtails
contentious mass data collection powers while leaving other elements of the
Patriot Act in place.

When Paul rose to speak on Sunday, he knew that his opposition was a
beginning, rather than an end. "The Patriot Act will expire tonight," Paul
said, but, "It will only be temporary. They will ultimately get their way."

Yet even if they do get their way, this shock is good for the system and
will serve as a reminder that the politics of fear and pressure are not
necessary and are in fact anathema to good governance, doing far more harm
than good.

By forcing expiration and debate, the public has been given an opportunity
to nudge public dialogue away from partisan grandstanding toward more
meaningful discussion of serious issues. Hopefully, we take advantage of it.

*Rand Paul is getting way too much credit for killing 3 Patriot Act powers
<http://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/8700111/rand-paul-patriot-act> // Vox //
Timothy B. Lee – June 1, 2015*

When three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act expired at midnight
on Sunday, May 31, 2015, news organizations put Rand Paul (R-KY) front and
center. We at Vox did that ourselves, with a story titled "Rand Paul has
forced three Patriot Act powers to expire."

This isn't wrong — it's true that Paul's obstructionist tactics helped
ensure that the Patriot Act powers would lapse before the Senate had time
to pass a replacement. And Paul's dramatic 10-hour speech two weeks ago
made for a good story, which is why it got so much media attention. But the
media's focus on Paul has led to the Kentucky Republican getting way too
much credit for the ultimate outcome of this week's surveillance fight.

The fight is likely to result in the passage of the USA Freedom Act — which
seeks to place stricter limits on NSA surveillance but which some privacy
advocates say doesn't go far enough — later this week. Paul has opposed
this legislation. And if Paul hadn't engaged in his theatrics, the most
likely outcome would have been exactly the same. The only difference is
that the USA Freedom Act might have passed a few days earlier.

If the USA Freedom Act passes in the Senate, credit (or blame) should go to
the 57 senators — mostly Democrats — who supported the legislation a week
ago, and to the 54 senators — again mostly Democrats — who voted down a
straight renewal of the Patriot Act during the same Friday-night session.
Rand Paul's filibuster was wildly successful at getting Rand Paul's name in
headlines. But it ultimately had little effect on the outcome of the
legislative fight.

The Republican leadership of the House also deserves a lot of credit for
reining in the NSA. If the lower House had not passed the USA Freedom Act
several weeks ago, Mitch McConnell might have convinced a majority of the
Senate that renewing the Patriot Act was the only realistic option.

The Patriot Act powers died because 54 senators wanted them to die

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) wrote the original version of the USA
Freedom Act in 2013 and played a key role in shepherding the legislation
through the House of Representatives. (Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty
Images)

The crucial moment in the Patriot Act fight wasn't Rand Paul's filibuster
on Wednesday, May 20. It was a series of votes taken two days later, on
Friday, May 22. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wanted to
force the Senate to renew the Patriot Act without changes. His plan was to
bring the USA Freedom Act up for a vote, let it fail, and then tell
senators their only alternative was a short-term renewal of the Patriot Act
with no changes.

The first part of this plan worked. The USA Freedom Act got 57 votes, just
short of the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster. But when McConnell
then called a vote on extending the Patriot Act for two months, the
senators didn't flinch — 54 of them voted no.

At this point the question was who would blink first. Would pro-privacy
senators agree to extend the Patriot Act without changes? Or would
pro-surveillance senators agree to support the USA Freedom Act? On Sunday
night, it was McConnell himself who blinked, concluding that the USA
Freedom Act he had opposed a week earlier was now "the only realistic way
forward." This time 77 senators voted for the USA Freedom Act.

"The Senate will pass a reform that just got 77 votes," says Julian Sanchez
a privacy advocate at the Cato Institute (where I worked from 2003 to
2005). He notes that Paul joined "16 of the most hardcore NSA cheerleaders
in the Senate" in opposing the legislation.

McConnell's capitulation was a real victory for pro-privacy senators. But
Paul deserves little, if any, credit for it. After all, if Paul had backed
the USA Freedom Act and convinced two of his fellow Republicans to join
him, the legislation could have moved forward sooner. Paul's decision to
break with the overwhelming majority of pro-privacy senators and oppose the
USA Freedom Act delayed the legislation's passage and created a risk that
McConnell would be able to stampede the Senate into renewing the Patriot
Act.

Even if Paul's defiant tactics didn't change the outcome of the debate,
Sanchez says they helped illustrate that "scaremongering" by surveillance
hawks no longer works. "Americans aren't afraid of the dark anymore," he
says. "A sunset can't be used to coerce legislators into capitulation with
unchecked surveillance powers."

Other members of Congress deserve more credit than Rand Paul

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) provided key Republican support for the USA Freedom
Act in the Senate. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Rand Paul's tactics have gotten him a lot of press attention — and,
therefore, a lot of undeserved credit — for the outcome of the legislative
fight. But a larger share of the credit should go to other senators.
Sanchez points to Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Mike
Lee (R-UT) as three examples of senators who did the hard work of building
a consensus for the USA Freedom Act in the Senate.

And even more credit should go to House leaders such as Rep. James
Sensenbrenner (R-WI) who passed the USA Freedom Act in a lopsided,
bipartisan vote several weeks ago. The fact that the House had already
passed the USA Freedom Act made it a lot easier for pro-privacy senators to
position it as a reasonable alternative to renewing the Patriot Act.

"It is valuable that Paul is using his platform as a presidential candidate
to drive attention to this issue," Sanchez says. But "Paul hasn't
ultimately done much to drive the substantive policy outcome."

*Dick Cheney and Daughter Push Hawkish Stances for G.O.P. Hopefuls
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/01/dick-cheney-and-daughter-push-hawkish-stances-for-g-o-p-hopefuls/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Politics&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body>
// NYT // Jonathan Martin – June 1, 2015*

The rise of the Islamic State in the Middle East has pushed Republicans
toward embracing a more interventionist foreign policy, and now one
prominent Republican family wants to be sure the party stays that way.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney are planning
to make their presence felt in the 2016 presidential campaign through their
advocacy group, Alliance for a Strong America.

The organization is planning online and perhaps television ads pushing a
muscular line on national security, according to a Republican strategist
familiar with the group’s planning. The initiative may also pay for polling
to help nudge Republican candidates toward hawkish stances in the primary
season.

What is not clear, though, is whether the Cheneys intend to train their
fire on Hillary Rodham Clinton or whether they plan to target Senator Rand
Paul, the libertarian-leaning Kentuckian who has recently sought to bolster
his White House campaign by trying to block a renewal of parts of the
Patriot Act.

Mr. Cheney criticized Mr. Paul as “an isolationist” in an interview
published online Sunday in The Wall Street Journal, which first reported
the Alliance for a Strong America’s plans.

Asked about the assessment, Mr. Paul’s top political adviser questioned Mr.
Cheney’s conservative credentials.

“Anyone who defends warrantless spying on innocent U.S. citizens, like
President Obama, has no right to call themselves a freedom-loving
conservative,” said Doug Stafford, the adviser to Mr. Paul. “Worse is these
people are defending and supporting a program that the courts have said is
illegal and the F.B.I. reports hasn’t led to a single terrorist arrest or
thwarted terror plot. It has only resulted in the trampling of Americans’
rights.”

The harsh back-and-forth between the Cheneys and Mr. Paul’s orbit
illustrates not only the tension in the party over how to balance defense
and civil liberties, but also, as Mr. Stafford notes, basic questions about
what it means to be a conservative on matters of national security.

The resurgence of radical Islamic terrorism in the Middle East may have
pushed many primary voters toward a more hawkish orientation, but Mr.
Paul’s success in at least temporarily stopping the N.S.A.’s use of
metadata suggests that Republicans are uneasy with some of the intelligence
policies put into effect during Mr. Cheney’s time as vice president.

Republicans who have spoken with Mr. Cheney, who represented Wyoming in the
House for 10 years and who  maintains an intense interest in both policy
and political intrigue, say he is plainly concerned about the party backing
away from intelligence programs.

Selective about his public appearances, Mr. Cheney is engaged in the 2016
presidential race behind the scenes. When aides to many of the leading
Republican candidates descended on Wyoming this year to make their pitch to
a group of wealthy donors, some of the staff members were surprised to find
Mr. Cheney in the audience.

*How Bobby Jindal lost everything: A one-time GOP hope, gutted by Grover
Norquist worship and his own ambition
<http://www.salon.com/2015/06/01/how_bobby_jindal_lost_everything_a_one_time_gop_hope_gutted_by_grover_norquist_worship_and_his_own_ambition/>
// Salon // Stephanie Grace – June 1, 2015*

These are not happy times in Baton Rouge, where government officials are
desperately trying to plug a $1.6 billion budget shortfall. But even by
that standard, Wednesday, April 22, was particularly fraught.

In the imposing state capitol that Huey Long built, the Senate Finance
Committee was wrestling with a complicated cost-cutting scheme to repeal an
inventory tax that businesses pay to local governments and that the state
rebates to the businesses, all while promising to somehow make stressed-out
local leaders whole.

Just down the road, Louisiana State University President and Chancellor F.
King Alexander said that the state’s flagship university, which could lose
80 percent of state funding after years of already deep cuts, was
developing a worst-case scenario plan for financial exigency—basically the
academic equivalent of bankruptcy.

In the midst of it all came a message from Republican Governor Bobby
Jindal, whose policies and priorities have contributed mightily to the
state’s fiscal mess.

“Help wish my friends Willie, Phil and Si a happy birthday,” said the
tweet, which was accompanied by a photo of Willie Robertson, whose family
is featured on the popular homegrown reality TV show Duck Dynasty. It then
directed readers to the website for the American Future Project, a 527
issue advocacy group that Jindal has set up in advance of his anticipated
presidential run.

If the tweet suggests a stunning disconnect from the dire budget situation
that’s unfolding on his watch, well, that’s how it is these days.

A Pure Record on Taxes

Jindal, a hard-charging former Rhodes Scholar, has always nursed grander
ambitions, and voters generally gave him a pass. That was when things were
going well.

These days they’re not, and Jindal’s focus on the upcoming presidential
primaries has taken a toll back home. While he was popular and powerful
enough to avoid a reelection fight in 2011, by 2015 his approval rating had
sunk to 27 percent, according to one poll; a friendly survey by his own
consulting firm pegged the number at 46 percent, hardly a resounding vote
of confidence.

It’s not just his frequent trips to places like Iowa, New Hampshire, and
Washington, D.C., that have angered his constituents. (He spent 165 days
out of state in 2014, according to The Advocate newspaper.) Nor is it only
his odd forays into international and national affairs, from the tall tales
in London about Muslim no-go zones, to his op-ed in The New York Times
accusing companies that oppose religious freedom laws inspired by the
spread of gay marriage of forming an unholy alliance with the “radical
liberals.” It’s not even his need to bask in the Robertsons’ reflected
glory.

More than any of that, his constituents are frustrated that their governor
can’t be bothered to do his day job—and when he does, that his actions are
often transparently designed to build a national profile rather than meet
Louisiana’s needs.

That’s clear in his refusal to take federal money to expand Medicaid—which,
of course, would mean acknowledging there are benefits to Obama’s health
care law. But nowhere is it more obvious, or more damaging, than in
Jindal’s stewardship of fiscal affairs.

Jindal chalks up the current budget shortfall to the drop in oil prices,
and that’s definitely contributed. A larger piece of the puzzle has been
his determination to maintain a pure record on taxes.

Jindal hasn’t always been reckless about taxation. In the midst of a budget
surplus early in his first term, Jindal tried to quietly head off the
Legislature’s move to roll back a big income tax increase that had been
enacted several years earlier. It was only after lawmakers seemed like they
might eliminate the income tax entirely that he got on board with the
rollback, and he soon was boasting that he’d signed the biggest tax cut in
state history.

The first real glimpse of the future came in 2011 when Jindal fought tooth
and nail against extending a temporary four-cent levy on the state’s
cigarette tax—at 36 cents, including the levy, the third lowest in the
nation. His reasoning? If the tax rate is scheduled to automatically drop
and the state acts to prevent that from happening, it amounts to an
effective tax increase.

The stance left his constituents cold, but impressed Grover Norquist of
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), who would endorse Jindal as Mitt Romney’s
running mate the following year.

Even Republicans Are Bristling

These days it’s hard to think of anyone who has as much influence over what
Jindal’s willing to do than Norquist, whose rigid rules for what
constitutes a tax increase line up perfectly with Jindal’s. In practice,
that means the governor has insisted that the budget be balanced without
tax increases, despite the prospect of devastating cuts to higher education
and health care, the two main areas that don’t enjoy constitutional or
statutory protection.

And it means some revenue-enhancing ideas the Republican-dominated
Legislature might support, specifically a reexamination of giveaways to
specific industries, are off limits—because eliminating a tax exemption
without an offset that reduces another tax or cuts spending, according to
ATR, is raising a tax.

That’s how the inventory tax wound up in everyone’s crosshairs, despite the
fact that eliminating the rebate but not the underlying tax would hurt
businesses, and getting rid of the tax would devastate some parishes
(that’s Louisiana for county). Many companies, it turns out, receive rebate
checks that exceed their state tax liability, and in Jindal’s view that
makes eliminating the payouts a spending cut, not a tax increase.
“Corporate welfare,” he labeled it in his opening address to the
Legislature, prompting chuckles from those who’ve watched him promote
business incentives for years.

In fact, perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the frustration with Jindal
is that it transcends partisanship.

It’s not just the Democrats who are bristling. It’s many a Republican.

Nothing Left to Cut

Republicans who belong to an informal group dubbed the “fiscal hawks” have
been sharply critical of Jindal’s reliance over the years on one-time money
transfers and accounting gimmicks to balance the budget without making even
deeper cuts.

One reason everything’s hitting the fan is there’s not much left. Gone are
$800 million from the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly and $450 million
for providing development incentives, and the rainy day fund has dropped
from $730 million to $460 million on his watch.

Republicans like state Rep. Jay Morris, who, after hearing Jindal’s vow to
veto any measure that didn’t have Grover Norquist’s blessing, declared the
approach “insane.” And like state Sen. Jack Donahue, who chairs the Finance
Committee and who passed a bill last year seeking to determine how much the
state spends on tax exemptions, only to watch Jindal veto it.

And perhaps most tellingly, the Republicans running to replace Jindal in
this fall’s election. All three—Lt. Governor Jay Dardenne, U.S. Senator
David Vitter and Public Service Commissioner (and former Jindal aide) Scott
Angelle—say they will look for a way to accept the Medicaid money and take
a open-minded approach to examining tax exemptions.

“What this state needs right now is a leader solely focused on Louisiana,”
Dardenne said in a recent speech. And in a clear swipe at Norquist, he
added that, “I represent the people of Louisiana; I don’t represent someone
who lives in D.C.”

And Vitter said he’d take a good, hard look at tax incentives and other
giveaways, even if it means raising revenue.

“Gov. Jindal should be doing this now,” he pointedly said. “I’ll do it the
minute I’m sworn in.”

*UPDATE: Walker backs 20-week abortion ban with or without exemption
<http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Republicans-introduce-bill-banning-abortions-after-20-weeks-302953851.html>
// NBC 15 – June 1, 2015*

UPDATED Monday, June 1, 2015---10:35 a.m.

DELAVAN, Wis. (AP) -- Gov. Scott Walker says he will sign a 20-week
abortion ban whether or not it includes an exemption for cases of rape or
incest.

Walker was asked Monday about the bill following a speech at a Boys and
Girls Club event in Delavan.

Walker says a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy is "rational and
reasonable" because he believes after that point the unborn child can feel
pain.

A bill banning abortions after 20 weeks is slated for a joint public
hearing Tuesday in the Legislature. It does not include an exemption for
rape or incest.

Walker says he will sign the bill with or without an exemption, saying
"it's an unborn child, that's why we feel strongly about it."

Copyright 2015: Associated Press

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATED: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 --- 2:52 p.m.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A public hearing has been set on a fast-tracked
Republican proposal in the Wisconsin Legislature that would ban abortions
after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The joint hearing announced Wednesday is scheduled for Tuesday before
Assembly and Senate health committees.

The bill was introduced last week and its sponsors have said they want to
pass it before debate on the state budget begins later in June. Gov. Scott
Walker has said he will sign it into law.

Under the bill, doctors who perform an abortion after 20 weeks in
non-emergency situations could be charged with a felony and subject to up
to a $10,000 in fines or 3 1/2 years in prison. The bill doesn't provide an
exception for pregnancies conceived from rape or incest.

Copyright: Associated Press 2015

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATED Wednesday, May 20, 2015---3:27 p.m.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Republican state lawmakers say they hope to pass a
bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation before the budget is
debated in June.

Sen. Mary Lazich and Rep. Jesse Kremer told public affairs network
WisconsinEye they introduced the measure Wednesday with more than 30
co-sponsors. The Republicans say they plan to hold a joint public hearing
on the measure and pass it in both the Senate and Assembly before budget
debate.

Under the bill, doctors who perform an abortion after 20 weeks in
non-emergency situations could be charged with a felony and subject to up
to a $10,000 in fines or 3 1/2 years in prison. The bill doesn't provide an
exception for pregnancies conceived from rape or incest.

Gov. Scott Walker has said he would sign it.

Copyright 2015: Associated Press

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted Thursday, May 7, 2015---12:53 p.m.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Wisconsin Republicans have introduced a bill that
would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Rep. Jesse Kremer, a Kewaskum Republican, and Sen. Mary Lazich, a New
Berlin Republican, co-authored the bill introduced Thursday.

Kremer says the purpose of the bill is to prevent unborn children from
feeling pain.

Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling in a statement said the bill would
jeopardize women's health.

Physicians who perform an abortion after 20 weeks in non-emergency
situations could be charged with a felony and subject to up to $10,000
fines or 3 1/2 years in prison.

Gov. Scott Walker on Thursday said he supports the bill and hopes the
Legislature could move forward with the abortion ban while it works on the
budget.

*Jeb Bush Faces Challenge in Winning Over Brother’s Team
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/politics/jeb-bush-faces-challenge-in-winning-over-brothers-team.html>
// NYT // Peter Baker – June 1, 2015*

WASHINGTON — When George W. Bush first ran for president, he liked to say
he had inherited half of his father’s friends and all of his enemies. For
Jeb Bush, now preparing his own bid for the White House, that may ring
familiar.

His brother’s enemies have made themselves known in recent weeks as Jeb
Bush has struggled to formulate his own take on the decisions made during
the last Bush presidency. But perhaps just as important for the fledgling
candidate has been the challenge in winning over his brother’s friends.

While George W. Bush himself and many in his circle, especially those
closest to the family, are enthusiastic about the prospect of a third Bush
presidency, many of the Republican foot soldiers who worked for the former
president in his campaigns and his administration have not rushed to back
his brother’s emerging operation.

A sampling conducted largely by email of about 120 people who worked for
George W. Bush — from cabinet secretaries to foreign policy advisers to
advance aides — found about 25 who said they were supporting his younger
brother. Fifty others said they were neutral or supporting another
candidate, while the rest did not respond, passing up a chance to declare
allegiance to the next Bush candidacy.

Some harbor the same reservations that other Republicans do about the
notion of a dynastic presidency passed from one member of a family to
another. Some simply want a fresh start, concluding that the party would
make a stronger case against Hillary Rodham Clinton, the likely Democratic
candidate, by nominating a new figure like Senator Marco Rubio of Florida
or Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Some nurse doubts about Jeb Bush
specifically, even on policies he shares with his brother.

“I’m neutral,” said Matt Latimer, a former White House speechwriter. “If
pressed, I’m inclined to adopt the Barbara Bush philosophy — enough
Bushes.” (Mrs. Bush, the mother of the two brothers, who initially did say
that, has since taken it back. “I’ve changed my mind,” she said.)

Another former White House official who worked closely with former
President Bush said it would be a mistake for the country for his brother
to become president. “I happen to believe the U.S. is Bushed and Clintoned
out,” said this official, who like many others asked not to be named to
avoid offending his former boss. “It is time for others to lead.”

A spokesman for Jeb Bush, a former governor of Florida, said he did not
take any support for granted. “Governor Bush realizes that should he decide
to move forward, he’s going to have to work to earn support across the
party — just as the other prospective candidates will,” said Tim Miller,
the spokesman.

Many of the Bush veterans unwilling to back him cited work reasons,
explaining that their current employers would not want them to take sides
publicly. Some are now working as academics, party officials or television
pundits, and said they wanted to retain a professional detachment from any
one candidate. Some said they hoped to be able to advise several of the
Republican candidates, and there was no consensus for any of Mr. Bush’s
opponents.

Others held back not because they oppose Mr. Bush, but because they worried
that publicly supporting him would only hurt his chances by reinforcing his
ties to his brother. They were acutely aware of the criticism he received
when he released a list of foreign policy advisers that included many who
had worked for his brother, like Paul D. Wolfowitz, the former deputy
defense secretary.

Whatever the reason, the mixed emotions in the 43rd president’s team
underscore a vicious quandary for Jeb Bush. Much as he wants to present
himself as his own man, he cannot assume that his brother’s supporters will
automatically transfer to him. So he must make the case for their support,
and for that of the broader electorate, even as he labors to avoid being
branded a copy of his brother.

“It is fair to say that those who are inclined to support Jeb out of
loyalty to 41 or 43 have already jumped in,” said Stephen Yates, who worked
on national security in the George W. Bush White House and is now chairman
of the Idaho Republican Party. “Everyone else is up for grabs. He’ll be
able to get some of the remainder, but no advantage over others.”

Neil Patel, a Bush White House official and publisher of The Daily Caller,
a conservative news site, said the Republican field had many good choices.

“I don’t think anyone, including Jeb Bush, should expect to automatically
pick up support to become president — especially by virtue of being related
to a past president. And I doubt he would disagree with that,” he said.
“Lots of former colleagues are lined up behind Jeb but many are also with
Rubio, Walker and others.”

The distance kept by some from the 43rd president’s team reflects the
reality that the two brothers have long traveled in separate political
orbits, with the elder based in Texas and the younger based in Florida.
There has been relatively little overlap over the years beyond family
retainers.

And so some of George W. Bush’s former aides were willing to publicly
criticize Jeb Bush a few weeks ago when he stumbled over the question of
whether he would have invaded Iraq had he known there were no
unconventional weapons there.

Karl Rove, the former president’s longtime political strategist; Andrew H.
Card Jr., the former White House chief of staff; and Ari Fleischer, the
former press secretary, all expressed concern at the handling of the issue.

“I don’t think it would have taken his brother that long to clean it up,”
Mr. Card said on MSNBC. But Mr. Card was among those who offered unstinting
support for Jeb Bush. “I am proudly for Jeb,” he said by email.

Others offering their backing were some of the Republicans who were closest
to his brother, including Margaret Spellings, the former education
secretary, who runs the George W. Bush Presidential Center, and Donald L.
Evans, the former president’s longtime Texas friend and commerce secretary.

“I very much support Jeb and he would be a great president if he decides to
run,” Mr. Evans said.

Ms. Spellings said she was “enthusiastically supporting” him. “As you might
imagine, Jeb and I have a relationship independent of his brother given our
shared interest in education reform, and we have worked together for many
years,” she said.

For some, though, it seemed as much obligation as fervor. “Yes,” a longtime
friend and financial donor to George W. Bush said when asked if he was
supporting the former president’s brother. “Do I have a choice?”

One who decided he did have a choice was Wayne Berman, an official in the
administration of the first President George Bush, and a friend and
fund-raiser for George W. Bush and whose wife worked in the 43rd
president’s White House. This time around, Mr. Berman is a senior adviser
to Mr. Rubio.

Among those declaring neutrality rather than publicly embracing Jeb Bush’s
candidacy is former Vice President Dick Cheney, who with his daughter Liz
Cheney has started the Alliance for a Strong America to advocate tough
national security positions among various candidates.

Others include former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, although she is
leading Mr. Bush’s education foundation; Mr. Rove, who comments on Fox News
and in The Wall Street Journal; Mr. Fleischer; Michael Gerson, a former
senior White House adviser now writing for The Washington Post; Ed
Gillespie, a former presidential counselor; Mark McKinnon, a campaign
strategist for the former president; and cabinet secretaries like former
Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Paul J. McNulty, who served as George W. Bush’s deputy attorney general and
is now president of Grove City College in Pennsylvania, said he was torn
between Jeb Bush and former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. “I’ve always
been a big fan of Jeb,” he said, “but I worry about his electability.”

Ryan Streeter, a former domestic policy aide to George W. Bush, said the
issues had changed since his former boss left office. Fiscal concerns are
greater, and Republicans are more skeptical of enlarging the federal role
in setting education standards for schools or expanding Medicare to cover
prescription drugs, as the former president did.

As a result, said Mr. Streeter, who now directs the Center for Politics and
Governance at the University of Texas at Austin, “lots of 43 staffers’
views reflect those changes since many of them have stayed engaged in
policy and politics.”

“These issues, more than anything,” he said, “will affect who they get
behind in 2016.”

*Huckabee: Two-State Solution Is “Irrational, Unworkable” — Room For
Palestinian State Elsewhere
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/huckabee-two-state-solution-is-irrational-unworkable-plenty#.abkVmV02Q>
// Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski – June 1, 2015*

Former Arkansas Gov. and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee
argued over the weekend a two-state solution is “irrational and unworkable”
and that if a Palestinian state is created, it must exist outside of
Israel. Huckabee said there’s plenty of land elsewhere in the world for a
Palestinian state.

“The two state solution, if we mean two governments holding the same piece
of real estate is irrational and unworkable,” Huckabee told Arutz Sheva TV
on Sunday during an appearance at the Israel Day Concert in Central Park,
New York.

Huckabee, who refers to the area commonly called the West Bank as Judea and
Samaria, called arguing for the two-state solution a “pretentious game.”

“And I think it’s time for us to quit playing this pretentious game that
there’s gonna be a two-state solution where both sides share the same
country and real estate and streets ‘cause they’re not,” said Huckabee.
“One of the sides the Palestinians continue to say that Israel doesn’t have
a right to exist. You can’t forge an alliance with that.”

Huckabee cited there being “plenty of land in the world” to find a place
for a Palestinian state outside of Israel.

“If there’s a two-state solution, the Palestinians state needs to be
outside the boundaries of the nation of Israel. There’s plenty of land in
the world where we can find a place and say, ‘Okay, let’s create a
Palestinian state.’ But not within the confides of a secure Israel.”

Speaking at the event, Huckabee said “we never can accept the notion that
Israel will be divided,” citing the boundaries of Israel being given “not
by the United Nations but by almighty God.”

In his interview, Huckabee added he could not “explain why there is a harsh
anti-Israel sentiment that exists in the administration.”

Huckabee said if Israel was attacked he doesn’t know what the Obama
administration would do.

“I think if the Israelis were under attack right now, I’m not sure what
this president would do,” said Huckabee when asked about Israel taking
military action against Iran.

*Marco Rubio's appealing ambiguity
<http://theweek.com/articles/557803/marco-rubios-appealing-ambiguity> //
The Week // Michael Brendan Dougherty – June 1, 2015*

Marco Rubio is an older Republican's idea of a younger Republican, we've
been told.

In a fun bit of racial and generational essentialism, Ana Marie Cox went
through the senator's positions and claimed that "the only demographic
Rubio can plausibly claim to represent is old white guys." This is not a
surprise. It isn't new. People jostle over these questions of identity all
the time: Sarah Palin isn't a real woman; Barack Obama isn't really black.

But a very diverse democracy makes ambiguous, line-crossing identities an
asset. And Rubio presents the most intriguing kind of biography to the race.

In fact, Rubio is running on his biography more than he is running on
position papers, which is a good move. The heart of his campaign
announcement speech wasn't a list of policy proposals, it was a story about
being an immigrant, about being working class, about rising to a position
of prestige and power. Most of Rubio's big speeches are variations on
themes drawn from his biography.

The multiplicity of Rubio's identities doesn't make him illegible, it makes
him intriguing. And it gives different groups of voters different ways of
relating to him.

Rubio traverses a wide range of experience in his economic background. "My
father became a bartender. My mother a cashier, a maid, and a Kmart stock
clerk. They never made it big. But they were successful. Two immigrants
with little money or education found stable jobs, owned a home, retired
with security, and gave all four of their children a life far better than
their own," he says.

In American Son and some speeches, he talks about the burden of student
loan debt that crushed his monthly budget as a young father and that seemed
to be leading him away from his dream of pursuing a life in public service.
And yet, Rubio proved more than successful at rising.

This diversity of experience extends to his religion, where Rubio manages
to present himself almost simultaneously as a lifelong ethnic Catholic, an
Evangelical convert, and a Catholic convert. And that's because basically,
he is those things. He was raised Catholic. But he and his wife eventually
began attending an Evangelical church where she grew spiritually, and they
heard the Biblical preaching they hungered for. And then he can talk about
his attachment to the liturgical life and sacraments of the Roman Church.

A few listeners will find this all a bit too exotic, or even confused. But
when he conveys these stories he can touch on little details that ring in a
very personal way with different groups of voters. They hear something of
their own story in his, and then they hear something more.

This is what presidents do. John F. Kennedy managed to be the first
electable Catholic candidate for president, and could connect to the
massive pool of voters who descended from the Great Wave of Immigration in
the late 19th century. But the Kennedys lived in a style and fashion that
was far removed from the hardscrabble roots of Al Smith, the former New
York governor and unsuccessful presidential candidate. Smith seemed to
stink of New York's fish markets. Kennedy lived like a WASP scion.

Barack Obama's identity was similarly mixed by the circumstances of his
birth. He was black and white. He was raised in Hawaii, where racial
politics were entirely different from those of America's South or cities.
But he had adopted Chicago as his home, and put himself at the center of
urban organizing.

Like Obama and Kennedy, Rubio seems to have sensed at an early age how his
personal identity could make for an attractive political persona, and then
shaped his resume, his policy-profile, and experiences to emphasize the
point. Politics at this level is almost like a casting call. The life of a
nation is a kind of drama and voters are the audience. Politicians put
themselves forward as a stage-character, a protagonist who can meet the
moment.

As a protagonist in America's drama, Rubio's role is to represent the rise
of the last great wave of immigration to this country, and his role is to
reconcile the Republican Party with the future that includes these
immigrants and their descendants not just as beneficiaries of America's
generous immigration policy and dynamic economy, but as full Americans with
a full say in the nation's future.

That older white Republican voters like Marco Rubio is only going to help
Marco Rubio. He gives them hope that their ideals will outlive the
Nixon-Reagan coalition. And the voters that matter in battleground states
are not always so ideological as journalists think.

There is no chance that, like Ana Marie Cox, voters will quickly roll
through a known rolodex of Rubio's political positions and then re-classify
him as old, rich, and white. People in a diverse democracy want "one of us"
to represent them; sympathetic voters will find the part of Rubio that
matches their own self-conception.

Of course there is an element of fakery to political personas at this
level. Rubio's own biography is sometimes messier than presented. But
fakers have a way of becoming what they present, at least in America.

*In Marco Rubio vs. Jeb Bush fight, will other GOP candidates compete in
Florida’s March 15 primary?*
<http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article22746717.html#storylink=cpy>*
// Miami Herald // Adam C. Smith – May 31, 2015*

Leave it to Florida to host the best political soap opera of the
presidential campaign.

The mega-state that all but delivered the Republican nomination to Mitt
Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008, likely won’t reprise that role
again because as many as two dozen states will weigh in before Florida. But
the March 15 Sunshine State primary is shaping up as potentially
spectacular theater nonetheless.

Jeb Bush versus Marco Rubio.

Two Florida favorite sons, longtime friends, mentor and protege, near
neighbors in Miami-Dade facing off in America’s most important battleground
state. What many viewed as almost unthinkable a few months ago — Rubio
beating Bush among Florida Republicans — no longer seems far-fetched.

Other leading candidates already are pondering whether even to compete in
Florida’s primary.

“I don’t think there’s a state out there we wouldn’t play in — other than
maybe Florida, where Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are in some of the polls
essentially tied, and they are going to eat up a good amount of that
financial advantage that Gov. Bush is going to have,” Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show last week.

We may see a preview of that Bush/Rubio campaign contrast Tuesday at Disney
World when Gov. Rick Scott hosts an “economic summit” that will include
speeches by presidential prospects Bush, Rubio, Govs. Walker, Chris
Christie of New Jersey, Rick Perry of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana,
and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who now lives in Florida’s
Panhandle.

That so many candidates would commit to a forum hundreds of miles away from
early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire is testament to Florida’s
lofty status as a critical battleground and fundraising mecca. But Florida
is treading on new ground this election cycle in fielding two frontrunners
for the GOP nomination and deciding for the first time in several cycles
against holding one of the earliest primaries in the country.

In 2008 and 2012, state Republican leaders blatantly defied national party
rules by holding earlier-than-allowed primaries, arguing that the country’s
biggest and most diverse battleground state deserved more say in picking
the major party nominees. The Republican National Committee responded by
cutting in half the number of delegates, but that didn’t stop the leading
candidates from campaigning ferociously in Florida.

This year, with Bush looking increasingly likely to run, Republican
legislative leaders chose not to risk losing Sunshine State delegates.
Ultimately it takes about 1,235 delegates to win the nomination.

Florida legislators earlier this year scheduled the primary for March 15,
the earliest date in which a state can hold a “winner-take-all” primary.
That means whoever wins the primary would win all 99 of Florida’s
delegates. Another candidate could spend millions, fall just behind the
winner, and walk away with zero delegates.

At the time that was widely seen as a gift to Bush. Now, with Rubio off to
a strong early start and Bush struggling to generate widespread excitement
with the base of the party, it’s not so clear.

“The winner-take-all primary was a very good thing for Jeb — before Marco
got in,” said Ana Navarro, a Bush supporter in Miami who is friendly with
both. “When people, including me, were calling their legislators, telling
them to make it winner-take-all, we were all still under the mistaken
impression that Marco wasn’t going to run.”

The cost of campaigning in winner-take-all Florida provides a significant
incentive for candidates to focus their efforts elsewhere. But that’s a
risk, too.

“Tactically, looking past Florida could make sense to some of the other
candidates not named Jeb or Marco,” said Republican strategist Kevin
Madden. “But Florida, as a major swing state, is still an important test
for any candidacy looking to make an argument that you can win a general.
It puts a lot of pressure on a campaign to really perform in Ohio and the
other contests.”

Eight months is an eternity in presidential politics, and the landscape is
likely to look far different by the time any actual voting begins next
year. Former 2012 Republican frontrunners Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele
Bachmann and Newt Gingrich can attest to how quickly the ground can shift.

Making it even harder for 2016 candidates to decide whether or not to spend
time and money in Florida is the prevalence of early voting. Florida’s
primary may be in mid-March, but half the votes will be cast by then.
Overseas absentee ballots start going out by Jan. 30 — before Iowa voters
cast a single vote — and in-state mail ballots are sent starting Feb. 9.

• • •

Not only should Florida’s primary feel different from its recent contests,
but so should the entire primary season.

Party leaders concluded that the protracted and contentious 2012 primary
season put Mitt Romney at a disadvantage heading into the general election.
The mandate for 2016 was fewer debates and a shorter primary season. Rather
than a late August nominating convention like Tampa hosted, the 2016
convention will be July 18-21 in Cleveland.

The season is expected to kick off in February, rather than January. And
after the initial four states cast their votes, the campaign for the
nomination is likely to be defined by a series of election days featuring
multiple states voting.

Come March 15, Florida probably will share the stage with Ohio, Missouri
and Illinois.

“It’s not going to be longer, it’s going to be more intense,” Sean Spicer,
communications director for the RNC, said of the 2016 nominating season.

Florida won’t be the first big prize after the earliest contests in Iowa,
New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, as it was in the last two
presidential election. By March 15, at least 20 states will have voted and
probably half of all the available delegates awarded. March 1 is expected
to serve as a Southern primary with half a dozen or so states voting.

All those pre-Florida states, however, will allocate their delegates
proportionally rather than winner-take-all, which means no candidate may
have a big lead in delegates by March 15.

Another huge question for 2016? Money versus momentum. The advent of
political committees accepting unlimited contributions and billionaires
bankrolling campaigns has knocked aside some of the old assumptions about
presidential campaigns and made it easier for candidates to keep pushing
ahead into state after state.

“In the past, if you couldn’t raise money, couldn’t raise enough donations
of $2,500 or less, that told you something politically,” said Republican
strategist John Weaver, another veteran of several presidential campaigns.
“Now you only need one person to back you up and you can go deep into the
calendar whether you deserve to or not politically.”

Bush is expected to have a vast fundraising advantage over the rest of the
field, which means he likely would have the resources for a long slog of a
campaign. Even an unlimited campaign account is not necessarily enough to
overcome a string of losses, however.

Rubio has at least two billionaires, Oracle founder Larry Ellison of
California and auto dealer and former Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman
Braman of Miami, supporting his campaign.

The 2016 primary calendar is in constant flux and will remain so for
months, but Republican campaign officials say the rough, tentative schedule
leading to Florida is shaping up along these lines:

Feb. 1: Iowa

Feb. 9: New Hampshire

Feb. 20: South Carolina

Feb. 23: Nevada

March 1: Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Vermont, Minnesota,
possibly Alabama, Wyoming, Virginia

March 5: Kansas, Louisiana, possibly Washington State

March 8: Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, possibly North Carolina and
American Samoa

March 12: Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico

March 15: Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, possibly Northern Mariana
Islands

*Trump: I won’t do straw poll if everyone backs out
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/01/donald-trump-straw-poll-mitt-romney-gucci-store/28313569/>
// The Des Moines Register // Josh Hafner – June 1, 2015*

Donald Trump, the reality TV star, businessman and serial flirter with
presidential campaigns, recently announced that he’ll declare his 2016
ambitions on June 16 in New York City.

Before he heads to Iowa this week with visits in Mason City and Coralville,
Trump spoke with The Des Moines Register about the Iowa Straw Poll, his
“beautiful” solution to the Islamic State, and discerning between celebrity
and political appeal.

Are you going to announce that you’re running for president this month?

A lot of people think that now. Don’t forget they never did think it. I do
well in the polls and nobody thinks I’m running. The theme of my campaign
is “Make America Great Again.” We’re going to make America great again.
That’s what people want.

When you’re Iowa testing the waters, how do you gauge whether these big
crowds you draw are people wanting to see a reality TV star or wanting to
see someone they think could run the country?

I don’t know the answer to that. You say to yourself: “Does it translate?”
It may not translate, I don’t know. But I know one thing that translates:
The politicians — and I know all of them — they’re never going to make this
country great.

You’re doing well enough in polls now to nab a spot in the televised
presidential debates. In our latest Iowa Poll, however, 85 percent of
likely GOP caucusgoers said they would “never” support you for president.

That’s because they don’t think I’m running. When they think I’m running,
they go through the roof. I see it even on Twitter. I have millions of
people on Twitter and Facebook, like 6 million people on Twitter and
Facebook. They say: “Please run, but if you don’t run, well, just leave me
alone.” You know, it’s sort of interesting. But they want me to run.

You’re getting better numbers in some polls than several candida—

I’m the most successful person ever to run for the presidency, by far.
Nobody’s ever been more successful than me. I’m the most successful person
ever to run. Ross Perot isn’t successful like me. Romney — I have a Gucci
store that’s worth more than Romney.

What’s your commitment to the Iowa Straw Poll, here?

If people got together and wanted the Iowa Straw Poll, I’m fine with it.
But it looks to me like it’s not doing so well right now. If it’s good for
Iowa and good for the poll itself, I think it’s an institution, I’d be in
favor of it.

So you might not play in the Iowa Straw Poll if enough players don’t show
up?

Well if everyone’s going to drop out? What’s the purpose? It loses its
meaning, you understand that.

Specifically, what would you do to address the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq
and Syria?

I have an absolute way of defeating ISIS, and it would be decisive and
quick and it would be very beautiful. Very surgical.

Military on the ground? Drone strikes?

If I tell you right now, everyone else is going to say: “Wow, what a great
idea.” You’re going to have 10 candidates going to use it and they’re going
to forget where it came from. Which is me.

Do you have advisers on issues like this?

With very successful people, we sort of have our own ideas. A lot of people
hire consultants. Well, if the consultant's so smart, why aren’t they rich?

*TOP NEWS*

*DOMESTIC*

*Senate to Take Up Spy Bill as Parts of Patriot Act Expire
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/senate-bill-patriot-act-spying-nsa.html>
// NYT // Jennifer Steinhauer – June 1, 2015*

WASHINGTON — The Senate will reconvene at midday on Monday to consider
changes to a House bill that would curtail the government’s authority to
sweep up vast quantities of phone records after the program, which began
after the 2001 terrorist attacks, expired at 12:01 a.m.

Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, blocked an extension of it
during an extraordinary and at times caustic Sunday session of the Senate.

Hamstrung by procedural rules that require the consent of all lawmakers,
the Senate is unable to restore the lapsed authorities until at least
Tuesday. The Senate was on recess last week.

After senators pass a procedural measure on Monday to consider the House
bill, they will begin amending it, a process that could take one to three
days.

Mr. Paul’s stand may have forced the temporary expiration of parts of the
post-9/11 Patriot Act used by the National Security Agency to collect phone
records, but he was helped by the miscalculation of Senator Mitch
McConnell, the majority leader, who sent the Senate on a weeklong vacation
after blocking the House bill before Memorial Day.

Mr. McConnell, also of Kentucky, relented on Sunday, setting up a final
round of votes on Tuesday or Wednesday that will most likely send a
compromised version of the House bill to President Obama for his signature.
Even Mr. Paul, using the procedural weapon of an objection, conceded he
could not stop that.

“Little by little, we’ve allowed our freedom to slip away,” Mr. Paul said
during a lengthy floor soliloquy.

The expiration of surveillance authority demonstrates a profound shift in
American attitudes since the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, when national security was pre-eminent in both parties. Fourteen
years after that attack, even as American conflicts continue abroad, a
swell of privacy concerns stemming from both the vast expansion of
communication systems and an increasing distrust of government’s use of
data has turned those concerns on their head.

While it would represent a retrenchment on the part of the government, it
does not end the argument over the dual imperatives of security and
individual liberty brought to light by Edward J. Snowden, the former
contractor for the National Security Agency.

The expiration of three key provisions of the Patriot Act means that, for
now, the N.S.A. will no longer collect newly created logs of Americans’
phone calls in bulk. It also means that the F.B.I. cannot invoke the
Patriot Act to obtain, for new investigations, wiretap orders that follow a
suspect who changes phones, wiretap orders for a “lone wolf” terrorism
suspect not linked to a group, or court orders to obtain business records
relevant to an investigation.

However, the Justice Department may invoke a so-called grandfather clause
to keep using those powers for investigations that had started before June
1, and there are additional workarounds investigators may use to overcome
the lapse in the authorizations.

Mr. McConnell and other national security hawks who failed to continue the
program badly underestimated the shift in the national mood, which has
found its voice with Democrats and the libertarian wing of the Republican
Party. The moment also put him at odds with Mr. Paul, whom he has endorsed
for president.

“I remain determined to work toward the best outcome for the American
people possible under the circumstances,” Mr. McConnell said. “This is
where we are, colleagues — a House-passed bill with some serious flaws, and
an inability to get a short-term extension to improve the House bill.”

Mr. Paul’s effort clearly angered many of his Republican colleagues, who
met without him an hour before the Senate began to vote Sunday night.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who sparred with Mr. Paul on
the floor over procedure, said later that Mr. Paul was not fit for the
White House job he seeks. “I’ve said on many occasions that I believe he
would be the worst candidate we could put forward,” he said.

Even as senators were trickling into the Capitol from the airport, Mr.
McConnell attempted to extend some aspects of the law. He asked senators to
consider a two-week continuation of the federal authority to track a “lone
wolf” terrorism suspect not connected to a state sponsor and to conduct
“roving” surveillance of a suspect, rather than of a phone number alone, to
combat terrorists who frequently discard cellphones.

But Mr. Paul objected, and Mr. McConnell denounced from the Senate floor
what he called “a campaign of demagoguery and disinformation” about the
program.

Mr. McConnell then moved to a second option, a procedural move to take up
the bill passed by the House, which he said the Senate would amend this
week. It was unclear Sunday how many amendments, including any from Mr.
Paul, would be considered and whether any could pass the Senate or be
adopted by the House.

The House bill would overhaul the Patriot Act and scale back the bulk
collection of phone records revealed by Mr. Snowden. Under the provisions
of the House bill, sweeps that had operated under the guise of so-called
national security letters issued by the F.B.I. would end. The data would
instead be stored by the phone companies and could be retrieved by
intelligence agencies only after approval of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court.

President Obama and his director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper
Jr., have made dire warnings in recent days about the perils of letting the
law expire and called for immediate approval of a surveillance bill passed
by the House. The C.I.A. director, John O. Brennan, echoed the president on
Sunday during an interview on the CBS show “Face the Nation,” saying there
had “been a little too much political grandstanding.”

In a statement issued Sunday night, the White House said: “We call on the
Senate to ensure this irresponsible lapse in authorities is as short-lived
as possible. On a matter as critical as our national security, individual
senators must put aside their partisan motivations and act swiftly. The
American people deserve nothing less.”

Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, also urged the Senate to act,
citing the threat of groups like the Islamic State. “Al Qaeda, ISIL and
other terrorists around the globe continue to plot attacks on America and
our allies,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement. “Anyone who is satisfied with
letting this critical intelligence capability go dark isn’t taking the
terrorist threat seriously.”

Mr. McConnell had sought to get a series of short-term extensions passed so
that Congress could continue to work on a compromise — like giving the
phone companies more time to adapt to the new law — but that effort
collapsed under the objections of Mr. Paul and two Democrats, Ron Wyden of
Oregon and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico. Further, members of the House
rejected extending the current law, given the support for their bill.

After a middle-of-the-night vote for a short-term extension failed on the
Saturday before Memorial Day, senators left for a weeklong recess as the
clock ticked. Senate Republican leaders sought a compromise that would make
a new bill acceptable to both hawkish lawmakers and Mr. Paul. “I still have
deep concerns,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine.

Over the week, negotiators on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees
had laid out a series of options to revise the bipartisan USA Freedom Act,
including the addition of a certification process to ensure that the
technology is ready to move metadata storage to the phone companies and
allowing for a longer transition to phone company storage of the data. The
House negotiators were skeptical of all efforts.

Democrats were critical of Mr. McConnell on Sunday. “The job of the leader
is to have a plan,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada said on the Senate floor.
“In this case, it is clear the majority leader simply didn’t have a plan.”

*Muslim Woman Denied Job Over Head Scarf Wins in Supreme Court
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/supreme-court-rules-in-samantha-elauf-abercrombie-fitch-case.html>
// NYT // Adam Liptak - June 1, 2015*

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday revived an employment
discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch, which had refused to
hire a Muslim woman because she wore a head scarf.

“This is really easy,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in announcing the
decision from the bench.

The company at least suspected that the woman, Samantha Elauf, wore the
head scarf for religious reasons, Justice Scalia said, and its decision not
to hire her was motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her religious
practice. That was enough, he concluded, to allow her to sue under federal
employment discrimination law.

The vote was 8-to-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.

The case started in 2008, when Ms. Elauf, then 17, applied for a job in a
children’s clothing store owned by Abercrombie & Fitch at the Woodland
Hills Mall in Tulsa, Okla. She wore a black head scarf but did not say why.

The company declined to hire her, saying her scarf clashed with the
company’s dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate
style.” After the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on Ms.
Elauf’s behalf, the company said it had no reason to know that Ms. Elauf’s
head scarf, a hijab, was required by her faith.

In its Supreme Court brief in the case, E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, No. 14-86, the company argued that job applicants should not be
allowed “to remain silent and to assume that the employer recognizes the
religious motivations behind their fashion decisions.”

After the case was argued in February, an Abercrombie spokesman said the
company “has a longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion, and
consistent with the law has granted numerous religious accommodations when
requested, including hijabs.”

The Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Elauf did not have to make a specific
request for a religious accommodation to obtain relief under the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in hiring.

At the trial, Ms. Elauf said she loved movies, shopping, sushi and the
mall. “It’s like my second home,” she said. Her experience with
Abercrombie, she said, made her feel “disrespected because of my religious
beliefs.”

“I was born in the United States,” she said, “and I thought I was the same
as everyone else.”

A jury awarded Ms. Elauf $20,000.

But the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver,
ruled for the company.

“Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she
wore her head scarf, or ‘hijab,’ for religious reasons,” Judge Jerome A.
Holmes wrote for the court.

*Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Online Threats Case
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/supreme-court-rules-in-anthony-elonis-online-threats-case.html?contentCollection=us&action=click&module=NextInCollection&region=Footer&pgtype=article>
// NYT // Adam Liptak – June 1, 2015*

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday made it harder to prosecute people
for threats made on Facebook and other social media, reversing the
conviction of a Pennsylvania man who directed brutally violent language
against his estranged wife.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said that
prosecutors must do more than prove that reasonable people would view
statements as threats. The defendant’s state of mind matters, the chief
justice wrote, though he declined to say just where the legal line is drawn.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for seven justices. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
voted with the majority, though he said that a defendant’s recklessness
should suffice. The majority opinion took no position on that possibility.

“Attorneys and judges are left to guess,” Justice Alito wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a similar criticism in his dissent.

“Our job is to decide questions, not create them,” he wrote. “Given the
majority’s ostensible concern for protecting innocent actors, one would
have expected it to announce a clear rule—any clear rule. Its failure to do
so reveals the fractured foundation upon which today’s decision rests.”

The case concerned threatening rap lyrics that arose from domestic
troubles. Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man who had adopted the rap
persona Tone Dougie, posted long tirades in the form of rap lyrics on
Facebook.

Mr. Elonis wrote that he would like to see a Halloween costume that
included his wife’s “head on a stick.” He talked about “making a name for
myself” with a school shooting, saying, “Hell hath no fury like a crazy man
in a kindergarten class.” He fantasized about killing an F.B.I. agent.

Some of the posts contained disclaimers or indications that they aspired to
be art or therapy. At Mr. Elonis’s trial, his estranged wife testified that
she understood the posts as threats.

“I felt like I was being stalked,” she said. “I felt extremely afraid for
mine and my children’s and my family’s lives.”

Mr. Elonis was convicted under a federal law that makes it a crime to
communicate “any threat to injure the person of another.” He was sentenced
to 44 months.

The Supreme Court has said that “true threats” are not protected by the
First Amendment, but it has not been especially clear about what counts as
such a threat.

The question for the justices in the case, Elonis v. United States, No.
13-983, was whether prosecutors had done enough to prove Mr. Elonis’s
intent. Prosecutors had argued that the words and their context were
enough, saying that people should be held accountable “for the ordinary and
natural meaning of the words that they say in context.”

Mr. Elonis’s lawyers said more was required. Ideally, they said,
prosecutors should have to prove that the speaker’s purpose was to threaten
someone. Failing that, they said, prosecutors should at least have to prove
that the speaker, whatever his or her purpose, knew that it was virtually
certain that someone would feel threatened.

The lower courts sided with the government. All the prosecution had to
prove, the trial judge ruled, was that a “reasonable person” would foresee
that others would view statements “as a serious expression of an intention
to inflict bodily injury or take the life of an individual.”

“This is distinguished,” the judge said, “from idle or careless talk,
exaggeration, something said in a joking manner or an outburst of
transitory anger.”

*Caitlyn Jenner, Formerly Bruce, Introduces Herself in Vanity Fair
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/business/media/jenner-reveals-new-name-in-vanity-fair-article.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news>
// NYT // Ravi Somaiya – June 1, 2015*

In April, Bruce Jenner spoke about her transition to being a woman in a
television special that drew nearly 17 million viewers.

On Monday, that woman revealed her new identity, appearing as Caitlyn
Jenner on the cover of Vanity Fair. The photograph of Ms. Jenner in a
corset, shot by Annie Leibovitz and accompanied by the headline “Call Me
Caitlyn,” immediately became a sensation on social media when the magazine
posted the article online.

Ms. Jenner, 65, who won an Olympic gold medal in the decathlon, has had a
long public life. As Bruce Jenner, she had been on the cover of Playgirl,
an author, an actor and most recently a part of the Kardashian family’s
reality television empire. Earlier this year, reports emerged that Bruce
Jenner was in the process of becoming a woman.

The Vanity Fair article represents the latest in a carefully calibrated
series of public steps by Ms. Jenner and her team, as she moves toward the
debut of a new reality show on the E! network that will begin at the end of
July, and a new public life as a woman. A Twitter account, in the name of
Caitlyn Jenner, was started at the same time that the Vanity Fair article
was published online. Within hours, the account had more than 1.1 million
followers.

When asked about the perception from some that the article was part of an
orchestrated campaign by Ms. Jenner, Vanity Fair’s editor, Graydon Carter,
said that “all stories are part of some coordinated rollout, all stories
everywhere,” citing movie releases and even presidential campaigns.

The article was written by Buzz Bissinger, a Pulitzer Prize-winning
reporter and the author of the acclaimed book “Friday Night Lights,” about
a high school football team in Texas. The magazine had first thought of
running an article on Ms. Jenner last year, a spokeswoman said, but it
began taking shape this year when a publicist for Ms. Jenner contacted an
editor at Vanity Fair.

A truly news-making magazine cover story has become increasingly rare in
the digital age, though Mr. Carter said that the covers of magazines remain
cultural touchstones. (The online rollout of the article seemed to tacitly
acknowledge that rarity; the physical copy of the magazine with Ms. Jenner
on the cover won’t be available at newsstands until June 9. The online
version of the article could be purchased for $4.99, and the website had
broken its traffic record in just a few hours, with more than 6 million
unique visitors.)

Vanity Fair went to extraordinary lengths to keep its scoop a secret, a
spokeswoman said.

Only a few people at the magazine knew about the article. It was held on a
computer that was kept in a locked office and not connected to the
magazine’s server. There was security at the photo shoot and at the plant
where the magazine is printed.

Mr. Bissinger said in a telephone interview that he was assigned to write
the article because “of the sports connection, and my own journey into the
world of cross-dressing,” referring to a revealing article he wrote for GQ
magazine in 2013 in which he detailed his fondness for designer clothing
intended for both genders.

He first met with Ms. Jenner in February, he said, and was allowed “pretty
much carte blanche to be there, to soak him up, to have access to other
people in his life,” he said. “It was the kind of journalism you don’t see
any more.” Mr. Carter said the magazine was not forced to leave any details
out.

Mr. Bissinger, who describes himself in the article as “a cross-dresser
with a big-time fetish for women’s leather,” wrote that he spent hundreds
of hours with Ms. Jenner over three months, and that it was an occasionally
surreal experience.

Ms. Jenner had started to make the transition in the 1980s, the Vanity Fair
article reveals, shortly after winning the gold medal at the Montreal
Olympics in 1976. Even as she traveled the United States, making speeches
and starring in commercials, she wore pantyhose and a bra underneath her
suit. She stopped, fearful of the public reaction, but began again recently
when her marriage to Kris Jenner, the matriarch of the Kardashians, ended.

“If I was lying on my deathbed and I had kept this secret and never did
anything about it, I would be lying there saying, ‘You just blew your
entire life,’ ” she told Mr. Bissinger. Bruce Jenner was always lying, she
said; Caitlyn can be honest.

“Is she doing a TV show? Sure,” Mr. Bissinger said. “Is she doing it for
money personally? Sure. This is America. But I saw a person transformed
into a woman, who is joyous and happy and free and living life in a way
that Bruce Jenner never did.”

*California Senate votes to raise state minimum wage to $13 in 2017 - LA
Times
<http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-senate-votes-to-raise-wage-20150529-story.html?track=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=1153586>
// LA Times // Patrick McGreevy – June 1, 2015*

The state Senate on Monday approved a bill that would raise the minimum
wage in California from $9 to $11 an hour on Jan. 1 and boost it again to
$13 in 2017, with supporters saying it is necessary to lift millions of
workers out of poverty.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) introduced the measure out of concern that
a quarter of the state’s 38 million residents live in poverty, according to
the U.S. Census Bureau.

“It is time that we make it illegal to pay sub-poverty wages in
California,” Leno told his colleagues during the heated floor debate.

He said the wage increase would boost the economy because working families
would be able to spend more money at local businesses. “Its going to be
spent immediately to meet daily needs in our community," he said.

The Senate approved the bill on a 23-15 party line vote.

Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Murrieta) predicted raising the minimum wage would force
businesses to cut their number of workers. The proposal “hurts the economy
by causing job losses," he said.

Added, Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto), “Minimum wage was never meant to be
a living wage. It is a start-up wage for kids.”

An employee working full time and earning $9 per hour takes home $18,000
annually before taxes, Leno said, noting that is 75% of the federal poverty
line for a family of four.

A bill approved two years ago has the minimum wage increasing to $10 on
Jan. 1 in California. His new bill would have set raises and then increase
wages with the rate of inflation starting in 2019.

Leno failed to win legislative approval last year of a bill similar to his
new proposal. But since then, action has been taken by some California
cities, including Los Angeles, where the City Council is scheduled this
week to boost the city's  minimum wage to $10.50 on July 1, 2016, and then
gradually increase it to $15 in 2020. San Francisco recently approved a
phased-in minimum wage increase that tops out at $15 in 2018

California’s bill also gained momentum after minimum wage ballot measures
passed in Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota, which are more
politically conservative states. Lower wages force the state to provide
financial assistance to families, he said.

“We taxpayers subsidize employers who pay sub-poverty wages," Leno said
before the vote to approve his bill, SB 3, which now goes to the Assembly
for consideration.

* INTERNATIONAL*

*Islamic State Advances Further Into Syria’s Aleppo Province
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-advances-further-into-syrias-aleppo-province-1433164287>
// WSJ // Raja Abdulrahim – June 1, 2015*

BEIRUT—Fierce battles raged between Islamic State and rebel fighters in
Syria’s Aleppo province on Monday, the day after the militant group seized
villages close to the Turkish border and came within miles of the main
highway connecting Syria’s largest city to Turkey.

Fighting sprawled along a 35-mile front line as rebels worked to stop the
advance of the extremist militant group, which is now just 7 miles from the
main supply route for aid and weapons coming from Turkey.

In Aleppo villages seized by Islamic State, the group beheaded several
rebel fighters and took some of their family members hostage, said Col. Abu
Firas, a former Syrian air-force colonel who defected and now serves as
spokesman for the Levant Front, a local coalition of rebel groups.

Turkish officials expressed concern Monday, as the group advanced within 30
miles of Bab es-Salam, one of the main border crossings between Syria and
Turkey.

Also known as Oncupinar, Bab es-Salam is the gateway to the Turkish border
city of Kilis, a way station for jihadists making their way in and out of
Syria.

Turkey closed the crossing in early March, citing security concerns. It
reopened in May to commercial trucks and humanitarian aid deliveries, but
not to Syrian civilians wanting to cross into Turkey.

A Turkish official at the crossing said Turkey was preparing to receive an
additional 60,000 Syrian refugees should the group manage to seize the
Syrian cities of Mare and Tel Rifat, located about 13 miles from Kilis.

Rebels in northeast Aleppo have been fighting Islamic State for a year and
a half in northeast Aleppo province. The battle has become a microcosm of
Syria’s increasingly complicated war, with rebels, Islamic State and the
regime vying for territory on interconnected front lines.

In an increasingly partitioned country, areas controlled by Islamic State
abut areas held by the regime and opposition, with civilians often caught
in the middle of the warring sides’ territorial gains and losses.

Islamic State’s latest advance, in the wake of its May conquests of the
strategic central Syrian city of Palmyra, and Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s
largest province, showcases its growing strength against a fractious
opposition and weakening Syrian regime forces.

Following the capture of Palmyra, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights,
an opposition monitoring group, said Islamic State now controls 50% of
Syria.

On the heels of its speedy capture of Palmyra, the group’s advance into
Aleppo has rebel fighters questioning the U.S.’s commitment to containing
the group.

“The dependability and seriousness of the West is questionable,” said Ahmad
Qura Ali, spokesman for the Aleppo-based Ahrar Al Sham faction.

The timing of Islamic State’s Aleppo offensive has also prompted rebels to
allege that it has been coordinating with the Syrian regime.

Opposition fighters had been planning to launch an offensive against regime
forces in the city of Aleppo, in an attempt to finally win a yearslong
battle of attrition that has severely damaged Syria’s onetime economic hub.

But the arrival of Islamic State delayed those plans, as rebels scrambled
Monday to divert reinforcements from the city to the new front lines.

Rebels said plans to strike regime strongholds in central Syria and the
western coast, President Bashar al-Assad’s ancestral homeland, have also
been put on hold as fighters focus on curbing Islamic State’s gains in the
north.

“The timing of this serves the interests of the regime completely,” Mr. Ali
said.

Residents said Monday that government planes have increased their shelling
of opposition-held areas in Aleppo city and province since April, killing
and wounding hundreds of civilians.

*What’s actually in Obama’s secret trade deal?
<http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/the-overlooked-burden-of-overseas-tariffs-000059?hp=t1_r>
// Politico // Michael Grunwald – June 1, 2015*

Vietnam slaps tariffs of 70 percent on U.S. cars and machinery, 35 percent
on U.S. chemicals, 30 percent on U.S. biscuits and baked goods, and 25
percent on U.S. recording equipment. Japan marks up our oranges 16 percent
from June through November and 32 percent from December through May; it
marks up our beef exports 38.5 percent all year long. Cars made in America
face a 30 percent tariff in Malaysia, which might not seem stiff compared
to 50 percent on motorcycles or 35 percent on plywood, except that cars
made in Japan and other Asian nations don’t face any tariff in Malaysia.

These burdensome overseas tariffs, provided to POLITICO by US Trade
Representative Michael Froman, are the kind of problems President Obama
hopes to address with the free trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, which has not yet been finalized but has recently erupted into
one of the most contentious topics on Washington’s agenda.

The public debate has focused on the adequacy of TPP’s environmental and
labor safeguards, its potential to feather the nests of well-connected
pharmaceutical, software and finance interests, and the secrecy of its
negotiations. But the heart of the deal is an effort by the twelve
participating countries to phase out tariffs and other export barriers for
more than 11,000 categories of commodities, and Froman is frustrated that
isn’t getting more attention. In an interview with POLITICO, he said
export-supported U.S. jobs pay 13 to 18 percent more than the average job,
and argued that freer trade along the Pacific Rim would create a lot more
of them.

So I asked if Froman would give me a rundown of actual tariffs he’s trying
to remove, and he agreed. Global tariffs are not secret information—they’re
kept on file at the World Customs Organization, and Froman has mentioned a
few in speeches—but they’re rarely seen in large quantities outside
technical reports, and Froman hopes that taking a bunch of examples public
will help build support for TPP. The deal is not done yet, so Froman can’t
discuss how much the various import restrictions he cited will be reduced,
but the point of the negotiations is to reduce them. There are plenty of
legitimate concerns about free trade and TPP that have nothing to do with
tariffs, some of them highlighted in a critique in POLITICO last week  by a
Democrat who read a draft, but Froman believes most Americans would at
least back the administration’s efforts to tear down these tariffs.

“It’s been a lot easier for our critics to focus on this controversial
element or that controversial element, rather than what we’re trying to
achieve,” Froman told me.

Froman and I spoke last Friday in his office a block from the White House;
I noticed the 1934 law repealing the notorious Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which
helped drag America into the Great Depression, hanging on the wall of his
anteroom. Critics like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman  and MIT
economist Simon Johnson have suggested that TPP isn’t really about breaking
down Smoot-Hawley-style barriers, because previous trade deals over the
last three decades have already created a low-tariff world. But while
that’s mostly true of the U.S., which imposes no duties on 70 percent of
our imports—80 percent from TPP nations—Froman offered a slew of data and
examples suggesting that’s not always true abroad.

Overall, the U.S. imposes an average tariff of 1.4 percent on foreign
goods, less than half the average for the rest of the nations Froman is
negotiating with, barely a fourth the average in Vietnam and Malaysia. And
it can get much worse for specific industries and products. TPP nations
have tariffs ranging up to 100 percent on textiles, 87 percent on corn, and
75 percent on consumer goods, not to mention selected Japanese tariffs that
amount to 189 percent on U.S. shoes and a don’t-even-think-about-it 778
percent on U.S. rice above a certain annual quota.

Even our friendly trading partner to the north has some brutal
anti-American protectionism on its books. The North American Free Trade
Agreement of 1994 broke down a slew of barriers between the U.S. and
Canada, but it exempted the poultry and dairy industries, which is why U.S.
eggs face tariffs of up to 163.5 percent—and not less than 79.9 cents per
dozen—in the land of ice hockey and eh. U.S. yogurt, milk, cheese, and
frozen chicken all face tariffs between 237.5 percent and 249 percent in
Canada.

In some TPP countries, tariffs not only make U.S. exports more expensive,
they make U.S. exports more expensive relative to goods from other
countries. For example, America’s construction equipment only faces a 5
percent tariff in New Zealand, but construction equipment from Southeast
Asia faces no tariffs there. Vietnam slaps tariffs of 20 percent on beauty
and skin products from the U.S. while importing similar products from its
Asian neighbors duty-free. Vietnam’s tariffs for U.S. poultry are also
twice as high as for Australian poultry, and its tariffs for switches,
relays and fuses made in America are four times as high as for the same
products made in China. Our polymers and tree nuts face similar
discrimination in Malaysia, as do our aluminum bars and frozen potatoes in
Japan. American vineyards are among the biggest losers from Japanese
protectionism, facing a 50 percent wine tariff while their Chilean and
Australian rivals face none.

Froman provided a wide-ranging list of categories where TPP countries still
maintain tariffs, from health products to communications technologies to
high-tech instruments to fish. The biggest category was agriculture, where
U.S. farmers and ranchers face tariffs on apples, cotton, wheat, soybeans,
fresh and processed vegetables, pork, feeds, and just about everything
else. Overall, American exporters shipped more than $700 billion worth of
stuff to TPP nations last year, so better access to TPP markets could bring
a lot of additional revenue into the United States.

While global tariffs clearly have not disappeared, it’s true that they’re
generally much lower than they were decades ago, even where they’re much
higher than ours. The U.S. already has bilateral trade deals with many TPP
nations. But Froman says the TPP will also tear down the kind of
“non-tariff barriers” that countries have used to protect their industries
without violating the earlier deals, like sudden declarations that U.S.
turkey products are unsafe for Australian consumers, or selective laws
restricting U.S. express delivery services from doing business in Malaysia.
The TPP is also expected to prohibit laws requiring foreign businesses to
locate their computer servers in the country, as well as excessively
burdensome regulations on global e-commerce. These kinds of barriers can be
particularly troublesome in finance, data processing, engineering and other
service industries where U.S. firms tend to be prominent.

It must be said that removing some non-tariff barriers—for example, forcing
TPP nations to respect patents for expensive U.S. pharmaceuticals, or
copyrights for U.S. software—would not necessarily be good for the world’s
consumers. But they would be good for the U.S. industries in question. It
should also be mentioned that some U.S. industries—notably textiles,
footwear, sugar, and dairy—still enjoy trade protections that would be
reduced through TPP. But Froman said the administration is working hard to
make sure their concerns are addressed, and the textile industry actually
came out in favor of the Trade Promotion Authority “fast-track” bill that
is considered a prerequisite for TPP’s passage.

Froman made TPP sound so rosy for U.S. companies that I finally asked him:
What’s in it for the other countries? The answer, he said, is a combination
of improved access to U.S. markets, greatly improved access to Japan, the
opportunity to lure U.S. businesses away from a restrictive China, and a
kind of Good Housekeeping seal of approval as a member of the free-trade
club. I also suggested to Froman that if TPP will really do so much more to
lower trade barriers abroad, it must seem weird to his negotiating partners
that the deal is so hotly disputed in the U.S., especially among members of
Obama’s party. He said the fraught domestic debate actually bolsters the
U.S. negotiating position, because those partners are savvy enough to
understand that a deal without strong support from the U.S. agriculture and
business communities and strong labor and environmental protections would
have no chance of passing.

“They follow our politics. They read POLITICO Pro,” Froman said. “They know
we’re not bluffing, and that has helped us strengthen this deal.”

Froman refused to discuss what the final TPP will do to any of the specific
tariffs and general tariff categories we discussed, but he hinted that just
about all of them will be cut or eliminated. In any case, when the deal is
done, the text will be published at ustr.gov—and POLITICO will do a
follow-up comparing the before and after tariffs on U.S. products.

“I cannot wait,” Froman said. “It’s going to clear up a lot of
misconceptions.”

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS*

*The more the merrier: Democratic candidates for 2016
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/opinions/pfeiffer-democrats-more-candidates-the-better/index.html>
// CNN // Dan Pfeiffer – June 1, 2015*

(CNN)This is something I don't find myself saying very often: I agree with
Karl Rove.

In a recent post on Medium, the former strategist for President George W.
Bush made the case that the historically large size of the GOP primary
wasn't a disadvantage, rebutting some conventional wisdom that a
20-candidate field would be a net negative for the Grand Ole Party. There
are so many candidates running that some have compared it to a clown car
and not just because Donald Trump is thinking of running.

While the Democratic primary doesn't resemble the clown car nature of the
Republican field (in part because it's not filled with clowns), it did get
a little bigger this weekend, with former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley
joining Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the race. And
what Rove wrote about the Republicans is even more true of the Democrats. A
competitive primary is not just not a disadvantage as Rove writes; it will
actually be an advantage. A fight for the Democratic nomination is good for
the party and will help us, not hurt us, next year in November.

First, competitive primaries make better general election candidates. As
divisive, heated and long as the 2008 Democratic primary was, there is no
question that Barack Obama was a much stronger nominee because of Clinton.
He honed his skills as a candidate, sharpened his message and became a
stronger debater. He learned how to take a punch and throw one right back.
Most importantly, he faced political adversity time and again and learned
how to handle it.

If Clinton is our nominee, which is at this point the overwhelmingly most
likely scenario, she will be better prepared to take on Jeb Bush, Marco
Rubio or whoever else the Republicans nominate because Sanders and O'Malley
made her that way.

Second, competitive primaries make better general election campaigns. In
2008, Obama won Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia in large part because
we ran hard in those states in the primaries. The primary gave us the
opportunity to build large grass-roots organizations with well-trained
organizers and volunteers.

We were able to try out our get out the vote machinery in almost every
state in the country months before the election. Iowa and New Hampshire may
decide the presidency in 2016, and the Democratic nominee will be better
positioned to win those states because of the organizations built and
tested in the primaries.

Finally, competitive primaries make better political parties. Many of the
issues that have driven the Democratic Party in recent decades -- health
care, the Bush tax cuts, the Bush wars -- have been largely resolved during
the Obama presidency. The party is grappling a bit with what comes next --
with which issues and solutions are going to animate us as Democrats.

Unlike the Republicans, Democrats are not a collection of competing and
often contradictory interests. We are unified, we know what we stand for
and are confident in our ideals, but how do we apply those ideals to a new
set of evolving challenges?

Historically, these questions have been answered in robust primary debates.
If O'Malley and Sanders run good, idea-driven campaigns, there will be a
robust debate about the future of the Democratic Party that will make us
better in the 2016 general election and in years to come.

It's clear that the Clinton campaign understands this. They are running
very hard and building the sorts of campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire
that are designed to win tough races. They are running like an underdog,
not the biggest favorite in history.

There is an important caveat -- one that Rove hints at in his column about
the Republican side: Competitive, hard-fought primaries are good until they
aren't. There is a moment where they can go from competitive to irreparably
divisive. The Obama-Clinton race came close to crossing that line a couple
of times, but never did because both candidates worked hard to repair the
breach.

There should be robust debate about ideas and issues, about who would make
a better president and leader of the party. But when Democrats use
Republican talking points to describe other Democrats, that crosses a line.
If that happens, it will be incumbent on the whole party -- from President
Obama on down -- to call foul. Fortunately, the risk of this primary
getting out of hand is very small, given the individuals involved and the
shared sense that winning this election is critical for the future of the
issues that matter to Democrats.

Reporters, pundits and people who own television stations in places such as
Iowa are rooting for a fight for the Democratic nomination, and Democrats
should be, too. A competition, not a coronation, is what's best for our
chances in 2016.

*Why Hillary should stop running as the incumbent
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2015/06/01/why-hillary-should-stop-running-as-the-incumbent/>
// WaPo // Joel Achenbach – June 1, 2015*

Jack Shafer nailed it when he wrote recently in Politico that Hillary
Clinton is not running for president, but running as president. She rarely
takes a question from a reporter. News organizations spend a small fortune
dispatching  reporters and photographers and camera crews to follow her
around, but they’re treated like carry-on baggage.

One can understand why anyone in the Clinton camp would have a jaundiced
view of the news media and might view news in general as something that
should be planned and crafted in advance, protected against unsupervised
nuances and unhelpful twists, and approved by at least four layers of
management, including the candidate herself, Bill, the folks at the
Foundation and their various foreign benefactors. I’m sympathetic, in other
words. Still, the obvious downside is that it makes the candidacy
uninteresting. As a citizen, you have to force yourself to pay attention.
The Democrats don’t have much of a contest, with all due respect to
firing-on-both-cylinders candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.

Successful candidacies and successful presidencies have a point to them;
inevitability isn’t enough. Here’s a question that I throw out in all
sincerity: Why is Clinton running? No doubt she has explained her candidacy
many times and in many ways, and I just missed those news reports (and I am
not being sarcastic here, it’s just, you know, I’ve been distracted by
other stuff, like the destiny of the species and the fate of the universe
and whatnot). She certainly has an impressive résumé and most folks who are
not hard-core haters would view her as qualified to be president. But
what’s her candidacy about?

Those of us who have been around awhile remember the telling moment when
Roger Mudd asked Teddy Kennedy why he wanted to be president. The senator
fumbled the answer. The real answer was: Because he could. Because he might
win. Because he was a Kennedy.

“Hillary: It’s My Turn” is Clinton’s campaign motto, my friend and
colleague Marc Fisher joked the other day at a panel discussion at our alma
mater.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, there are 137 people running for
president (including Lindsey Graham, who is announcing today). Do we have
to pay attention to all these folks? No, not all of them. Not Donald Trump,
for example. But the standard that should guide us is not how well a
candidate is doing in the polls. Richard Just, another of the panelists,
and the editor of National Journal, made a great point about news coverage
of presidential candidacies: What they say matters, even if they have close
to zero, or literally zero, chance of winning.

This is how political parties are shaped, Richard said. This is how a party
defines itself and how ideas get into circulation even if they will take
many years to gain traction. Goldwater was trounced in 1964, but his
conservative ideals found their way to the White House when his acolyte
Ronald Reagan won in 1980.

Dana Milbank correctly notes that many of Sen. Rand Paul’s statements in
recent months sound more like Democratic positions than Republican
positions, and this will make it hard for Paul to capture his party’s
nomination. But I suspect he is playing a longer game. His people told me
(when I did my profile on the senator) that they don’t think the GOP can
win a national presidential election unless they expand the coalition,
bringing in more young people, minorities and people who are normally
disaffected and don’t go to the polls. The Republican candidate has won a
popular-vote majority only once in the past six elections. That’s likely a
multi-election project. And it’s why Paul is an interesting candidate —
even if he’s not likely to be the Republican nominee in 2016.

*Populism Strains Both Parties; Can They Adapt?
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/populist-election-themes-show-strains-in-both-parties-1433177188>
// WSJ // Gerald F. Seib – June 1, 2015*

Is a third political party straining to break out in America?

Listen to the early sounds of the 2016 presidential campaign, in which
candidates of the left and the right sound almost identical populist,
anti-Wall Street, antiestablishment themes, and the idea doesn’t seem so
crazy.

When you have Republican presidential contenders opposing free-trade
agreements, and at least one backing an increase in the minimum wage; when
Democratic firebrand Bernie Sanders (technically an independent to begin
with) is speaking to overflow crowds; and when left and right come together
to halt a prominent national-security program backed by the foreign-policy
establishment—well, something is going on.

Let’s stipulate up front that a serious third party isn’t likely to emerge,
at least not in this cycle. A viable third party requires money and an
outsize personality (think Ross Perot), and it isn’t clear those elements
exist right now.

Still, it’s possible to see the ideological foundations for one. Similar
populist refrains are coming from a diverse cast of political characters
with real followings: Mr. Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren on the left,
and Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and Sen. Rand Paul on the right. Listen to
the remarks of declared 2016 contenders and you can almost hear a potential
third-party platform emerging. Here would be its main elements:

Big banks and Wall Street have too much power in Washington. “We have come
to take our country back from the special interests that use Washington as
their personal piggy bank,” Mr. Paul said in opening his presidential
campaign. Said Mr. Sanders: “When we talk about power, we talk about Wall
Street. In my view, it is time to break up the largest financial
institutions in this country.”

The economic system is stacked against the middle class, and government
policies are making that worse. In his announcement, Mr. Santorum referred
to “workers” and “working families” a dozen times, and said they have
suffered because of the policies of “big government and big business.” He
has broken with GOP orthodoxy by supporting a “modest” minimum-wage
increase and continuation of the Export-Import Bank to bolster
manufacturing.

Free-trade deals are bad for America and U.S. workers. Speaking from the
right, Mr. Huckabee declared: “We don’t create good jobs for Americans by
entering into unbalanced trade deals that forgo congressional scrutiny, and
then looking the other way as the law is ignored so that we can import
low-wage labor, undercut American workers, and drive wages lower than the
Dead Sea.” From the left, Mr. Sanders declared: “The bottom line of these
trade agreements is to force American workers to compete against people in
countries around the world who make pennies on the hour.”

Big money is corrupting politics. “Working families don’t need another
president tied to big government or big money,” Mr. Santorum said in
announcing his candidacy. Said Mr. Huckabeein announcing his: “I never have
been and I’m not going to be the favored candidate of those in the
Washington-to-Wall Street corridor of power.” He added that his campaign
will be “funded and fueled not by billionaires but by working people.”

The U.S. is overextended abroad. “I am vigorously opposed to an endless,
perpetual war in the Middle East,” said Mr. Sanders. Said Mr. Paul: “Let’s
quit building bridges in foreign countries and use that money to build some
bridges here at home.”

Big brother is dangerous. The effort to stop the National Security Agency’s
collection of cellphone bulk data has, of course, become a signature issue
of Mr. Paul, who has tied the Senate in knots over the issue and finds
himself aligned with many liberals as a result. But he isn’t alone; Mr.
Huckabee said on Fox News over the weekend that U.S. officials should get a
warrant before collecting phone data: “If this is so effective, how come it
hasn’t resulted in the foiled terrorist plots?”

Obviously, there are many core issues on which the antiestablishment forces
of left and right disagree, climate change and the virtues of Obamacare
prominent among them. Still, it’s worth noting that Mr. Sanders packed a
hall with 3,000 enthusiastic supporters over the weekend in Minneapolis,
with more waiting outside because there wasn’t room for them. Meantime, Mr.
Santorum’s overtures to the working class help show that the Republican
Party now includes a sizable blue-collar, Wal-Mart wing.

At a minimum, mainstream candidates in both parties will have to hew to
some populist themes emerging from the antiestablishment crowd. “There are
votes in both primaries to be found for the candidates that say, ‘We want
to change the system and level the playing field,’ ” says Democratic
pollster Peter Hart, who helps conduct The Wall Street Journal/NBC News
poll.

*How to Kill the Background Briefing
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/how-to-kill-the-background-briefing-20150601>
// National Journal // Ron Fournier – June 1, 2015*

I've got a plan to bust the background briefing racket. Of the many ways
that modern journalists cede power to authority, none is easier to fix than
the notion that government officials are allowed to gather several
reporters in a room or on a conference call, spew their clever lines of
lies and spin, and declare it all "on background"—shielded from
accountability "on condition of anonymity."

Reporters are increasingly allowing public relations teams to set the terms
for coverage of politics, business, sports, and even entertainment. It's a
troubling trend for an industry in flux. But the media in Washington are
the most unnecessarily and dangerously cowed.

When reporters call the shots, anonymous sources are vital to uncovering
government secrets and wrongdoing (Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein used
Mark Felt and other whistleblowers to chase Richard Nixon out of office).
When government officials call the shots, there is no incentive to tell the
truth, no punishment for deception, and the journalism itself is diminished
by canned news.

In rare cases, approved in advance by journalists, an anonymous source
talking to a bunch of reporters might serve a public service. For instance,
security details for a presidential trip to a war zone may need to be
shared privately with the traveling media corps. Most editors would
consider that a good case for a briefing that shields the identity of the
government officials and embargoes news of the trip itself.

But in recent years, public relations officials have been allowed to assume
that they get to decide the terms for briefing reporters, and what was one
a unique courtesy is now a daily disservice to the public. Just last week,
the Obama administration sought to to build public support for extending
post-911 domestic spying programs it lied about until Edward Snowden blew
the whistle.

The New York Times reported:

"What you're doing, essentially, is you're playing national security
Russian roulette," one senior administration official said of allowing the
powers to lapse. That prospect appears increasingly likely with the
measure, the USA Freedom Act, stalled and lawmakers in their home states
and districts during a congressional recess.

"We're in uncharted waters," another senior member of the administration
said at a briefing organized by the White House, where three officials
spoke with reporters about the consequences of inaction by Congress. "We
have not had to confront addressing the terrorist threat without these
authorities, and it's going to be fraught with unnecessary risk."

Now ask yourself: If these scare tactics are legitimate, why wouldn't
administration officials allow their names to be public? (Josh Earnest had
the chance today, and wouldn't.) When they refused, why would the Times and
several other news organizations publish the quotes?

The standard rule for using anonymous sources, published in Associated
Press stylebooks used in almost every newsroom, is: "Whenever possible, we
pursue information on the record. When the source insists on background or
off-the-record ground rules, we must adhere to a strict set of guidelines."

First, the material is information "and not opinion or speculation, and is
vital to the news report." Second, the information is not available on the
record. Third, the source is reliable.

The White House briefing was a total rule-breaker: 1) The material was
opinion and speculation; 2) There is no shortage of on-the-record hyperbole
about the National Security Agency program; 3) The Obama administration,
like the Bush White House, routinely deceives the public about NSA's
activities.

These are not credible sources.

Just last week, reporters wrote and broadcast material from a background
briefing conducted by Hillary Clinton advisers who insisted they not be
identified. This from Politico:

At Clinton campaign headquarters, meanwhile, senior campaign officials told
reporters Thursday at a background briefing that Hillary Clinton has not
been damaged or distracted by the revelations about her family's foundation.

Again: If that paragraph is true (it's not), why wouldn't the Clinton
advisers put their names behind it? Why did the media report anonymous,
inaccurate spin? Google the Bush White House. Watch how the GOP
presidential campaigns deal with the media. The background briefing is a
bipartisan racket. So why do journalists let their sources get away with it?

Fear: Reporters and editors don't want to get beat by competitors who bow
to the terms of a public relations team. They don't stop to realize very
little news comes from these briefings, and none of it is worth ceding
precious leverage to the government.

Habit: It's a lazy way out. I know, because it's a route I've taken. As a
reporter and editor, I've also taken part in countless (and useless)
protests against background briefings.

Vanity: There actually are some reporters who prefer anonymous sources over
named ones, because they believe "on condition of anonymity" creates the
perception that they're plugged into their beats. They're fooling
themselves and, worse, their audiences.

Access: Reporters are increasingly kept apart from the people they cover.
They don't recognize that the way to get access is by raising hell—by
making yourself such a source of surprise and disruption that the people
you cover realize they need to get to know you.

Jonathan Allen of Vox, one of the better reporters on the beat, explained
why he accepted the Clinton ground rules last week. "These officials are
people who could easily avoid interacting with reporters for the entire
campaign if they chose," he wrote. "Given the option of talking to them or
not, major news organizations chose the former."

I get it. I used to think that way. But I've learned over the years that I
don't need to talk to campaign people. They need to talk to me. Freeze me
out? Fine—that's just more time to talk to rival campaigns, political
scientists, and the best sources on any campaign: voters.

Even the dimmest public relations officials eventually learn that they
can't put a good reporter on ice and, even if they could, they would be
freezing themselves out of the reporter's stories.

Second, why would I let the Clinton campaign—or any entity I cover—give me
"the option" to choose? On this and so many other ways the media has ceded
power, I say flip the script. Make them choose. Put them on the sorry end
of a devil's choice.

Which gets me to my plan to bust the briefing racket.

If you're a reporter who gets sucked into a "background briefing," don't
let anonymous spin creep into your stories. Ignore it (National Journal
attended the Clinton briefing but didn't write it up). Or call it out, as
John Harwood did here: "How's Hillary Doing? Wish We Could Tell You"

Wish I could tell you more. But they said very little.

Notice that I typed very little and not "very little," because under the
ground rules of Thursday's briefing reporters were not allowed to quote
their words directly.

You're not missing much.

For all its understated brilliance, Harwood's column won't put a dent in
the background briefing racket. It was, after all, a retroactive hit
directed at just one PR team on behalf of just one reporter.

The media should be more proactive, like Adam Nagourney of The New York
Times, who tweeted today the details of Clinton's presidential announcement
event and directly attributed them to spokesman Jesse Ferguson. The aide
had emailed the information to reporters, presuming that he could deem the
material "on background."

Wrong.

If you're a reporter, go to your email now and write to the director of
communications for whatever beat you cover – a campaign, an agency, a
business, a sports team, whatever.

"Dear ___," your note starts.

"I just wanted to remind you of a long tradition in journalism: Everything
a reporter sees and hears is on the record and attributable directly to the
source unless the reporter and source mutually agree in advance to other
terms."

"That means, of course, that every briefing I attend, in person or on
conference call, will be on the record unless you get my permission in
advance. (Knowing my editor's commitment to transparency and
accountability, I suspect permission will only be granted in extreme
cases.)"

Congratulations. You just forced the PR types to choose: Do we want a
briefing bad enough to play by this person's rules? The answer will almost
always be yes, and when it's not, you won't miss much. Hell, you're a good
enough reporter to find out what's said at briefings you don't attend.

You might want to add to your note:

"Same applies to every email you send me. Writing "OFF THE RECORD" at the
top doesn't make it so.

"I'm always open to using anonymous sources, but only when we're dealing
with important information (not spin) and when my editor and I determine
it's in the best interest of our audience."

If you're an editor, consider giving your reporters cover (these are your
rules, after all). Email the communications director at every beat your
newsroom covers, and tell them:

"If the briefing material is important and true, there's no good reason to
hide the source's identity. Unless you get prior permission from one of my
reporters, all briefings are on the record. Same for your emails.

Remind them who's in charge.

* NYT The Upshot: G.O.P. Women in Congress: Why So Few?
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/upshot/gop-women-in-congress-why-so-few.html?rref=upshot&abt=0002&abg=0>
// NYT // Derek Willis – June 1, 2015*

The rising number of women in Congress can obscure another trend: The
number of Republican women has remained roughly stagnant for more than a
decade.

Although women in both parties have increased their numbers in Congress
during the past 25 years, the share of Democratic women — now nearly 33
percent — has continued to climb, while the Republican female share has
leveled off since hitting 10 percent during the mid-2000s. And political
polarization seems to be a major reason.

Moderate Republican women — think of Olympia Snowe, the former Maine
senator, or Connie Morella, the former Maryland congresswoman — were once
common in the party, according to research by Danielle Thomsen, a political
scientist at Duke. But moderate Republicans of both genders are nearly gone
from Congress today. Some conservative women, like Senator Joni Ernst of
Iowa, have been elected, but there are relatively few of them in a
traditional pipeline to Congress: state legislatures. In other words, the
gap is likely to persist for some time.

As one measure of the gap, 17 Republican women have served in the

Senate in its history, and 14 Democratic women currently serve in the

Senate.

The pattern is part of a larger gender disparity in American politics, of
course. In 2012, 55 percent of women voted for President Obama, while 52
percent of men voted for Mitt Romney, according to exit polls. The gap
figures to continue, if not widen, in 2016, with Democrats seeming likely
to nominate a woman for president and Republicans likely to nominate a man.

There is plenty of research that the presence of women in legislative
bodies makes a difference, particularly on the policies that many female
lawmakers prioritize, such as health care and children’s issues. Interviews
with women in Congress by the Center for American Women and Politics have
found that many see themselves as “surrogate representatives” for women in
general.

A root cause of the gap is that Democratic women who are potential
congressional candidates tend to fit comfortably with the liberal ideology
of their party’s primary voters, while many potential female Republican
candidates do not adhere to the conservative ideology of their primary
voters.

But it’s not just moderate Republican women who have been affected by the
polarization of the parties. “If you look at the moderate men, they’re not
there, either,” she said, and conservative Democrats in state legislatures
also aren’t running for Congress.

Ms. Thomsen found that one in five Republican state legislators of either
sex could be described as moderate, based on their voting history and
donors, but moderates were not nearly as eager as conservatives to run for
Congress.

Isn't the real reason there are less females in Congress the fact that less
of them aspire to go into politics?

“Conservative Republican men and women state legislators are equally likely
to run for Congress, but women are outnumbered five to one,” Ms. Thomsen
said.

Separate research, by Shauna Shames, a political scientist at Rutgers
University, suggests that women with fiscally conservative and socially
liberal views particularly struggle to find a party home. “A whole lot of
women who could run are not running, because they know they will not be
supported and don’t feel that they fit in the party anymore,” Ms. Shames
said.

The Republican women who have run in congressional primaries over the past
25 years have been as conservative as Republican men, according to a study
produced this year by Political Parity, a program that pushes for more
women in Congress. (Ms. Thomsen and Ms. Shames both worked on the study).
There simply have not been very many highly conservative female candidates,
compared with men.

On the Democratic side, the situation is different. Female candidates for
Congress were more liberal on average than their male counterparts, the
study found, helping them do well in party primaries, which emphasize
ideological purity.

Ms. Thomsen’s research does suggest that the number of conservative women
in Congress will increase in coming years, because the number of
conservative women in state legislatures has recently risen, albeit slowly.
The three most recently elected female Republican senators —

Ms. Ernst, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Deb Fischer of

Nebraska — are all conservative and all served in their state legislatures.

Yet the share of congressional Democrats who are female may also continue
rising, which could keep the current gap from shrinking.

*A Bad Voting Ban in Maryland
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/opinion/a-bad-voting-ban-in-maryland.html?ref=politics>
// NYT // The Editorial Board – June 1, 2015*

What is the logic behind state laws that deny the vote to people who have
been convicted of a felony, even after they are released from prison? The
short and easy answer is: there isn’t any.

For a longer, nonsensical answer, ask Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland, who on
May 22 thwarted strong majorities in both houses of the state legislature
to veto a bill that would have restored voting rights to about 40,000
Maryland residents currently on probation or parole.

Some of these people never went to prison at all. Those who did are now in
the process of reintegrating themselves into their communities. Restoring
their ability to have a say in choosing their elected representatives — the
most fundamental of all democratic rights — should be an obvious element of
that reintegration. But to Mr. Hogan, a Republican, people on probation or
parole are “still serving their time as a debt to society for their
actions,” and so it is appropriate to continue to bar them from the ballot
box.

This is terrible reasoning. Voting bans “defy the principles — of
accountability and rehabilitation — that guide our criminal justice
policies,” as former Attorney General Eric Holder said last year in calling
for their repeal.

There has never been a whit of evidence that restoring voting rights has
any negative impact on society, and yet disenfranchisement laws have a long
and often racist pedigree in American history. States passed them in the
19th century to block African-Americans from voting. Today about six
million people nationwide are disenfranchised because of a criminal record,
with blacks disproportionately burdened. In Maryland, nearly two-thirds of
people who can’t vote because of a felony conviction are African-American.

The governor’s veto was all the more vexing given what has been happening
in Baltimore, where residents — mostly poor people of color — have erupted
in outbursts of anger and frustration because they feel they have little
say in the direction of their communities. Mr. Hogan could have supported
the law and reaffirmed that Maryland values the voices of all its citizens.
Instead his veto means that 40,000 of them will have to wait until the
Legislature reconvenes next January for a veto override vote.

Mr. Hogan’s action is out of step not just with common sense, but with a
growing segment of his own party. In recent years both red and blue states
— from Texas to Connecticut to Alabama to New Mexico — have reduced or
eliminated barriers to voting for people coming out of prison. Maryland
ended its own lifetime ban on voting for those with felony convictions in
2007.

This is a moment of great promise for new efforts to reform the nation’s
criminal-justice system. Disenfranchising people who are already back in
their communities is nothing but punitive and counterproductive, and
dismantling such laws should be an easy call.

*Congress Should Extend PATRIOT Act Provisions to Keep Us Safe
<https://medium.com/@JebBush/congress-should-extend-patriot-act-provisions-to-keep-us-safe-e7c77224b3ef>
//Medium // Jeb Bush – June 1, 2015*

The failure of President Obama and the U.S. Congress to preserve key
counterterrorism authorities before they expired is an abdication of their
responsibility to protect the United States.

Today we have lost the metadata program, authorized by Section 215 of the
USA PATRIOT Act, an important tool in helping law enforcement and the
Intelligence Community connect the dots between known foreign terrorists
and potential operatives in the United States.

Congress still has the opportunity to remedy this mistake and extend these
important tools that have kept us safe. They should do so.

It is incredible that we would weaken our ability to protect the Homeland
as ISIL, Al Shabbab, Al Qaeda, and other affiliated terrorist groups expand
their reach.

Even President Obama, who spoke often about protecting civil liberties,
supported these authorities as Senator and preserved the program when he
came into office. Backing down in the face of liberal interest group
pressure is just another failure of presidential leadership.

In 2013 new safeguards were put in place — including requiring the
government to seek an individual court order every time it queried the
database — but maintained the essential structure of a database of call
records that can be searched in the event we have intelligence warnings of
plots to the homeland.

That was the right call. Because in total, the PATRIOT Act has kept us
safe, plain and simple.

Despite the fear-mongering of some, there is no evidence the bulk metadata
program has ever been used to violate civil liberties.

The terrorist threat to the United States is growing. It is incredible that
we would weaken our ability to protect the homeland as ISIL, Al Shabbab, Al
Qaeda, and other affiliated terrorist groups expand their reach.