Subject: H4A News Clips 6.16.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 07:15:41 -0400
List-Id: <HRCRapid.hillaryclinton.com>

*H4A News Clips*

*June 16, 2015*

*LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS*

All network programs covered Jeb Bush's campaign announcement. ABC reported
that Bush took direct aim at Hillary Clinton and said she has left a legacy
of crisis all over the world. Hillary Clinton addressed age at her own
campaign launch, and that she would be the first grandmother president, as
well. NBC stated that immigration reform will be one of Bush’s primary
issues. Bush indirectly attacked Democratic candidates. CBS' Nancy Cordes
said Bush said he should be the nominee not because of his name but despite
it; reported Bush pointed to his executive experience as his qualifier as a
nominee; reported Bush’s fundraising efforts didn’t scare off other
candidates.

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

*TODAY’S KEY
STORIES.....................................................................................
**5*

*Hillary Clinton Pushes to Expand Access to Pre-Kindergarten* // NYT // Amy
Chozick & Jess Bidgood – June 15,
2015...........................................................................................................................................
5

*Clinton says she has connected with voters in early stages of campaign* //
WMUR – June 15, 2015.. 7

*Hillary Clinton on the issues: Six questions on the campaign trail* // The
Concord Monitor // Casey McDermott – June 15,
2015..............................................................................................................................
8

*SOCIAL
MEDIA................................................................................................
**10*

*Dan Merica (6/15/15, 9:13 am)* - Bernie Sanders headlines a meeting in
Denver on Saturday.
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/townmeeting/w3j … Campaign
says 2,500 ppl have RSVPd (not all will
show)......................................................................................................................
10

*Jason Noble (6/15/15, 10:21 am)* - Here's your @DMRegister clips on
relative Clinton/Obama crowd counts  10

*Gabriela Domenzain* (6/15/15, 11:16 am) - PERFECT:  on 1st day on
@GovernorOMalley's team we get to THANK #DREAMers/all New Americans for
#DACA :) #DACAworks........................................................
10

*Trent Spiner (6/15/15, 1:26 pm)* - Responding to @HillaryClinton early ed
program, @GovernorOMalley slams her plan: "We can't afford the same old
talk." #FITN
#nhpolitics........................................................ 11

*Zeke Miller (6/15/15, 3:32 pm)* - .@Lis_Smith/@GovernorOMalley blast
Clinton on TPP............... 11

*David Martosko (6/15/15, 7:01 pm)* - Statement from the travel pool of
journalists covering @HillaryClinton - endorsed by 13 news
orgs...........................................................................................................
11

*Zeke Miller (6/15/15, 8:23 pm)* - Like @HillaryClinton, @JebBush's website
only lists a few states. Unlike Hillary, it excludes his home
state..........................................................................................................
11

*HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE............................................................................
**11*

*Hillary Clinton’s Vows to ‘Fight’ Evoke a Populist Appeal and a Contrast
With Obama* // NYT // Amy Chozick & Patrick Healy – June 15,
2015.....................................................................................................
11

*Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary Clinton’s Confidant, Turns Over Memos on Libya*
// NYT // Michael Schmidt – June 15,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
14

*Why It Matters That Hillary Clinton Wore Ralph Lauren* // NYT // Vanessa
Friedman – June 15, 2015             15

*Hillary signals aggressive attack on Republicans over Obamacare lawsuit*
// WaPo // Greg Sargent – June 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
16

*Hillary Clinton finally figured out how to talk about being a woman in
presidential politics* // Chris Cillizza – June 15,
2015....................................................................................................................................
18

*Hillary Clinton balancing on the thin line between party and president* //
WaPo // Dan Balz – June 15,
2015.................................................................................................................................................
19

*Why Hillary is asking America to see her candidacy as ‘historic’* // WaPo
// Greg Sargent – June 15, 2015        21

*Bill Clinton’s claim that Hillary did economic diplomacy because there was
no Commerce Secretary* // WaPo // Glenn Kessler – June 15,
2015....................................................................................................
23

*Clinton says her wealth is 'secondary' concern for voters* // AP // Lisa
Lerer – June 15, 2015......... 25

*Clinton campaign denies access to pool reporter* // Politico // Dylan
Byers – June 15, 2015........... 27

*Hillary Clinton’s super PAC nabs 2 veteran pollsters* // Politico // Annie
Karni – June 15, 2015..... 29

*Some of Hillary Clinton’s Libya emails said to be withheld from Benghazi
Committee* // Politico // Rachel Bade – June 15,
2015............................................................................................................................
29

*Hillary Clinton dismisses trade authority as ‘process issue’* // Politico
// Gabriel Debenedetti – June 15,
2015................................................................................................................................................
30

*Clinton campaign kicks off amid boiling press frustrations* // Politico //
Dylan Byers – June 15, 2015 32

*Hillary Clinton = Jeb Bush?* // Politico // Annie Karni & Gabriel
Debenedetti – June 15, 2015....... 33

*Hillary Clinton Proposes More Funding for Early Childhood Education* //
Bloomberg News // Jennifer Epstein – June 15,
2015............................................................................................................................
35

*Hillary Clinton Backs Fast-Track on Obama's Trade Deals* // HuffPo // Eric
Zuesse – June 15, 2015 36

*45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes* // CNN
// Jake Tapper – June 15, 2015       40

*How Hillary Clinton Gets Around Answering Questions About Fast-Track* //
The National Journal // Emma Roller – June 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................
51

*If Hillary Clinton wants to fix income inequality, here’s how to do it* //
Yahoo News // Rick Newman – June 15,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
52

*Clinton urges tax cuts to help families pay for child care* // Reuters –
June 15, 2015...................... 53

*Clinton, in NH, calls for universal preschool, chides GOP* // Union Leader
// Dan Tuohy – June 15, 2015         54

*Hillary Clinton Offers Obama-Like Vision for America* // NBC News // Perry
Bacon Jr. – June 15, 2015             55

*Ex-Obama Advisor: In the Game of Dynasties, House Clinton Will Always
Crush House Bush* // Mediaite // Josh Feldman – June 15,
2015...........................................................................................................
57

*Sunday Spin from Clinton Surrogates* // FactCheck.org // D’Angelo Gore &
Eugene Kiely – June 15, 2015         57

*Hillary Clinton, the center-left's champion* // Newsday // Stephen
Stromberg – June 15, 2015..... 60

*Hillary and Bill Clinton: Campaign Speech Twinsies* // TIME // Nell
Scovell – June 15, 2015......... 61

*The Critical Missing Sentence From Hillary Clinton's Roosevelt Island
Speech* // Forbes // Rick Ungar – June 15,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
63

*Hillary Clinton has always been to Obama's left on economics* // VOX //
Matthew Iglesias – June 15, 2015    64

*Hillary Clinton Calls Trade Stalemate 'a Process Issue'* // Bloomberg News
// Ali Elkin – June 15, 2015            66

*Clinton campaign bans national pool reporter from N.H. events* // The
Boston Globe // Annie Linskey – June 15,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
67

*Hillary Clinton Again Avoids Taking A Position On Trade Deal* // NBC News
// Leigh Ann Caldwell – June 15,
2015.........................................................................................................................................
69

*De Blasio says Hillary Clinton lacks 'vision'* // Marisa Schultz and
Michael Gartland – June 15, 2015 69

*Hillary Clinton Is Taking Sides in Obama's Trade Fight With Liberal
Democrats* // Mic // Gregory Krieg – June 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
71

*Top hedge fund managers make more than all kindergarten teachers combined*
// Politifact // Lauren Carroll – June 15,
2015............................................................................................................................
72

*How Hollywood Helped Hillary Clinton* // CBS News // Rebecca Kaplan – June
15, 2015.............. 74

*Bill Clinton: ‘You can’t have people walking around with guns’* // The
Washington Times // Jessica Chasmar – June 15,
2015............................................................................................................................
75

*Clinton: I never saw Hillary 'study a list of my contributors'* // The
Hill // Cory Bennett – June 15, 2015           76

*Clinton camp shuts out foreign reporter* // The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June
15, 2015..................... 77

*EXCLUSIVE: The day Hillary’s team booted me off the bus: ‘The Clinton's
campaign wants to control which reporters can come along for the ride.
Today it was supposed to be me - but at the last minute I was shut out.
That's NOT okay'* // The Daily Mail // David Martokso – June 15,
2015........................................ 78

*Longtime Hillary Clinton Confidant to Testify About Benghazi Emails* //
VOA News - June 16, 2015 82

*Hillary Clinton's campaign isn't about populist ideals. It's about Hillary
Clinton.* // The Week // Edward Morrissey - June 16,
2015..........................................................................................................
83

*2016 Is the Latest Bump in the Long Clinton-Bush Friendship* // NY Mag //
Margaret Hartmann – June 16,
2015................................................................................................................................................
85

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE................................................. **88*

*O’MALLEY..................................................................................................
**88*

*Martin O’Malley pins hope on Iowa caucuses* // The Boston Globe // Annie
Linskey – June 15, 2015 88

*SANDERS.....................................................................................................
**91*

*Meet the people coming to see Bernie Sanders in Iowa* // WaPo // John
Wagner – June 15, 2015.. 91

*Early-state polls hint at Bernie Sanders surge* // Politico // Nick Gass –
June 15, 2015.................. 94

*Bernie Sanders Is Building an Army to Take D.C.* // The Daily Beast //
Eleanor Chift – June 15, 2015                94

*Bernie Sanders Can Win the Iowa Caucus* // The Observer // Brent Budowsky
– June 15, 2015..... 96

*Poll: Sanders Gains on Clinton in New Hampshire* // Real Clear Politics //
Matthew Disler – June 15, 2015     98

*Sanders: I won’t wage personal attacks on Hillary Clinton* // MSNBC //
John O’Brien – June 15, 2015               99

*Why Bernie Sanders wins the crowds* // CNN // Julian Zelizer – June 15,
2015........................... 100

*Bernie Sanders says a black male baby born today has 1-in-3 chance of
prison* // Politifact // Louis Jacobson – June 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................
102

*WEBB........................................................................................................
**103*

*Jim Webb to decide on presidential campaign in next two weeks* // WaPo //
Rachel Weiner – June 15, 2015 103

*OTHER......................................................................................................
**104*

*Labor buys ‘thank you’ ads for lawmakers who blocked Obama trade pact* //
WaPo // David Nakamura – June 15,
2015........................................................................................................................................
104

*Immigration 2016: Dems Try to out-DACA Each Other, While Mitt Admitting
Mistake Gives GOP ‘Chance to Win’* // PJ Media // Bridget Johnson – June
15,
2015........................................................................
105

*GOP...............................................................................................................
**106*

*BUSH.........................................................................................................
**106*

*Jeb Bush’s Surprising Struggle With Moderates* // NYT // Nate Cohn – June
15, 2015................. 106

*Jeb Bush Announces White House Bid, Saying ‘America Deserves Better.’* //
NYT // Michael Barbaro and Jonathan Martin – June 15,
2015..............................................................................................
109

*Jeb Bush on the Issues* // NYT // Gerry Mullany – June 15,
2015................................................ 113

*Jeb Bush Shows Loyalty to a Logo Derided by Some* // NYT // Alan Rappeport
– June 15, 2015... 114

*Jeb Bush Is Still the Favorite, the Markets Say* // NYT // David Leonhardt
– June 15, 2015......... 115

*Jeb Bush repackages his brother’s ‘compassionate conservatism’* // WaPo //
Paul Waldman – June 15, 2015 116

*For Jeb Bush, a moment to refocus* // WaPo // Dan Balz – June 15,
2015.................................... 117

*Meet the people who will try to get Jeb Bush elected president* // WaPo //
Ed O’Keefe – June 15, 2015            119

*Stressing his experience as governor of Fla., Jeb Bush enters 2016 race*
// WaPo // Ed O’Keefe & Philip Rucker – June 15,
2015...........................................................................................................................
126

*Jeb Bush’s K Street connections* // WaPo // Catherine Ho – June 15,
2015.................................. 129

*Jeb Bush Says He Will Run as a Political Outsider* // WSJ // Beth Reinhard
– June 15, 2015....... 131

*Jeb Bush’s Chance for Takeoff* // WSJ // Gerald Seib – June 15,
2015.......................................... 132

*Jeb Bush vows to stay true to beliefs in opening '16 race that will test
his conservatism* // AP // Steve Peoples & Brendan Farrington – June 15,
2015.........................................................................................
134

*Jeb Bush makes it official: 'I will run to win'* // Politico // Eli
Stokols – June 15, 2015.................. 136

*Jeb Bush says he doesn’t need dynasty to win* // Politico // Roger Simon –
June 15, 2015........... 138

*Jeb Bush’s Campaign Launch to be Featured on Snapchat* // TIME // Sam
Frizell – June 15, 2015 140

*Jeb Bush Starts 2016 Campaign Trying to Calm Skittish Conservatives* //
TIME // Philip Elliott – June 15,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
141

*Jeb Bush Seeks a Bigger Tent at Campaign Launch* // TIME // Philip Elliott
– June 15, 2015....... 142

*Jeb Bush Invokes Baltimore Protests In Presidential Campaign Kickoff* //
HuffPo // Amanda Terkel – June 15,
2015........................................................................................................................................
144

*Jeb Bush Once Cut Funding to His Campaign Launch Site* // TIME // Zeke
Miller – June 15, 2015 145

*Bush takes on immigration -- but at hecklers' request* // CNN // Thedore
Schleifer – June 15, 2015 145

*Jeb Bush strikes softer tone at start of White House run* // Reuters //
Steve Holland – June 15, 2015                146

*Jeb Bush’s announcement speech made me bullish on Marco Rubio* // VOX //
Ezra Klein – June 15, 2015      148

*Jeb Bush’s path more like dad than brother* // The Miami Herald – June 15,
2015...................... 150

*Jeb Bush Borrows Hillary Clinton Strategy, Uses Snapchat to Launch
Presidential Campaign* // The Wrap // Kathy Zerbib – June 15,
2015...................................................................................................
152

*Jeb Bush Goes Off Script To Promise Immigration Reform* // HuffPo // Elise
Foley – June 15, 2015 152

*Laura Ingraham: 'Welcome to the race, Jeb --- now drop out'* // The
Washington Examiner // Paul Bedard – June 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
154

*If Jeb wants 4 percent growth, he'll have to ask Bill Clinton how to do it*
// VOX // Matthew Iglesias – June 15,
2015........................................................................................................................................
154

*Snappy start: Jeb goes tech with launch* // CNN // Ashley Codiani – June
15, 2015..................... 155

*5 Policy Issues that Show Why Jeb Bush Will Lose the Latino Vote* //
Latino Decisions // Matt Barreto & Gary Segura – June 15,
2015.............................................................................................................
156

*RUBIO........................................................................................................
**159*

*Marco Rubio sent praising note to Jeb Bush ahead of his announcement* //
Fox News // Serafin Gomez – June 15,
2015........................................................................................................................................
159

*Sen. Marco Rubio: Under Obama the World Has Become a More Dangerous Place*
// TIME // Marco Rubio – June 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
160

*PAUL..........................................................................................................
**162*

*Rand Paul: Obamatrade Tax Hikes on Small Businesses Mean Republicans
Should Oppose Revival Efforts* // Breitbart // Matthew Boyle – June 15,
2015..............................................................................
162

*WALKER...................................................................................................
**163*

*UK’s David Cameron fact-checks Scott Walker* // MSNBC // Steve Benen –
June 15, 2015............ 163

*Supreme Court shuts down Scott Walker: Today’s ultrasound decision is a
big defeat for anti-choice warriors* // Salon // Katie McDonough – June 15,
2015...............................................................................
164

*Scott Walker Already Failing At Diplomacy* // Blue Nation Review // Jesse
Berney – June 15, 2015 166

*CRUZ..........................................................................................................
**166*

*Ted Cruz courts Houston business elite at private luncheon* // CNN //
Theodore Schleifer – June 15, 2015      166

*Jeb Bush’s Son Once Called Ted Cruz The “Future Of The Republican Party”*
// Buzzfeed // Megan Apper – June 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
167

*CHRISTIE..................................................................................................
**168*

*New Jersey Lawmakers’ Plan To Circumvent Chris Christie, Start Automatic
Voter Registration* // Think Progress // Kira Lerner – June 15,
2015..................................................................................................
168

*Chris Christie Used a Phrase to Describe the Fight Against ISIS That
Brings George W. Bush to Mind* // IJ Review // Mallory Shelbourne – June
15,
2015......................................................................................
169

*PERRY.......................................................................................................
**170*

*Perry inexplicably blasts Obama’s ‘lack of executive experience’* // MSNBC
// Steve Benen – June 15, 2015   170

*Perry, Rubio mock Hillary Clinton in new campaign ads* // Yahoo News //
Caitlin Dickson – June 15, 2015      171

*Rick Perry rates himself against Bush, Cruz* // Dallas Daily News – June
15, 2015....................... 172

*GRAHAM...................................................................................................
**174*

*Lindsey Graham telling it like it is* // WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – June 15,
2015............................ 174

*The power players behind Lindsey Graham's campaign* // Politico // Katie
Glueck – June 15, 2015 176

*Are Rumors About Lindsey Graham’s Sexuality** Hurting His Presidential
Chances?* // Slate // Mark Joseph Stern – June 15,
2015........................................................................................................................
177

*SANTORUM...............................................................................................
**178*

*Rick Santorum vs Marriage* // HuffPo // Matt Baume – June 15,
2015........................................ 178

*HUCKABEE...............................................................................................
**179*

*GOP hopeful Huckabee: My beliefs won't trip me up* // CNBC // Matthew
Belvedere – June 15, 2015                179

*CARSON....................................................................................................
**180*

*Ben Carson leads crowded GOP field in latest poll* // The Detroit Free
Press // Alicia Secord – June 15, 2015  180

*TRUMP.......................................................................................................
**181*

*EXCLUSIVE: Trump will declare $9 billion net worth as he reveals 2016
plans* // WaPo // Robert Costa & Matea Gold – June 15,
2015................................................................................................................
181

*Donald Trump plans an announcement, and GOP wonders: Presidency or reality
TV?* // LA Times // Kathleen Hennessey - June 16,
2015.......................................................................................................
183

*OTHER......................................................................................................
**185*

*2016 elections: GOP looks to train now, campaign later* // CNN // Mark
Preston - June 16, 2015.. 185

*Republicans start to throw some elbows at each other* // MSNBC // Steve
Benen – June 15, 2015 186

*TOP
NEWS.....................................................................................................
**187*

*DOMESTIC.................................................................................................
**187*

*Goldman to Move Into Online Consumer Lending* // NYT // Michael Corkery &
Nathaniel Popper – June 15,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
187

*In A.I.G. Case, Surprise Ruling That Could End All Bailouts* // NYT //
Andrew Sorkin – June 15, 2015               190

*Obama Administration Seeks to Reassure Allies After Trade Rebuke* // WSJ
// William Mauldin – June 15,
2015...............................................................................................................................................
192

*'No One Will Be Negotiating With Leader Pelosi On A Path Forward'* //
HuffPo // Ryan Grim & Jennifer Bendery – June 15,
2015...........................................................................................................................
193

*INTERNATIONAL......................................................................................
**195*

*Uncertainty over US strike against al-Qaida leader in Libya* // AP //
Sarah El Deeb And Maggie Michael – June 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
195

*Pope's climate change encyclical leaks* // The Hill // Devin Henry – June
15, 2015..................... 198

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS...................................................................
**199*

*Hillary Clinton’s first ‘hard choice’ on trade * // WaPo // The Editorial
Board – June 15, 2015....... 199

*How Obama Abandoned Israel* // WSJ // Michael Oren – June 15,
2015.................................... 200

*Hillary Clinton is owning the joke about her fashion choices — and it’s
working* // WaPo // Robin Givhan - June 16,
2015..................................................................................................................................
203

*Why Jim Webb Is the Most Interesting Candidate in the Democratic Primary*
// The Observer // Jimmy Soni – June 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................
205

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES*

*Hillary Clinton Pushes to Expand Access to Pre-Kindergarten
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/15/hillary-clinton-pushes-to-expand-access-to-pre-kindergarten/>
// NYT // Amy Chozick & Jess Bidgood – June 15, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday pushed to broaden President Obama’s
efforts to expand access to pre-kindergarten, proposing more federal money
for states to provide preschool to children from moderate and low-income
families.

The proposal is the first policy proposal Mrs. Clinton has put forth since
she officially kicked off her campaign with a speech on Saturday that was
heavy on talk of lifting the middle class but light on specifics.

That changed on Monday when she said she would “invest in our most
important assets, our children” and laid out a plan that would give
incentives to states to provide public preschool to children whose family
incomes are below 200 percent of the federal poverty line. The plan would
be directed at the half of the country’s 8.1 million 3- and 4-year-olds who
are not currently enrolled in pre-kindergarten, her campaign said.

Mrs. Clinton also proposed doubling funding for the early Head Start
program, as well as a middle-class tax cut that could “go towards helping
parents pay for quality child care.”

Speaking on the day that Jeb Bush officially entered the race for the
Republican nomination, Mrs. Clinton sought to distinguish her position on
early childhood education with that of her potential Republican rivals.

“Republicans aren’t just missing the boat on early childhood education —
they’re trying to sink it,” Mrs. Clinton said at a Y.M.C.A. in Rochester,
N.H., where she read “The Very Hungry Caterpillar” to a room of young
children.

Of all the issues Mrs. Clinton could have delved into, early childhood
education is perhaps the most obvious and among the safest. Liberal
Democrats have criticized Mrs. Clinton for not addressing Wall Street
regulation, financial reform and trade in her Saturday address, the most
wide-ranging of her campaign so far.

Policies affecting children fit comfortably into Mrs. Clinton’s broader
biographical message. As a candidate this time around, she has emphasized
her background advocating for children, including at the Children’s Defense
Fund in the 1970s, and as first lady and a senator. At the Bill, Hillary &
Chelsea Clinton Foundation, Mrs. Clinton started “Too Small to Fail,” an
initiative aimed at educating young children.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton continued Monday to avoid taking a firm position on
the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal currently being debated in
Washington.

“I will judge what’s in the final agreement, but I hope it can be made
better,” Mrs. Clinton said as she answered questions from reporters in a
packed barn on an apple orchard in Concord, N.H., during her second
campaign stop of the day.

One Democratic rival, Martin O’Malley, was quick to criticize Mrs. Clinton
for calling the “fast track” portion of Mr. Obama’s trade deal a “process
issue” in her New Hampshire remarks. Giving the president such “fast trade”
powers would allow him to strike a deal with limited congressional
oversight.

“For thousands of American workers whose jobs are on the line with T.P.P.,
fast track is not a ‘process issue,'” said Lis Smith, O’Malley’s deputy
campaign manager. “It’s a straightforward vote on their future and their
livelihood.”

*Clinton says she has connected with voters in early stages of campaign
<http://www.wmur.com/politics/hillary-clinton-to-speak-at-launch-party-in-concord/33583988>
// WMUR – June 15, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Monday that she has
used her first few months on the campaign trail to connect with voters.

Clinton gave her first one-on-one television interview since announcing her
candidacy when she spoke with News 9's Josh McElveen. She has taken some
heat from the media during the first months of her campaign for keeping the
press at arm's length and holding closed events, but she said there was a
reason for that.

"I hadn't been in politics since I became secretary of state," Clinton
said. "I had certainly followed closely what was happening in our country
because of the Great Recession, but I wanted that touch and that feel that
you can only get by sitting and talking and looking at somebody."

Clinton didn't apologize for the initial soft launch of her campaign and
said she is now happy to take on any question she gets, be it her plan for
the economy or questions surrounding foreign donations to the Clinton
Foundation while she was secretary of state.

"I don't know if we have enough time in this interview to debunk all of the
allegations that were made by people who were wielding the partisan ax,"
Clinton said.

Clinton said she should be evaluated on her record and her plans for the
future.

"I say judge me on my whole record, and in fact what people in New
Hampshire talk to me about is the cost of child care, about their student
loans, about how they can start and grow a new business," she said.

Clinton also said she isn't sold on the Trans Pacific Partnership deal
President Barack Obama wants but failed to get through Congress last week.

"I'm still going to judge the deal at the end of the day with whether I
think it's good for America," Clinton said, saying she thinks it needs
work. "I think the questions that were raised are ones that have to be
answered."

Clinton said she will continue to answer questions that have been raised
over the past couple months, and she said voters in New Hampshire will see
plenty of her moving forward.

Clinton also held several packed-house events in New Hampshire on Monday.
She began with a roundtable discussion on early childhood education in
Rochester.

Later, Clinton gave a speech before a large gathering at a midday “Launch
Party” at the Carter Hill Orchard in Concord.

Click to watch raw video of Clinton's speech at the party.

At 6:30 p.m., Clinton is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the
Manchester City Democratic Committee’s Flag Day Dinner at the Puritan
Backroom Conference Center.

Challenging Clinton on the Democratic side are U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of
Vermont, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and former Rhode Island Gov.
Lincoln Chafee.

*Hillary Clinton on the issues: Six questions on the campaign trail
<http://mobile.concordmonitor.com/home/17338947-108/hillary-clinton-on-the-issues-six-questions-on-the-campaign-trail>
// The Concord Monitor // Casey McDermott – June 15, 2015 *

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton returned to New Hampshire this
week, several days after what her campaign is dubbing its official
“launch.” During a stop at Carter Hill Orchard in Concord, where she spoke
about her goals as president and rallied several hundred supporters,
Clinton sat down for interview with the Monitor — one of the first she’s
done during this campaign. A recap of that conversation, which lasted just
under 10 minutes, appears below.

How do you plan, if elected, to bridge the gap with Republican politicians
— or even with Republican voters who might like the ideas of the other
party?

Well the first thing I would do is what I did as Senator and Secretary of
State, where I worked across the aisle all the time... I will do whatever
it takes to reach out to anybody, anytime, anywhere in pursuit of common
ground on issues that I think are important for the country — but I will
also stand my ground. So I think the first thing is, I know how important
it is to build relationships and be constantly working on congressional
outreach and informational meetings and all that goes into having a
receptive audience when you say ‘We’re going to have to do some hard work
here, I need you on my side.’

Secondly, I’m going to try to be producing an agenda that I hope can draw
Republican voters and Republican members of congress. I’m well aware that
the party on the other side has gone very far toward the Tea Party side,
but I think there are still a lot of Republicans that understand that we’ve
got to do things for our country — we have to make progress, and we’ve got
to get results. So I will be presenting an agenda. A lot of which, unless
they are going to say ‘no’ just because of extreme partisanship, should be
attractive to them on behalf of our country. I will in my campaign try to
elect more Democrats. More Democrats in the Senate, more Democrats in the
House so that we get back to a better balance.

Can you identify any Republican politicians who you think you would work
well with or have worked well with?

I have worked well. Now, we’ll go through the political season, and they’ll
be cringing when I say I worked well with them. But my co-sponsor on health
care for the national guard and reserves was Lindsey Graham. And he may not
want to be reminded of it, but we worked really hard to get that done. I
have worked until the political winds changed with John McCain on climate
change. And I think that maybe we can get back to trying to find common
ground there. So those are just two examples.

You have been making an effort to learn more about the substance abuse
epidemic in New Hampshire. Do you have any specific ideas about how to
combat that issue, here or elsewhere?

I will be rolling it out, but I have to say that it is such an issue here
in New Hampshire, I can’t escape it. This morning, at our early childhood
event, a grandmother stood up and was saying how she is taking care of her
grandchildren because her daughter has an addiction problem. And when I
talked about it, heads were nodding and people were looking at each other.
So I’ve had an ongoing process to reach out and my policy team has been
talking to experts here in New Hampshire because I want to gather the best
advice. What may work in one community might not work in another community.
We do under the Affordable Care Act, as you know, include mental health
coverage but we don’t have enough personnel, resources, programs so that it
really means what it should — both in substance abuse and in mental health.
So I’m going to be rolling out policies in the campaign to talk about what
more I need to be doing.

But three really quick things: You can’t cut health care for vulnerable
people like extended Medicaid and deal with these problems, you can’t cut
community resources that are public-private partnerships and deal with this
problem, you can’t close the remaining few facilities that will take care
of low-income vulnerable people and deal with this problem. So some states
are doing better on certain categories than others, but we’ve got to have
some national attention paid to this, try to remove the stigma, pull it
into the spotlight so that families are not suffering alone and we do have
more opportunities.

You’ve talked a lot about the fights you’re aiming to wage on behalf of
“everyday Americans.” Some voters, even within the Democratic party, seem
to think you embody the establishment more than the everyday citizen. How
do you plan to overcome that?

I’ve been fighting for progressive causes my entire adult life, and I’ve
outlined some of the work I’ve done in the past along those lines in my
speech on Saturday. But I think if you look at my record in the Senate, and
you look at what I fought for, what I supported, I think it’s fair to say
that I was the leader in going after the home foreclosure problem, that I
called for regulating derivatives, that I called for ending the carried
interest income loophole for hedge fund managers and others. I have a long
record. Now, I was Secretary of State for four years and I was out of the
political arena, so I haven’t been talking about everything I’ve done and
everything that I’m building on to do in the future. But I think that by
the time this campaign is really in full swing people will know that I have
a tried and true record. I’m not a person who’s come lately to these
issues, and I also care very much about getting things done. So I want to
come up with solutions that I, number one, think will work — but also that,
number two, politically we can keep driving until we actually implement
them.

Do you have any thoughts on how the federal government could be more
transparent or any steps you would take to make it more open or more
accessible to the public?

That’s a good question because in my four fights, the fourth one is
reforming government and the campaign finance system since Citizens United
blew it up. And I think part of the challenge is to get the United States
government into the 21st century using technology so that it can be more
open and transparent. It is still very heavily dependent upon paper, it is
woefully behind in frankly computerization of records, and it’s hard to —
it’s such a big organization, it’s hard to move it. But I think it’s
important because when I was Secretary of State, I said I want to put all
of the dollars we spend in foreign aid on the web so everybody can see
them. And you know it took a couple of years because you have to gather
them all up and you have to put them in the right format and you have to
design the site — but we got it done. So I will go into the White House
with the same commitment: More openness, more transparency, aided and
abetted by better technology.

You talk a lot about how much New Hampshire means to you. Is there a
particular memory from your time here that has informed your approach as a
candidate?

Well, there’s so many. But my first trip to New Hampshire in 1991 occurred
around my birthday. So when I landed in Keene, New Hampshire, I started
celebrating my birthday across New Hampshire. I mean, people were doing
cakes and cupcakes — and I just felt immediately at home. And it’s been
that way ever since. And I’ve made such good, close friends here. Of
course, when I came here after the caucus in Iowa and was basically counted
out and the people of New Hampshire opened their hearts and their homes to
me, and voted for me, it was such an incredibly moving, heartwarming
experience. I just like coming here, I like the feel for New Hampshire and
I have gotten to know a lot of the people here.

*SOCIAL MEDIA*

*Dan Merica (6/15/15, 9:13 am)*
<https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/610434968062423041>* - Bernie
Sanders headlines a meeting in Denver on Saturday.
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/townmeeting/w3j
<https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/townmeeting/w3j> … Campaign
says 2,500 ppl have RSVPd (not all will show).*

*Jason Noble (6/15/15, 10:21 am)*
<https://twitter.com/jasonnobleDMR/status/610452128767844353>* - Here's
your @DMRegister clips on relative Clinton/Obama crowd counts*

*Gabriela Domenzain*
<https://twitter.com/GabiDomenzain/status/610465996932055042/photo/1>*
(6/15/15, 11:16 am) - PERFECT:  on 1st day on @GovernorOMalley's team we
get to THANK #DREAMers/all New Americans for #DACA :) #DACAworks*

*Trent Spiner (6/15/15, 1:26 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/TrentSpiner/status/610498532693438465>* - Responding
to @HillaryClinton early ed program, @GovernorOMalley slams her plan: "We
can't afford the same old talk." #FITN #nhpolitics*

*Zeke Miller (6/15/15, 3:32 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/610530301337583616>* -
.@Lis_Smith/@GovernorOMalley blast Clinton on TPP*

*David Martosko (6/15/15, 7:01 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/dmartosko/status/610583016667279360/photo/1>* -
Statement from the travel pool of journalists covering @HillaryClinton -
endorsed by 13 news orgs*

*Zeke Miller (6/15/15, 8:23 pm)*
<https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/610603656799502336>* - Like
@HillaryClinton, @JebBush's website only lists a few states. Unlike
Hillary, it excludes his home state*

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*Hillary Clinton’s Vows to ‘Fight’ Evoke a Populist Appeal and a Contrast
With Obama
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/us/politics/hillary-clintons-vows-to-fight-suggest-a-contrast-with-obama.html?gwh=8500CAC7CFF7B0CBFE72D462C917B2AA&gwt=pay>
// NYT // Amy Chozick & Patrick Healy – June 15, 2015 *

In a roughly 45-minute speech on Saturday, Hillary Rodham Clinton made 14
references to herself as a fighter.

She said she would “fight” back against Republicans, “fight” climate
change, “fight” to “strengthen America’s families” and “fight” to “harness
all of America’s power.” She used the verb in many of the same ways at her
first major rally in Des Moines on Sunday, adding that she would “fight”
for Midwestern values.

The presidential campaign’s effort to define Mrs. Clinton as a fighter is,
on the surface, a way to persuade middle-class voters that she is on their
side. But it is also helping to convey a more subtle message: When it comes
to political combat and perseverance, Mrs. Clinton is not President Obama.

The theme is emerging just as Mr. Obama has suffered a major setback on
trade, one that many in Congress say reflects his weaknesses, namely his
standoffishness and his inability to forge coalitions to push through an
agenda.

During her campaign swing in Iowa on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton said no one would
be a “tougher negotiator” on trade than she would. She offered her most
explicit remarks yet on the president’s handling of the issue, challenging
him to work with Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority
leader, and other congressional Democrats to improve the Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade deal.

“My view is the White House should call Nancy and a few other of the
Democrats to say, ‘What would it take to get an agreement that would be
better and not worse for American workers?’” Mrs. Clinton said.

She added: “What I want to see is a concerted effort to see how far we can
push the agreement.”

In the early months of her campaign, Mrs. Clinton has worked to highlight
her connection to, and respect for, the president she served for four years
as secretary of state. She has appealed to Mr. Obama’s coalition of young
and African-American voters with sweeping speeches on voting rights and
civil rights. And even as liberal Democrats urged her to speak out against
Mr. Obama’s troubled trade deal, Mrs. Clinton had for the most part
remained mum.

But now that Democrats in Congress have rebuffed Mr. Obama in a public and
embarrassing way, Mrs. Clinton faces heightened pressure to present to
voters how she would be a different kind of leader, in style if not in
substance.

At the same time, Clinton aides believe that if they can make the
“tenacious fighter” image stick with voters, “ultimately she will win this
election,” the campaign manager, Robby Mook, said Friday at a
question-and-answer session hosted by Politico.

A new biographical video released by the campaign, titled “Fighter,” opens
with a silhouette of Mrs. Clinton as a voice says: “What is a fighter? To
me, a fighter is someone who won’t give up.”

Persistence is another emphasis. In the video and on the stump, Mrs.
Clinton talks about her unsuccessful attempt to overhaul the health care
system as first lady and how she continued to work and eventually got the
Children’s Health Insurance Program passed.

The inevitable contrast with Mr. Obama’s leadership style that such
language draws is not lost on Democrats in early nominating states.

“Her years in Arkansas, as first lady, as a losing candidate in 2008 and as
secretary of state — all of that taught her to be tough and to keep on
going,” said Marti Anderson, an Iowa state representative who has a 2008
Obama campaign sticker on the front door of her Des Moines home.

“Obama’s quiet, a studious person, a wonk, a constitutional lawyer. Hillary
is more of an activist,” Mrs. Anderson said. “And you need an activist when
you have, for instance, a Congress that puts obstacles in your way. An
activist doesn’t stop trying.”

Mrs. Clinton’s efforts to draw a contrast must be subtle, lest she alienate
the Democratic base of voters who supported Mr. Obama. When asked whether
the positioning of Mrs. Clinton is a strategy to distance her from Mr.
Obama, a campaign spokesman reiterated that she is a “tenacious, dogged
fighter” and that the description would be “front and center” in the
campaign.

It helps that she has also earned an image in the public eye of not giving
up, said Kiki McLean, a former aide to Mrs. Clinton.

“It’s her Methodist Midwestern stick-to-itiveness,” Ms. McLean said. “I
don’t think it’s a strategic adoption” to contrast her with Mr. Obama, she
added, “but they are definitely different personalities.”

At her speech in New York on Saturday, the biggest rally of her
presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton said she was devoting her candidacy to
“everyone who’s ever been knocked down but refused to be knocked out.”
Kelly Clarkson’s “Stronger (What Doesn’t Kill You)” blared from the outdoor
speakers.

After the speech, supporters seemed satisfied to have seen Mrs. Clinton
showcase her own temperament and style. They could not help but compare
them with those of the sitting president.

“What you can see today and what you can see all the time is that Hillary
loves people,” Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent backer of Democrats
and Mrs. Clinton, said after the speech. “And even people who really like
Barack Obama have said to me that is not the case with him.”

Those differences were apparent to some of the Iowans who helped catapult
Mr. Obama to victory in the 2008 caucuses.

On Saturday night, the Clinton campaign organized a house party at Mrs.
Anderson’s home in the Beaverdale neighborhood, which some Democrats
nicknamed “Obamadale” during the 2008 caucuses because of the strong
support there for Mr. Obama. Several attendees said they were attracted to
Mrs. Clinton’s doggedness after having been disappointed by Mr. Obama’s
occasional lack of gumption.

“I think Hillary knows how to fight, and she certainly saw how to deal with
Republicans when Bill Clinton was in the White House,’’ said Jay Peterson,
a librarian for the State of Iowa who backed Mr. Obama in the 2008 caucuses.

A spokesman for the White House declined to comment, though Mr. Obama’s
supporters point out that he has been criticized for being too combative,
especially on issues like immigration and health care.

The Clinton campaign decided early on not to distance itself from the Obama
administration; instead, Mrs. Clinton often praises the economic progress
Mr. Obama has made. On Saturday, she said Mr. Obama had brought the country
“back from the brink of depression,” but“we face new challenges in our
economy and our democracy.”

At the same time, polls show a growing frustration not just with Mr. Obama
but also with Congress and Washington generally, indicating that Mrs.
Clinton must convince voters she can bring something fresh to the White
House.

Just 32 percent of Americans said they would prefer a presidential
candidate whose political experience was mostly in the government in
Washington, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released May 5.

“The issue isn’t that Washington isn’t fighting. The issue is that people
feel like there’s no one in Washington fighting for them,” said Guy Cecil,
a co-chairman of Priorities USA Action, the pro-Clinton “super PAC.”

Mrs. Clinton’s message adds to the heat felt by Mr. Obama at a time when he
is struggling to save his trade bill and avoid being incapacitated by his
lame-duck status.

Bob Meddaugh, an activist who supported Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
in the 2008 caucuses and then embraced Mr. Obama, is hopeful that Mrs.
Clinton can be more successful in building coalitions.

“I think she may be a little more direct and confrontational with
individual people, compared to the way the president has been more
standoffish with Republicans and even some Democrats,” he said.

*Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary Clinton’s Confidant, Turns Over Memos on Libya
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/us/politics/sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clintons-confidant-turns-over-memos-on-libya.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0>
// NYT // Michael Schmidt – June 15, 2015 *

A close confidant of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s, Sidney Blumenthal, has
provided the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi,
Libya, with dozens of pages of emails between him and Mrs. Clinton about
Libya that were not included in the trove of emails that the State
Department gave to the panel, according to people briefed on the matter.

The emails are similar to others that were provided to the committee by the
State Department in February, the people said. Those emails included
information about Libya that Mr. Blumenthal was passing along. Mrs. Clinton
often forwarded the memos to her deputies to seek their feedback.

The committee had issued a subpoena to Mr. Blumenthal for any emails he had
exchanged with Mrs. Clinton.

It is not clear whether Mr. Blumenthal’s emails were among the 30,000 pages
of emails from Mrs. Clinton’s personal account that she provided to the
State Department last year. Senior State Department officials have
repeatedly said that they had fully complied with the committee’s requests
for the emails, while the committee’s chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy,
Republican of South Carolina, had harshly criticized the department for not
providing documents to the panel.

Alec Gerlach, a spokesman for the State Department, said, “We provided the
committee with a subset of documents that matched its request and will
continue to work with them going forward.” Secretary of State John Kerry
“has been clear that the State Department will be both transparent and
thorough in its obligations to the public on this matter,” he added.

An official for the committee declined to comment.

Mrs. Clinton said that after she provided the 30,000 emails to the State
Department, she deleted roughly the same number of emails from the account,
which, she said, were personal and not related to her work as secretary of
state.

Mr. Blumenthal is scheduled to appear Tuesday before the committee for a
deposition. Mr. Gowdy wants to question Mr. Blumenthal about where he was
receiving his information about Libya and who was paying him to produce the
memos.

At the time that Mr. Blumenthal was sending the memos to Mrs. Clinton, he
was being paid by the Clinton Foundation. Among Mr. Blumenthal’s
responsibilities was to help with research, “message guidance” and the
planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials.

At the same time, Mr. Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton,
was a paid consultant to Media Matters for America and American Bridge,
organizations that conduct research and answer attacks against Mrs. Clinton.

*Why It Matters That Hillary Clinton Wore Ralph Lauren
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/fashion/why-it-matters-that-hillary-clinton-wore-ralph-lauren.html>
// NYT // Vanessa Friedman – June 15, 2015 *

At her campaign opening rally on Roosevelt Island on Saturday (to be
distinguished from her campaign announcement, in April), Hillary Rodham
Clinton donned her now-signature look: a bright blue pantsuit with a
matching bright blue shirt underneath. She stuck out a mile, matched her H
campaign logo — which was also the design of her stage — and looked
appropriately patriotic, especially when standing next to Bill Clinton in
his red polo.

So far, so expected, especially given her debut Instagram post: a series of
red, white or blue pantsuits hanging in a row with the caption “Hard
choices.”

Mrs. Clinton has been extremely clever at co-opting the whole
fashion-in-politics thing, defanging it and using it to demonstrate her
quite developed sense of humor. It’s a tool for her these days, and not
just when it comes to image.

Vanessa Friedman writes about news happening in the fashion industry, from
business decisions to designer moves.

Which is why it is worth thinking about. She is clearly considering it, as
are her advisers, and using it to manipulate perception. As are all her
competitors. Clothes are a political tool like any other. And that is why
it was interesting to learn that the pantsuit she wore at her Roosevelt
Island rally had been made by Ralph Lauren.

On the one hand, this is a clever choice: Mrs. Clinton’s de facto dresser
for the last few years had been Oscar de la Renta, and his death in October
left her without a go-to label. She has known Mr. Lauren for a while: She
presented him with the James Smithson Bicentennial Medal last June for his
$13 million donation to help restore the Betsy Ross flag, and wore another
blue Ralph Lauren pantsuit to do so.

And his personal narrative — Bronx boy made good — pretty much embodies the
American dream. The clothes he sells are, in part, based on the aesthetics
of that dream: the West, and the Gatsby version of Long Island. He
understands sartorial stagecraft as well as any designer on the New York
Fashion Week calendar, if not better.

Yet there’s a possible weak spot in the relationship. Because for a
candidate who has been pushing her connection to, and understanding of, the
middle class — and whose speech while wearing the pantsuit was largely
about closing the income gap — Ralph Lauren is a relatively inaccessible
brand. It is also one often worn by and beloved of that sector of the
population, the chief executives and financial wizards, she somewhat
disavowed.

An average Ralph Lauren Women’s Collection pantsuit, which this was — not,
in other words, a style from the more accessible line, Lauren Ralph Lauren
— is a few thousand dollars (a pinstriped wool jacket alone, for example,
is $2,450 at the online store). That is out of reach for most voters.

It might not matter, given that voters also want their candidates to look
presidential, which generally means good. Except that one of the story
lines surrounding Mrs. Clinton has been how she is out-of-touch with those
she claims to represent. It seems to me that working with a famous and
high-end designer could provide ammunition for the opposition. And why even
take that chance?

But maybe the fashion issue, with its potential sexism charges, is just too
touchy for anyone, except fashion people like me, to go there.

Personally, if I were working out sartorial strategy on her team, I might
suggest the issue be avoided entirely by opting for a contemporary label
like Theory, which is known for its pantsuits, professional dressing — and
anonymity. Its chief executive, Andrew Rosen, is a fashion mogul who has
made something of a personal mission out of saving the New York garment
district.

But that’s me. And to be honest, I would not be surprised if, in the end,
Ralph Lauren does become a Clinton wardrobe mainstay. If the campaign can
avoid elitism charges, the brand will make her look confident, and
absolutely convincing on the global stage.

According to a spokesman, the designer already works with the candidate
“regularly.”

*Hillary signals aggressive attack on Republicans over Obamacare lawsuit
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/06/15/morning-plum-hillary-signals-aggressive-attack-on-republicans-over-obamacare-lawsuit/>
// WaPo // Greg Sargent – June 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton gave the “official” kick-off speech of her presidential
candidacy on Saturday. Jeb Bush will give the “official” kick-off speech of
his presidential candidacy today. The presidential race is underway in
earnest. And we may have our first major policy battle of the 2016 race
within weeks, or even days — one all about Obamacare.

In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Clinton signaled that if the
Supreme Court guts subsidies for millions in three dozen states, she will
respond with a plan to avert all the chaos that would result. And she
sharply dismissed the legal arguments being made by the challengers:

Asked about the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare, Clinton said
that no matter which way the U.S. Supreme Court rules on federal subsidies,
“I will be prepared to set forth what I would do.”

Clinton said that if the court does what she thinks it should do based on
the law and the facts, “that would mean it would not rule in favor of the
very contorted argument that is being made by the opponents to blow up the
Affordable Care Act’s guarantee of coverage.”

That suggests Clinton may be preparing to go on offense against Republicans
if the Court rules for the challengers. She is dismissing the lawsuit as a
cynical effort to undermine the ACA’s basic coverage guarantee —
telegraphing a very critical response to such a ruling — and signaling
aggressive engagement if and when the debate turns to what should happen
next.

Republicans appear divided over how to respond if the Court guts subsidies.
Some Congressional Republicans are floating plans that would temporarily
extend subsidies. But they are now saying they won’t produce any consensus
plan until after the Court rules. Meanwhile, it’s not clear that
Republicans can pass any such consensus plan, because conservatives may
revolt at doing anything to keep Obamacare going. It’s also unclear whether
GOP leaders would want to buck conservatives and pass a temporary fix with
the help of a lot of Democrats. Beyond all this, the GOP fix plans appear
likely to do more harm to Obamacare than good.

Clinton says she will offer a fix of her own — probably some kind of simple
rewrite of the disputed legislative language — while calling for the
universal coverage guarantee to be restored. In other words, she would
actually fix the problem created by the Court ruling. This could contrast
sharply with the GOP post-King approach, which, judging by recent GOP
rhetoric, will likely be saddled with a tortured, incoherent storyline:
Republicans will blame the loss of coverage for millions on Obamacare
itself, while pledging to fix the problem even as their “solution”
undermines the law further.

This is another sign that the post-King battle could spill into the
presidential race. The states with the largest numbers of people also
happen to be the top presidential battleground states. The GOP candidates
will likely be asked to take a position on what should be done for all
those people. Scott Walker is already signaling that he’ll demand that the
federal government — i.e., Congressional Republicans — fix the problem. To
my knowledge, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have not meaningfully weighed on on
what should come next, which might not be easy: conservative base voters
might want Republicans to do nothing, but doing nothing might alienate
swing voters. What’s more, Bush and Rubio both come from Florida, which is
home to the greatest number of people who stand to lose subsidies — 1.3
million — so they might be under more pressure to support a solution of
sorts.

If Republicans do prove divided over what should be done to keep millions
from losing coverage and to prevent insurance markets from melting down
across the country, it will be interesting to see if Clinton tries to use
the post-King battle to exacerbate those divisions.

*Hillary Clinton finally figured out how to talk about being a woman in
presidential politics
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/15/hillary-clinton-finally-figured-out-how-to-talk-about-being-a-woman-in-presidential-politics/>
// Chris Cillizza – June 15, 2015 *

Here's Hillary Clinton in an interview Sunday with the Des Moines
Register's Jennifer Jacobs: "I expect to be judged on my merits, and the
historic nature of my candidacy is one of the merits that I hope people
take into account."

That's a sentence she never dared utter during her 2008 campaign when her
gender -- and her historic chance to be the first woman to be the
presidential nominee of either party -- seemed to be swept under the rug by
a deeply misguided campaign strategy.

The idea -- I guess -- was that if Clinton put her gender at the forefront
of the campaign, voters (especially male voters) would wonder if she was
"up" to the job. (Whatever the heck that means.) That judgment, blamed on
strategist Mark Penn but ultimately followed by Hillary, led to a
Democratic primary campaign in which she was cast as the status quo while
then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois was the change agent. And you know how
that turned out.

What's amazing about that decision was that as far back as 2007, Clinton's
most appealing trait to voters was the fact that she would have been the
first woman ever elected president; in Gallup polling at the time, 22
percent said the historic nature of her candidacy was the single most
appealing part of her bid -- more than double the share who named any other
character trait.

Seven years later, the story was the same. Roughly one in five voters (18
percent) told Gallup in 2014 that Clinton's potential status as the first
female president was the most attractive trait about her. As Gallup's Frank
Newport wrote at the time:

Clearly Clinton's "unique selling proposition" is that she would be the
first woman president. Nearly one in five Americans mention this historic
possibility as a positive, including 22% of women, 27% of 18- to
29-year-olds, and 30% of Democrats.

Regardless of why they screwed it up last time, this version of the Clinton
campaign appears to have figured out what had been staring them directly in
the face for the last seven-plus years. From the emphasis on her status as
a grandmother to the centrality of her own mother's struggles in her
kickoff speech, Clinton is putting her gender at the core of this campaign.

That's of critical import not solely because it shows she learned the right
lessons from the 2008 campaign but also because her gender (and the
historic nature of her candidacy) provides Clinton her best possible
response to the already underway Republican attack that she represents the
past.

That hit has the potential to do severe damage to Clinton's chances of
winning the White House next November. As we've written before in this
space, presidential elections are almost always about the future and the
candidate best able to present himself or herself as the right choice to
lead the country into that future. Hillary's problem is that so much of who
she is -- and so much of the strengths she carries as a candidate -- are
rooted in the past. If and when she, at 67 and having spent the last two
decades in the national spotlight, has to run against someone like Marco
Rubio (age 43), it is going to be a real challenge for her to win the
"future vs. past" argument.

Unless, that is, Clinton can show voters how electing her would be the
biggest change the presidency has ever seen: After 43 men in the job, she
would be the first woman.

"I may not be the youngest candidate in this race," Clinton said in her
(re)announcement speech on Saturday in New York. "But I will be the
youngest woman president in the history of the United States! And the first
grandmother as well."

That's the exact right message for Clinton. It only took most of the past
decade for her to find it.

*Hillary Clinton balancing on the thin line between party and president
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-balancing-on-the-thin-line-between-party-and-president/2015/06/15/cd23714a-136d-11e5-8457-4b431bf7ed4c_story.html>
// WaPo // Dan Balz – June 15, 2015 *

The Sunday dust-up over trade between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was a clash waiting to happen — and a revealing look
at how the two candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination are
likely to be circling one another in the coming months.

Where Sanders stands on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement has
long been clear. He is plainly and simply against it. Clinton’s current
position is ambiguous. She is skeptical but wants to see a completed
agreement before she’ll decided whether it’s good or bad.

Where Sanders stands on giving the president fast-track authority also has
been clear. He opposes it, as he opposes the trade deal itself. Where
Clinton stands on that is no more clear after her Sunday comments.

She had more to say on Sunday than she’s said before. She has allied
herself with Democrats who currently oppose the treaty without committing
herself to oppose the treaty herself. Ultimately, she could end up standing
with President Obama, who has been abandoned by his own party on this, or
with those who want to sink the deal.

Clinton had remained silent on trade as long as she could, probably longer.
By claiming, correctly, that there was not a deal to support or oppose, she
was looking for the maximum space to let the politics of the issue ripen or
perhaps for the divisions within her party to lessen in some way.

When the fast-track legislation began to make its way through Congress, she
was unwilling to say where she stood. Her advisers repeatedly said that
fast-track was merely a process issue, not a substantive one, something for
Congress to deal with but not one that she needed to weigh in on. The big
issue, they said, was the trade agreement itself and that was still in
negotiations.

Clinton had promoted an Asian trade deal as secretary of state — or at
least the idea of it. She saw merit in trying to negotiate such a pact as
part of the larger U.S. policy under Obama of paying more attention than
previous administrations to the challenges of the rising power of China and
the opportunities of deepening alliances with other Asian nations.

And backing free trade agreements runs in the family. Former president Bill
Clinton had successfully campaigned for and won approval of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) despite strong opposition within his
party.

As the political wars over the trade deal heated up, Clinton found what she
thought a safe political haven in the space between concept and execution,
between the meritorious idea of the 12-nation TPP and the specific details
contained in a final agreement. Until those details were known — and it’s
not clear when the administration will complete the negotiations — she felt
comfortable reserving her options.

Two things intruded on that safe haven. One was the arrival of Sanders as
an energized presidential candidate with a following on the left of the
Democratic Party. He’s not the only one among Clinton’s opponents who wants
to sink the trade deal. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley has the
same position. But Sanders is getting the attention and drawing the crowds.
His increasingly pointed criticism of Clinton has made her posture far less
tenable.

Before he returned to Iowa for a weekend of campaigning, Sanders appeared
at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. He was asked to
offer criticisms of Clinton. He prefaced his answer by saying that, while
he liked and respected Clinton, the two had serious disagreements that
should be debated during the campaign.

“You know my view on the TPP,” he said. “Trade policies have been
disastrous. Secretary Clinton, if she’s against this, we need her to speak
out. Right now. Right now. And I don’t understand how any candidate,
Democrat, Republican, is not speaking out on that issue.”

There was more, however, from Clinton’s positions on the Keystone XL
pipeline and the USA Patriot Act to his attacks on what he calls “the
billionaire class” and what her policies are to deal with them. “What is
the secretary’s position?” he asked about each.

The other big change was the rebellion by House Democrats on Friday against
the pact, a vote that has vastly complicated the administration’s hopes of
winning approval for fast-track authority and puts the entire trade deal in
jeopardy.

When Clinton showed up in Des Moines on Sunday, she was forced by events
and circumstances to take up the issue. What she did was tie herself to
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democrats in the
House. She urged Obama to listen to the concerns of Pelosi and others and
use them as leverage in the negotiations over the trade agreement. As
before, she said if the ultimate agreement falls short of her measuring
sticks, she would oppose it.

Clinton is in a unique position. If she were to come out against the TPP
now, it’s likely that her opposition would scuttle it. Obama probably could
not overcome the combined opposition from organized labor, many Democratic
elected officials and his former secretary of state. But supporting it even
in general terms provides a bigger opening for Sanders and others on the
left.

Clinton isn’t prepared to do either, at least not yet. At some point, she
will have to signal up or down. For now she is trying to bridge the divide
in her party, and the strains are showing.

*Why Hillary is asking America to see her candidacy as ‘historic’
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/06/15/why-hillary-is-asking-america-to-see-her-candidacy-as-historic/http:/www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/06/15/why-hillary-is-asking-america-to-see-her-candidacy-as-historic/>
// WaPo // Greg Sargent – June 15, 2015 *

In her presidential campaign kick-off speech and in a subsequent interview
with Iowa media, Hillary Clinton leaned pretty hard into the notion that
electing her president would represent a major historic breakthrough.
Obviously this is about galvanizing female and younger voters who might be
energized by the prospect of being swept up in a movement that elects the
first female president.

But there may be another strategic goal here. The repeated emphasis on the
historical nature of her candidacy could also be intended as a shield
against seemingly unrelated GOP attacks that could prove potent: Republican
suggestions that her age, generation and status as wife of a former
president render her a candidate of the past, in contrast to the younger
GOP White House hopefuls.

Here’s Clinton, in an interview with the Des Moines Register:

Clinton said just the fact that she’s running “is also very historic.”

“I expect to be judged on my merits,” she said, “and the historic nature of
my candidacy is one of the merits that I hope people take into account.”

In her speech on Saturday, Clinton stressed that her mother had been born
before women had the right to vote, adding:

“I may not be the youngest candidate in this race. But I will be the
youngest woman President in the history of the United States! And the first
grandmother as well. And one additional advantage: You’re won’t see my hair
turn white in the White House. I’ve been coloring it for years!”

I don’t have any inside confirmation of this. But it probably isn’t an
accident that she noted that she’d be the first female president as a
direct response to the fact that other candidates running for the White
House are younger than she is.

That’s what the argument will be, either explicitly or not: Even if it’s
true that Clinton comes from an older generation of politicians than some
of her Republican and Democratic rivals, the election of a female president
itself represents change.

Celinda Lake, a pollster who is widely respected among Democrats, tells me
that focus groups she has conducted show this has the potential to be an
effective rebuttal — particularly among the voter groups it appears
intended for.

“The two cohorts who feel most strongly that it’s time for a woman
president, and appreciate the historical nature of this, are baby boomer
females and their millennial daughters,” says Lake, who has been doing
research for the non-partisan Barbara Lee Family Foundation for years on
how voters perceive female candidates for executive office.

“We’ve learned that the inherent idea that this would be the first woman
president in and of itself communicates ‘change’ to people,” Lake says.

The question of which candidates — and which party — represent the future
and which represent the past is already a major flashpoint in the race. In
her speech, Clinton said even the younger GOP candidates were in thrall to
a hidebound vision, arguing that “they’re all singing the same old song – a
song called ‘Yesterday.'” Republicans have stressed that Clinton is a
leader of the past who would represent a third term of Obama.

In response to Clinton’s speech, Marco Rubio released a video mocking
Clinton’s reference to the Beatles song, arguing that America cannot author
the next chapter in its history “by going back to the leaders and the ideas
of the past.” Scott Walker has been sounding a similar generational note
(one that also appears aimed at Jeb Bush). And in the Democratic Primary,
Martin O’Malley has been suggesting he can speak to a younger generation of
Democratic voters more effectively than Clinton can.

As Chris Cillizza notes, many of Clinton’s strengths as a candidate are
rooted in the past. But this could be undercut as a negative if voters
appreciate how much historic ground would be broken by electing her.

Or, to expand on that a bit, if electing a female president inherently
breaks new ground, that itself might put a forward-looking gloss on her
experience, turning her longevity on the political scene into an undiluted
reason to vote for her, Lake suggests.

“The Republicans are trying to exploit age and health and a ‘third Obama
term’ and a ‘third Clinton term’ to say, ‘more of the same,'” Lake says.
“People think they voted for change in Obama, but he wasn’t able to deliver
change. So you need more experience to deliver change. She represents
change and the ability to deliver on it.”

Of course, this by itself is hardly enough, Lake adds: “It’s got to be
followed up by a specific vision for the economy, one that includes women
and men.” Which might explain why, in her speech, she repeatedly described
economic proposals that might disproportionately benefit women — such as
pay equity, a minimum wage hike, and universal pre-kindergarten — as
“family” issues.

“‘Family first’ is the strongest economic theme out there right now,” Lake
says. “She’s running as a champion of making the economy work for families.
A woman can be a very credible voice of change on that message.”

*Bill Clinton’s claim that Hillary did economic diplomacy because there was
no Commerce Secretary
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/15/bill-clintons-claim-that-hillary-did-economic-diplomacy-because-there-was-no-commerce-secretary/>
// WaPo // Glenn Kessler – June 15, 2015 *

“She [Hillary Clinton] believed that part of the job as secretary of state
was to advance America’s economic interests around the world. And, for much
of the time she was secretary, for a number of complex reasons, we didn’t
have [a] commerce secretary. And now we have got Penny Pritzker. And she’s
very vigorous and very good, I think. But we didn’t have one. And so, if
she hadn’t been doing this economic diplomacy work, nobody would have been
doing it.”

— Former President Bill Clinton, interviewed on CNN’s “State of the Union,”
June 14, 2015

Former president Clinton, in rebutting accusations that Hillary Clinton
helped donors to the Clinton Foundation while serving as secretary of
state, made an interesting point on one of the Sunday politics shows — that
she had to engage in “economic diplomacy” because “much of time she was
secretary,” there was no Commerce Secretary.

This made little sense to us, and it’s certainly easy to check. Was there
such a gap in Commerce leadership that it was left to Clinton to conduct
the administration’s economic diplomacy?

The Facts

The Commerce Department is sometimes described as the broom closet of the
federal bureaucracy, in that it contains a number of unrelated agencies,
such as the Census Bureau, the National Weather Service, the Patent and
Trademark office, the Economic Development Administration, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, and so forth. The notion
that the commerce secretary was some sort of globe-trotting promoter of
American industry only began to take hold in Clinton’s administration, when
Ron Brown became commerce secretary.

The Commerce Secretary, in the department’s mission statement, “serves as
the voice of U.S. business within the President’s Cabinet.” Commerce
Department Order 1-1 says “the historic mission of the Department is ‘to
foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic commerce’ of the
United States.”

Meanwhile, the State Department has an economics unit and also is quite
involved in international economic issues; the official duties of the
Secretary of State includes “promotes beneficial economic intercourse
between the United States and other countries.”

International economics is represented in the department at the level of
undersecretary of state. The undersecretary of state is expected to engage
in economic diplomacy, charged with “implementing economic growth, energy,
agricultural, oceans, environmental, and science and technology policies,”
the department’s Web site says. The State Department, for instance, is the
lead agency on the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) conference.

Of course, the real heavy lifting on international economic matters is done
by the Treasury Secretary–and international trade negotiations are handled
by the U.S. Trade Representative. Former Treasury Secretary Timothy
Geithner might be surprised to learn that if Hillary Clinton “hadn’t been
doing this economic diplomacy work, nobody would have been doing it,” as
her husband put it.

In President Obama’s first term, there were two commerce secretaries:

Gary F. Locke, former governor of Washington, who served from March 26,
2009, to August 1, 2011, when he became ambassador to China.

John E. Byson, former business executive, who served from Oct. 21, 2011, to
June 21, 2012, when he resigned for health reasons. (He took a medical
leave of absence starting June 11.)

In between Locke and Byson, Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank served as acting
secretary, a role she filled after Byson’s departure as well. Penny Prizker
became secretary on June 26, 2013, about four months after Clinton stepped
down.

Clinton was secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009, to Feb. 1, 2013 —
essentially 48 months.  As we have shown, there was a confirmed commerce
secretary for all but 12 months of that period. So that’s a ratio of 3 to 1
when a commerce secretary was in office at the same time as Clinton.

Byson may not have had as much of chance to have an impact, but by most
accounts Locke did a pretty good job. Here’s what Clinton said when she
swore him in as ambassador to China:

“He helped improve the lives of the people of Washington and of the United
States. He was a great job creator in Washington during two national
recessions. He has helped to lead our efforts to increase U.S. exports. He
has brought the Census in on time and under budget, an unheard of
accomplishment. He’s brought comprehensive patent reform legislation closer
to passage than it has in decades.”

Representatives of former president Clinton declined to provide an
on-the-record response.

The Pinocchio Test

Former President Clinton exaggerated when he claimed that for “much of the
time she was secretary,” there was no commerce secretary. For three out of
the four years, there was a Senate-confirmed commerce secretary sitting
near Hillary Clinton at Cabinet meetings. Moreover, the secretary of state
is supposed to engage in economic diplomacy, whether or not there is a
commerce secretary.

Yes, there was some turnover in the leadership of the commerce department.
But Clinton’s assertion that if not for Hillary Clinton, “nobody would have
been doing” economic diplomacy is quite a stretch, given the dominant role
of the Treasury Secretary on international economic issues. That comment
tipped this rating toward Three Pinocchios.

*Clinton says her wealth is 'secondary' concern for voters
<http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-distances-herself-obama-trade-070623558--election.html>
// AP // Lisa Lerer – June 15, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton countered criticism that her personal wealth
undermines a populist campaign message focused on the economic problems of
everyday Americans, saying on Monday that her family fortune is "secondary"
to most voters.

"I don't think Americans are against success," she told reporters in
Concord, New Hampshire. "Those of us who do have opportunities ought to be
doing more to help other people do the same."

Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have made hundreds
of millions of dollars since leaving the White House from paid speeches— a
fortune that even she has struggled to explain.

Last year, she stumbled into a storm of political criticism after saying
her family was "dead broke" at the end of her husband's second term. Though
in deep debt due to legal fees from various controversies, Clinton quickly
moved the couple into the top 1 percent with her book sales and speaking
fees.

Last month, the couple reported that they earned more than $30 million in
speaking fees and book royalties since January 2014.

In New Hampshire on Monday, Clinton seemed more comfortable acknowledging
her wealth, describing her family as "blessed." But she also highlighted
her middle class roots, pointing out that both she and her husband had
federal college loans to pay off.

"What (voters) are interested in is who's going to fight for them," she
said. "I want everybody to have the same opportunities that I had and my
husband had."

While the opening days of her campaign have stressed Clinton's family and
career history, her personal fortune has gone largely unmentioned.

Her remarks on Monday came in the midst of a campaign launch focused on her
personal biography, particularly her mother's impoverished upbringing, as a
way of reintroducing one of the country's best known political figures as a
fighter for struggling families left behind by the economic recovery.

On Monday, she focused the first major policy proposal of her campaign on
universal pre-K education — an issue championed both by liberal voices in
her party, as well as by more conservative governors in Republican-led
states, including Texas.

Speaking to parents and children at a YMCA, she promised that as president
she would make "high quality preschool" available for all 4-year-old
children in the next decade, double federal money for early Head Start
programs, and implement a tax cut to help parents with the costs of raising
children under age 3.

That proposal is one item on a wish-list of progressive policies Clinton
has backed over the past three days, as part of her vision of a more
"inclusive economy."

"Prosperity cannot be just for CEOs and hedge fund managers," she told
hundreds of supporters Monday in a Concord barn.

Those Wall Street financiers include members of her immediate family.

Her son-in-law Marc Mezvinsky has leveraged family ties to raise money from
investors for his hedge fund. Her daughter, Chelsea, also worked at a hedge
fund founded by a major Clinton campaign donor.

Clinton was paid to speak to financial firms such as Deutsche Bank and
Ameriprise Financial. One of her final paid speeches was delivered in March
to eBay, which paid her $315,000, records show.

Republicans have spent months questioning how the Clinton family has
leveraged political connections into personal cash— criticism that may be
having some impact on early perceptions of her candidacy.

About 47 percent of Americans said Clinton cares about people like them in
a CNN/ORC poll released earlier this month, down from 53 percent in the
same poll last summer. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released the same
day found a slight decline in the past year on a similar question, with 49
percent saying Clinton "understands the problems of people like you" and 46
percent saying she doesn't.

Republicans are flipping charges successfully leveled against their party
in the last presidential race. In 2012, Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the
wealthy co-founder of private equity firm Bain Capital LLC, found his
presidential bid undermined by Democratic attack ads painting him as a
heartless plutocrat.

"Hillary Clinton has to expect the same kind of treatment," Romney said
Monday, in an interview on MSNBC. "How could she get out there and sell a
populist message when she makes in one hour a multiple of what the average
American will make in a year?"

*Clinton campaign denies access to pool reporter
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/clinton-campaign-denies-access-to-pool-reporter-208839.html>
// Politico // Dylan Byers – June 15, 2015 *

The Hillary Clinton campaign denied access to the print pool reporter on
Monday, reigniting reporters' longstanding concerns about the campaign's
commitment to running an open and transparent campaign.

David Martosko, the U.S. political editor for London's Daily Mail, reported
showing up at the campaign's breakfast stop in New Hampshire only to be
told that he would not be allowed to pool the day's events. Pool reporters
are responsible for sending reports from the trail to the rest of the press
corps.

"Your pooler showed up at the Puritan Backroom in Manchester on a rainy New
Hampshire morning at 7:45 and was greeted in the parking lot by Meredith
Thatcher, a press staffer with the New Hampshire Democratic Party. Thatcher
told your pooler that he wasn’t the approved print pool reporter for
today’s pooled events," Martosko reported in his first pool report. (Note:
Thatcher is actually a press staffer for "Hillary for New Hampshire," not
the state's Democratic Party.)

"Asked to call her boss, Harrell Kirstein, she did so and then reported:
'So I'm afraid it's a no. You're not on the list.' She said [campaign press
secretary] Nick Merrill should be phoned with questions," Martosko
continued. "Asked if the print pooler was being prohibited from getting on
either of the pool vans, Thatcher replied: 'I'm afraid that's right.' Asked
why, she responded: 'All I know is what Harrell has told me. I got an email
saying the print pooler would be changed for today. Sorry.'"

Denied a ride in the pool van, Martosko told Thatcher that he would drive
to the first campaign stop in Rochester on his own, "in the hope that
things would be sorted out during the 75-minute drive."

Reached via email, Martosko declined to comment. He apologized for any
typos, noting, "I'm dictating to phone as I drive." Daily Mail spokesperson
Sean Walsh said the organization is "seeking an explanation from the
Clinton campaign as to why this occurred as Mr. Martosko was scheduled to
be the designated print pool reporter in New Hampshire this morning."

Merrill, the campaign's traveling press secretary, did not respond to a
request for comment. However, he did provide an additional explanation to
Martosko, which Martosko relayed in a report on The Daily Mail's website:

Merrill said that the campaign’s position is that the Daily Mail does not
qualify because it has not yet been added to the White House’s regular
print pool – something Martosko informed him was a timing issue, not a
White House choice, since Francesca Chambers, the Mail's White House
correspondent, has been vetted and has a hard pass. ... 'We’re just trying
to follow the same process and system the White House has,' said Merrill.
... Merrill then insisted that the decision had 'nothing to do' with the
campaign considering the Daily Mail foreign press. ... 'We don’t consider
you foreign press,' he said.  ... Merrill then added; 'This isn’t about
you. It’s about a larger...' and did not continue his sentence. ... Merrill
later insisted that his reasons were not based on the foreign-press
question, but that the campaign simply wanted a day to 'have a
conversation' about how to proceed.

UPDATE (9:50 a.m.): Merrill emailed:

"We want a happy press corps as much as the press corps does. And we work
very hard to achieve that in tandem with them.  It's a long campaign, and
we are going to do our best to find equilibrium and best accommodate
interest from as many news outlets as possible, given the space limitations
of our events."

UPDATE (11:01 a.m.): Martosko filed the following pool report:

After some confusion about the location of the morning's early childhood
education summit in Rochester, NH, your pooled determined that it was at
the YMCA of Strafford County and arrived at about 10:20. ... Secret Service
at the main entrance refused to let your pooler in and advised to go in
through another entrance near a playground. ... Visiting that doorway,
another agent asked for your pooler’s name and outlet, to which the pool
replied “David Martosko with The Daily Mail.” A voice from behind the door,
whom your pool later learned was the head of Mrs. Clinton's Secret Service
detail, was heard saying “Oh. No.”  ... The first agent sent your pooler
back to the front door, advising that the head of the detail insisted. At
the front door again, your pooler was asked to wait while the first agent
on duty checked to see if the pool would be admitted. ... The answer: "No.
You can't come in."

Pooler was advised by that Secret Service agent that he had contacted
someone “with the campaign” named “Pollard,” who personally said no, your
pooler could not come in. It’s unclear who Pollard is. ... Your pooler
asked if he could come inside to use the restroom. The Secret Service agent
advised that the area had been swept already, so he should “hit the woods.”
... Pool saw a WMUR-TV truck outside and confirmed with a reporter from a
competing local station that there were indeed pool journalist inside from
photo and video. ... With a light rain falling, your pooler went back to
his rental car to file this report, after counting about 210 cars in the
parking lots and on the street. ... Both press pool vans from Manchester
were visible outside, along with the now-famous black “Scooby” van and a
contingent of New Hampshire state trooper vehicles.

*Hillary Clinton’s super PAC nabs 2 veteran pollsters
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-super-pac-priorities-usa-pollsters-119027.html>
// Politico // Annie Karni – June 15, 2015 *

Priorities USA Action, the Democratic super PAC backing Hillary Clinton’s
campaign, has hired two pollsters: Jefrey Pollock, founding partner and
president of Global Strategy Group, and Geoff Garin, who oversaw polling on
Clinton’s 2008 campaign after pollster Mark Penn was pushed out.

Both pollsters worked for Priorities in 2012, when the super PAC supported
Obama’s reelection campaign. Pollock’s firm also worked on some of the few
Democratic wins in the 2014 midterm elections, including New York Gov.
Andrew Cuomo’s reelection campaign and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy’s
reelection campaign.

“We have the key pieces in place that will help shape the 2016 landscape
and define the choice Americans will make on Election Day,” Guy Cecil,
Priorities’ chief strategist, said in a statement. “We’re also proud to
have cornered the market on pollsters with unique ways to spell Jeff.”

The pollsters have been working with Priorities and participating in
conference calls for a few months. Their hiring was confirmed to POLITICO
after a shakeup of the super PAC’s leadership.

In May, Cecil, who came in to manage Clinton’s 2008 campaign after a
shakeup, took over from Obama holdover Jim Messina.

And last month, Anne Caprara joined the PAC from Emily’s List, which works
to elect pro-choice Democratic women to office. She replaced executive
director Buffy Wicks, who was recruited by the Clinton campaign for a
senior level job. Amid the restructuring, longtime Clinton defender David
Brock rejoined the board after resigning last February because of internal
disputes.

*Some of Hillary Clinton’s Libya emails said to be withheld from Benghazi
Committee
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-libya-emails-withheld-benghazi-committee-119037.html#ixzz3dBD382rG>
// Politico // Rachel Bade – June 15, 2015 *

House GOP Benghazi investigators have discovered additional Libya
communications between Sidney Blumenthal and former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, a congressional source told POLITICO — suggesting that
either the State Department or the 2016 Democratic presidential contender
withheld correspondence the panel had subpoenaed.

Blumenthal — a longtime Clinton family friend who is set to testify before
the committee behind closed doors Tuesday morning — recently gave the House
Select Committee on Benghazi his Libya-related emails after the panel had
quietly subpoenaed them.

Story Continued Below

Among those were several emails concerning Libya between Blumenthal and
Clinton that had not been previously turned over by State. Clinton has said
she gave all her work-related correspondence, kept on her personal email
server, to the State Department. State was then tasked with going through
the emails and giving the panel relevant correspondence. Department
officials turned up about 300 emails related to Benghazi.

The source did not know whether Clinton had turned the emails over to State
and State did not provide them, or whether Clinton failed to hand over the
correspondence.

A State Department spokesman downplayed the discovery and said the agency
gave the panel what it asked for.

“The Department is working diligently to publish to its public website all
of the emails received from former Secretary Clinton through the FOIA
process,” Alec Gerlach said in a statement. “We provided the Committee with
a subset of documents that matched its request and will continue to work
with them going forward. Secretary Kerry has been clear that the State
Department will be both transparent and thorough in its obligations to the
public on this matter.”

Blumenthal’s attorney, James Cole, and Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall,
did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The committee has subpoenaed Clinton’s Libya-related emails. But because
she used a personal server, her lawyer decided which emails constituted
“official” communications and provided them to the State Department before
they were released to the committee and publicly.

*Hillary Clinton dismisses trade authority as ‘process issue’
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-trade-deal-process-issue-119020.html>
// Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti – June 15, 2015 *

While the political world’s attention was focused on Jeb Bush’s
presidential announcement 1,500 miles to the south in Miami, Hillary
Clinton brought her stump speech to New Hampshire and refused to be pinned
down on her views of a trade deal that has raised progressives’ ire.

Clinton’s one-day swing through this state that buoyed her politically in
2008 is part of the Democratic front-runner’s week-long tour of the four
early-voting states following her campaign’s first large rally in New York
City on Saturday.

The former secretary of state spoke at a campaign launch party at a rainy
apple orchard here, after holding a meeting at a YMCA in Rochester, N.H.

After delivering a version of her standard stump speech in Concord, Clinton
held a rare 18-minute news conference. She again danced around the trade
issue and tried to minimize the importance of her views about whether
President Barack Obama should have fast-track authority to negotiate trade
pacts.

“The TPA is a process issue. The issue for me is what’s in the deal” she
said. “I think this is a chance to use this leverage so that the deal does
become one that more Americans and members of Congress can vote for.”

“I believe that you take whatever happens to you in a negotiation, and you
leverage it,” she said minutes later when pressed again on the topic.

Democratic rival Martin O’Malley quickly seized on what he called Clinton’s
political dodge on the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact, which he and
progressives in Congress have come out strongly against.

“For the thousands of American workers whose jobs are on the line with TPP,
fast track is not a ‘process’ issue, it’s a straightforward vote on their
future and their livelihood,” O’Malley aide Lis Smith said in a statement.

Just hours earlier, Clinton unveiled one of the first detailed policy
proposals of her campaign, calling for universal preschool and new federal
funding for the states that expand their preschool programs for low- and
medium-income families.

New Hampshire, the second-voting state that has been politically kind to
both Clinton and her husband in the past, was one of six states that did
not provide any funding for preschool in the last fiscal year.

Clinton’s proposal would aim to provide high-quality preschool access to
all 4-year-olds within the next decade, and the former secretary of state
also proposed doubling investment in the Early Head Start and Early Head
Start-Child Care programs.

During her speech in Concord, Clinton also defended the records of both her
husband Bill Clinton and Obama, while criticizing Republicans.

“The records of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama of cleaning up the messes the
inherited is something that speaks to Democratic values, and it’s something
that is historically factual. The other side is coming back with more of
the same,” she said.

Clinton also repeated her now-familiar calls to rid politics of
unaccountable money, to make voting easier for young citizens and
minorities, and to lessen the debt burden on students.

Clinton’s appearance came as Bush, the son of one president and the brother
of another, was launching his much-anticipated campaign. But she demurred
when asked to provide Bush advice on running a campaign that distinguishes
himself from his family name.

“That’s a very tempting question to answer,” she said, “But I won’t.”

*Clinton campaign kicks off amid boiling press frustrations
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/clinton-campaign-kicks-off-amid-boiling-press-frustrations-208855.html>
// Politico // Dylan Byers – June 15, 2015 *

Less than 48 hours out from its formal launch, the Hillary Clinton campaign
has twice managed to anger the traveling press corps by denying access to
the candidate.

Monday's dust-up, in which the print pool reporter was denied access for
ambiguous reasons, came just one day after the campaign had angered
reporters by keeping them away from Clinton's impromptu exchange with local
New Hampshire residents.

On Sunday evening, the pool reportedly "threw a fit" after it missed an
exchange between Clinton and residents of Burlington, Iowa, outside a
private residence where the candidate had been holding a
question-and-answer session with voters.

"The pool was kept in the backyard, and did not get to see Clinton walk out
of the event and greet a group of neighbors who were across the street,"
The Boston Globe's Annie Linskey wrote in her pool report. "Neighbors later
confirmed this occurred. Also, a local CBS news camera caught the exchange."

"The pool threw a fit when she heard Clinton had left the house," Linskey
wrote. "Your pooler got outside fast enough to see Clinton drive away."

"NOTE FOR FUTURE HOUSE PARTIES," Linksey added. "POOL MUST be held in FRONT
of the event, [not] in the back."

Thirteen hours later, pool reporter David Martosko, of The Daily Mail,
showed up at the campaign's breakfast stop in New Hampshire and was told by
one of the campaign's local press staffers that he would not be allowed to
pool the day's events. Martosko decided to follow Clinton to her first
campaign stop anyway, "in the hope that things would be sorted out during
the 75-minute drive." (See the full details on that in our last post.)

Nick Merrill, the Clinton campaign's traveling press secretary, has yet to
provide a clear explanation regarding the restriction. Martosko was
initially informed by the state staffer that he was not allowed on because
he works for a non-U.S. publication, though Merrill has stressed that the
campaign does not consider Martosko foreign press.

In a statement Monday, he said only that the campaign wants "a happy press
corps as much as the press corps does. And we work very hard to achieve
that in tandem with them. It's a long campaign, and we are going to do our
best to find equilibrium and best accommodate interest from as many news
outlets as possible, given the space limitations of our events."

Whatever the case, the back-to-back dustups are drawing negative attention
to a campaign already suffering from the perception that it has avoided or
restricted the press wherever possible. In the two months leading up to
Saturday's launch, Clinton did not grant members of the press a single
interview.

Finally, on Sunday, Clinton sat down with Iowa journalists Jennifer Jacobs
(of the Des Moines Register) and Kay Henderson (of Radio Iowa) for her
first interviews of the campaign.

*Hillary Clinton = Jeb Bush?
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-similarities-119036.html#ixzz3dBPgHtxu>
// Politico // Annie Karni & Gabriel Debenedetti – June 15, 2015 *

One candidate vowed to “ban discrimination against LGBT Americans” and
“make preschool and quality childcare available to every child in America.”
The other pledged to “take Washington … out of the business of causing
problems” and “get back on the side of free enterprise and free people.”
She spoke in lists and bullet points; he stuck to broad brushstrokes.

While their visions for America couldn’t be more different, the dueling
kickoff rallies of Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush — coming just 52 hours
apart after years of anticipation in both parties — served to underscore a
striking fact: Their political problems are remarkably similar.

“Both are the darlings of their respective party’s elites, unequaled
fundraisers, and members of the nation’s political oligarchy,” noted
Democratic strategist Hank Scheinkopf, who in the past has advised Bill
Clinton.

“Both, if they are the nominees of their respective parties, need to win
the same states. And while their rivals in both parties are using either
center-right or center-left populist rhetoric, they have both shown
propensity to cleave for life to the center.”

Then there’s the dynastic factor. A central struggle for both is escaping
their famous families — and their political operations have accordingly
marketed the candidates around their first names only: Clinton’s logo is a
squat blue “H” pierced by a red arrow, while Bush’s is a big red “Jeb”
punctuated by an exclamation point.

And while neither has created much distance from his or her family, both
have inched away from their kins’ policy legacies. Hillary Clinton proposed
effectively undoing some of Bill Clinton’s work on criminal justice, and
Jeb Bush has struggled to answer questions about whether he would follow
George W. Bush’s path in Iraq.

Clinton, 67, and Bush, 62, also face questions about their age,
particularly from rivals Martin O’Malley, 52, and Marco Rubio, 44,
respectively, who’ve made explicitly generational pitches. And while both
campaigns will be run by well-respected 30-something party operatives
instead of the legions of family loyalists on offer — Robby Mook for
Clinton and Danny Diaz for Bush — the candidates themselves are shaking off
the rust that comes from not having run full-scale political operations in
years — eight for Clinton, 14 for Bush.

And rust isn’t the only issue. Clinton, for all her vast experience in the
public eye, has won just two elections in her life: her 2000 New York
Senate race against Republican patsy Rick Lazio, and her easy re-election
in 2006; Bush hasn’t faced a truly tough opponent since his Florida
gubernatorial loss in 1994. So as they try to get back into proverbial
fighting shape by losing weight, there’s the lingering question of whether
either was truly ever much of a candidate at all.

Their opponents employ many of the same tactics, too. As Clinton fends off
Bernie Sanders’ attacks on her trade contortions and Martin O’Malley digs
at her Wall Street ties, Jeb will be getting blasted daily by the likes of
Ted Cruz and Rand Paul on immigration and the Common Core.

All that aside, one major reality distinguishes these two would-be general
election foes: Bush is far from the dominating front-runner, while Clinton
faces no serious threat.

Hillary Clinton dismisses trade authority as 'process issue'

“On the Republican side, you have a 19-person field, ten of them who have a
plausible path to get nominated,” said Democratic strategist and lobbyist
Steve Elmendorf, who advised Clinton’s 2008 campaign. “You have a
four-person field on the Democratic side, and the challenge for the other
three people running is that they have to make the case for how they get to
the White House.”

As for the early primary states, “she has the establishment locked down” in
New Hampshire far more than Jeb Bush does there, noted David Carney, a
local Republican strategist. “He’ll never be in a position like Hillary
where the party establishment is all locked up for him.”

While Clinton has been polling around 60 percent nationally, far ahead of
any Democratic competitor, Bush has been stuck around 10 percent. He’s a
member of the Republican field’s top tier — along with Rubio and Scott
Walker — but seven candidates, including those three, sit between 8 and 13
percent in the Huffington Post Pollster average of national polls, and Bush
faces a serious uphill struggle in Iowa, where he’ll be lucky to come in
third.

Still, Bush has one more thing in common with Clinton that could give him
an edge: money, and lots of it.

“They both have deep, deep, deep networks that they’ve inherited at some
level, or built on their own,” explained one Clinton ally on Wall Street,
noting that their fundraising prowess may be the strongest parallel of all.

While Bush has been focused on raising large amounts of money for his
supportive super PAC, Clinton has been raising cash in smaller increments
for her campaign itself. They each delayed their formal kickoffs to spent
time raising the considerable amounts of money they would need to claim the
White House, and in some cases their super PACs have even thought about
targeting the same Wall Street-adjacent donors, like former New York City
mayor Michael Bloomberg.

They share close ties to the financial industry — Bush because of his work
at Lehman Brothers and Barclay’s and Clinton because of her time as a
senator from New York — and both expected to raise well over $1 billion
between their campaigns and super PACs should they become the nominees.
Bush’s super PAC is expected to bring in around $100 million by the end of
May, and Clinton is hoping to raise that much for her campaign in 2015
alone. Their nearest rivals will likely raise mere fractions of those
amounts.

“It’s hard for the other candidates,” said the New York Democrat. “But if
you’re Hillary or Jeb at this stage, it’s pretty easy money.”

*Hillary Clinton Proposes More Funding for Early Childhood Education
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-15/hillary-clinton-proposes-more-funding-for-early-childhood-education>
// Bloomberg News // Jennifer Epstein – June 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton embraced her new role as a grandmother and her longer-term
one as a child advocate on Monday, offering up proposals on early childhood
education including doubling funding for Head Start.

It was Clinton's first set of policy proposals kicking off a summer of
planned rollouts. Speaking at a YMCA in Rochester, N.H., Clinton revealed
some details of the approach she’d take if elected, including the goal of
ensuring that “in the next 10 years every 4-year-old has access to
high-quality preschool.”

Clinton, who formally launched her campaign for the Democratic presidential
nomination on Saturday, said she hopes to double funding for Head Start and
for the early Head Start grant program, and supports a middle-class tax cut
“that can go toward helping parents pay for quality child care.”

“Republicans aren’t just missing the boat on early childhood education,
they’re trying to sink it.”

Republicans, she said, have taken the wrong approach in supporting tax
breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers while cutting funding for
programs that support young children.

“Republicans aren’t just missing the boat on early childhood education,
they’re trying to sink it,” she said. “Republicans took care of those at
the top and went after the kids.”

After getting a question from a grandmother who is taking care of her young
grandchildren, who she said would have otherwise been taken into the
state’s custody “because of addiction," Clinton added to her position,
saying she would make sure to "extend every program, every tax break,
everything we do to people who are taking care of kids.”

The former secretary of state and first lady got emotional as she heard
from the woman, who described her situation as “painful” and said she has
half a dozen friends parenting their grandchildren.

“It is heartbreaking,” Clinton said, mentioning the stories of drug
addiction she said she’s heard at every stop along the campaign trail over
the past two months. “I think you’re very brave and very loving to take on
this responsibility.”

Clinton also took a question about educating older kids, especially those
with ADHD and other attention disorders. While some do need medications,
“medicating kids because we have not yet figured out how to deal with their
particular needs” is not the right approach.

Aides said Clinton will also roll out a comprehensive childcare agenda in
the coming weeks aimed at ensuring that children from birth to age 3 have
access to quality care.

*Hillary Clinton Backs Fast-Track on Obama's Trade Deals
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/hillary-clinton-backs-fas_b_7582738.html>
// HuffPo // Eric Zuesse – June 15, 2015*

On Sunday, June 14th, Hillary Clinton came out publicly for the first time
in support of President Obama's trade-deals -- TPP with Asia, TTIP with
Europe, and on TISA with all nations to lower the standards on banking and
insurance and to privatize government services.

What's at issue in Congress right now -- and thus what she was responding
to -- is whether or not to grant U.S. President Barack Obama the "Fast
Track Trade Promotion Authority," which will produce expedited passage for
his trade-deals; the trade-deals themselves are not even before Congress
yet, and have not even been made public, though the first one up for
consideration will be TPP with Asia; but that deal, like the others, will
virtually certainly go down to defeat unless the president first wins "Fast
Track," which is the issue now.

The reason "Fast Track" is the issue now before Congress, is that it's
actually the only feasible way for Obama to be able to win congressional
passage of TPP or of any of his big-three trade-deals. It's crucial because
it reduces the Constitutionally required two-thirds of Senators voting for
a given trade-deal, down to merely 50% of Senators (plus VP Joe Biden)
needed to vote for it, in order for the deal to become U.S. law -- and
there is no way possible for this Senate to vote two-thirds for either TPP
with Asia, TTIP with Europe, or TISA for "Services." But 50% can safely be
assured (especially with the gargantuan political-campaign donations that
are pouring into Congress to back it).

Clinton said that it's so important for Obama to win Fast Track authority,
that, "I am willing to try now to see whether you can push to get rid of
the objectionable parts, to drive a harder bargain on some of the other
parts," so that Congress will grant the president Fast Track Trade
promotion Authority. (Her underlying assumption, which she knows to be
false, is that to "drive a harder bargain" is "a harder bargain" against
foreign nations, not against the publics in both the U.S. and all nations.
International corporations will benefit enormously. But Obama is not
negotiating against them; he's negotiating against the public, for the
international corporations.)

She said that the president should work with congressional Democrats
"starting with Nancy Pelosi," to pass Fast Track (though she judiciously
avoided even mentioning "Fast Track," because she's aiming for
low-information liberal voters, who -- like low-information conservative
voters -- don't even know what the issues actually are, and can therefore
be easily swayed by her words, regardless of what the issues are).

According to the pseudonymous blogger "Gaius Publius," who is very well
connected with Democrats in Congress and with their aides: "According to
two sources, in private Pelosi is working 'almost on a daily basis' to get
Fast Track to pass, and with it, TPP."

He further reports: "White House's secret weapon on trade: Nancy Pelosi.
Administration officials have been so impressed by Nancy Pelosi's approach
to negotiations over giving president Barack Obama 'fast-track' trade
authority that they've started to consider a crazy possibility: She could
even vote for it herself. But only if she has to."

He explains that she won't vote for it herself unless only a single
additional 'Democratic' House member (namely, her own vote) is needed in
order to get the bill over the hump and to the president's desk to sign
Fast Track into law. He reports that, "All she cares about, based on her
reported behavior, is controlling her own appearance, her brand, as being
'pro-worker,'" so that she won't be able to be attacked in a Democratic
primary by someone who is running to the left of her, saying "You sold us
out!"

In other words: Nancy Pelosi already is working hand-in-glove with the
White House on this fast-track matter. Pelosi wants these trade-deals to
become U.S. law, just as much as does Hillary Clinton. But, of course,
Democratic voters generally don't know this (and she won't tell them).

A subsequent headline on the matter was, "Gaius Publius: Nancy Pelosi Got a
TPP Talking-To from Her Caucus, Plus Where We Are on Fast Track." It
reported the anger on the part of many House Democrats who don't like
Pelosi's double-dealing on this: they were enraged that she wanted Obama to
win Fast Track. They're strongly against it. It's why the vote of Friday
was disastrous for the president.

Pelosi tried to do everything she possibly could in order to win Fast Track
for the president. Here is how she helped, as described by "Gaius Publius":

In order for any law to be placed upon the president's desk for his
signature, both houses of Congress -- both the Senate and the House -- need
first to agree 100% on the contents of the bill, because a president cannot
sign two different versions, only one, final, version, which has passed
both houses the same. Then, he can sign it.

The Senate has already voted for a "Fast Track" that includes something
called "Trade Adjustment Assistance" (TAA), which will retrain some of the
U.S. workers who will lose their jobs to foreigners on account of these
deals. Democrats in the Senate demanded TAA. (I previously explained how
that happened.) The leader of the Senate, Republican Mitch McConnell, had
to agree with it in order to achieve any sort of Fast Track that could pass
in the Senate, where few Democrats like what they've seen of TPP -- the
draft that will come up first if the president first wins Fast Track.
McConnell demanded from Senate Democrats that the federal money to pay for
TAA would come out of the hides of Medicare benificiaries; and, though
reluctantly, enough Democrats in the U.S. Senate went along with that so
the bill could pass in the Senate, and then go on to the House, where it
was voted down on Friday.

What's key is that, because in the House, Democrats voted overwhelmingly
against TAA (the version that passed in the Senate, with the Medicare
cuts), there's nothing now that can go directly to the president for his
signature. (This was probably what Harry Reid in the Senate had expected
and planned.) House Republicans were shocked; Democrats in the House
weren't accepting the bill that had obtained the support of enough
Democrats in the Senate for it to pass in the Senate.

Republicans, on Friday, June 12th, responded to that failure (for them and
the president) by holding an immediate vote on Fast Track without any TAA
in it; and it barely passed in the House. However, it cannot go to the
president's desk, because it's a different bill than the one the Senate had
approved. This was therefore just a symbolic 'win' for House Republicans:
it didn't move anything toward the president's desk.

The news media have headlined about Hillary Clinton's statement, "Clinton
urges Obama to work with Pelosi on trade deal," but Obama has already been
doing, and still is doing, precisely that. And the press even headlined
things like "Hillary Clinton snubs Obama on trade deal," which is simply
false. Even the headlines sometimes lie.

Hillary Clinton actually supports Barack Obama's trade-policy, and even
supports the way in which he is trying to get it through Congress. However,
the news-media didn't report it that way.

Ms. Clinton is repeating her earlier tactics, in 2008, when she tried to
give the impression that she had opposed her husband Bill Clinton's NAFTA,
though in fact she had earlier bragged about how great it was for the
country and claimed it as if it were her own. As everyone knows, the
Clinton foundation, the Clintons personally, and the Clinton campaign, and
her past political career, have been financed very heavily by the very same
international corporations and Wall Street banks, and their lobbying firms
and accounting firms, that are now lobbying intensely for President Obama
to win Fast Track, and for him ultimately to win all three of his
mega-corporate trade deals: TPP, TTIP, and TISA.

One independent economic analysis has been done of TPP, and one has been
done on TTIP. Both show huge U.S. job-losses and considerable boost to the
profits of U.S.-based international corporations.

However, though those U.S. job-losses are the impacts that are receiving
all of the media attention (such as TAA, to compensate for some of those
job-losses), there is an even bigger issue, which is that all of these
trade-deals would transfer democratic U.S. government sovereignty to
regulate in the interests of the public -- sovereignty to protect
food-safety, product-safety, workers' rights, and the environment, among
other things -- over to panels of international lawyers, whose careers will
depend upon how well they serve international corporations. Those
'arbitrators' will come up with rulings that will not be able to be
appealed to any court in any democracy at all. The worst aspect of these
'trade' deals would thus be that transfer of democratic national
sovereignty to international corporate sovereignty. It would replace
national democracies with an internattional corporate dictatorship -- an
international fascist world government. And, just like Barack Obama and
other Republicans, Hillary Clinton favors it. (Here is the back-story of
how and why.) However, for her to come right out and admit this would be
suicidal for anyone who is running for the Democratic presidential
nomination. (It would hand the nomination to Bernie Sanders, whose whole
career has been opposed to these types of 'trade' deals.) After all: it was
Barack Obama himself, in his primary camppaign in 2008 against Clinton, who
said, "Yesterday, Sen. Clinton also said I'm wrong to point out that she
once supported NAFTA. But the fact is, she was saying great things about
NAFTA until she started running for president." He was pretending to oppose
these types of 'trade' deals, just as she was. Only he was much more
skillful at it than she is. But they both have the same financial backers,
who give also very heavily -- and often even more -- to the Republican
Party.

Whereas most Democrats in Congress try to do a decent job for the American
people (and this statement is based upon their voting-records -- including
their having thus far beaten back the Republicans, including Obama, on Fast
Track), most Democrats who run for president (just like virtually all
Republicans who do) are much more interested in doing a terrific job for
their biggest donors. There is (sad to say) nothing illegal about that.
Whether there is anything immoral about it is (also sad to say) debated.
However, voters should be skeptical of the honesty of any politician --
especially if the politician is running for congress or (even more) for the
White House. The past record should be the sole basis for evaluating any
candidate for national office; don't trust merely what they now are saying.
To believe a candidate's words, divorced from their proven record in public
office, including things that they said previously, would be foolish. It
also would assist the corruptness that already exists. And it would make
immeasurably more difficult any political victory for any honest person to
win those offices; so, it's extremely unpatriotic. If a voter doesn't have
the time to investigate on his own regarding a particular election, that
person would be more patriotic to simply not vote, regarding that
particular political post. After all: one can leave a ballot-line blank,
which allows better-informed individuals to make that given judgment.
Because the nation's fate depends upon that judgment.

But anyway, don't believe everything you read or hear -- not even this (and
I'll be delighted if you will check out every source I've linked to,
because I am honest; that's my top commitment -- and it's also why I always
link to my main sources, so that they can be easily accessed). It's almost
impossible to be successful as a journalist, regarding serious matters such
as these, and to be employable by large-audience, well-financed, news-media
(so I am entirely independent), because news-media are backed by the
corporations that advertise in them, including by their 'non-profit'
foundations. For example, pro-publica, which, like virtually all
news-media, receives all of my news-reports and commentaries, just recently
placed mine on their spam-list. They won't report to their readers the
types of things that I customarily send to them and report. The level of
public trust may be going down, but it still is way too high. One learns
this, as an independent journalist, on important issues, such as
international matters: the public is too trusting. Scoundrels benefit
enormously from that excess of trust. By contrast, decent politicians
suffer major competitive disadvantage from the excess of trust. Excess of
trust gives the competitive advantage to liars. Unfortunately, ours is not
a society in which trust by the public is warranted. Maybe it once was;
it's not now.

Please pass this along to friends, and post it to Facebook and Twitter, so
that others can know, too, that despite what the news-media might be
saying, Hillary Clinton supports Barack Obama's 'trade' agenda, which is
actually his mega-corporate agenda -- which she has always shared along
with him. If your friends are going to support her, at least they ought to
know what they are supporting. The links here provide access to the facts.

*45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/index.html>
// CNN // Jake Tapper – June 15, 2015 *

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as a candidate for the
Democratic presidential nomination, seems reluctant to take a firm position
on an issue dividing her party: whether President Obama should have
fast-track trading authority for the immense trade deal he has been
negotiating, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. With some progressive voters
eyeing her with some skepticism, and facing a challenge (such as it is)
from candidates on her left, she is being advised to tack in that direction.

President Obama has been pushing hard for the deal, while Democrats in the
House of Representatives on Friday revolted and voted against a key part of
the legislation. One told me, "there was a very strong concern about the
lost jobs and growing income inequality," adding, pointedly: "Ms. Clinton
should take notice."

She clearly did. After first dodging the issue, on Sunday in Iowa, Clinton
said that "the President should listen to and work with his allies in
Congress, starting with (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, who have
expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have
on our workers, to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible. And
if we don't get it, there should be no deal."

Clinton said, "there are some specifics in there that could and should be
changed. So I am hoping that's what happens now -- let's take the lemons
and turn it into lemonade."

But as members of the Obama administration can attest, Clinton was one of
the leading drivers of the TPP when Secretary of State. Here are 45
instances when she approvingly invoked the trade bill about which she is
now expressing concerns:

1. January 31, 2013: Remarks on American Leadership at the Council on
Foreign Relations

"First and foremost, this so-called pivot has been about creative
diplomacy:Like signing a little-noted treaty of amity and cooperation with
ASEAN that opened the door to permanent representation and ultimately
elevated a forum for engaging on high-stakes issues like the South China
Sea. We've encouraged India's "Look East" policy as a way to weave another
big democracy into the fabric of the Asia Pacific. We've used trade
negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership to find common ground with
a former adversary in Vietnam. And the list goes on." [State Department,
1/1/13]

2. January 18, 2013: Remarks With Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida

"We also discussed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and we shared perspectives
on Japan's possible participation, because we think this holds out great
economic opportunities to all participating nations." [State Department,
1/18/13]

3. November 29, 2012: Remarks at the Foreign Policy Group's
"Transformational Trends 2013 Forum"

"...let me offer five big-ticket agenda items that we absolutely have to
get right as well. This starts with following through on what is often
called our pivot to the Asia Pacific, the most dynamic region in our
rapidly changing world. Much of the attention so far has been on America's
increasing military engagement. But it's important that we also emphasize
the other elements of our strategy. In a speech in Singapore last week, I
laid out America's expanding economic leadership in the region, from new
trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership to stepped-up efforts
on behalf of American businesses."

"...We are welcoming more of our neighbors, including Canada and Mexico,
into the Trans-Pacific Partnership process. And we think it's imperative
that we continue to build an economic relationship that covers the entire
hemisphere for the future." [State Department, 11/29/12]

4. November 17, 2012: Delivering on the Promise of Economic Statecraft

"And with Singapore and a growing list of other countries on both sides of
the Pacific, we are making progress toward finalizing a far-reaching new
trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The so-called TPP
will lower barriers, raise standards, and drive long-term growth across the
region. It will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and establish
strong protections for workers and the environment. Better jobs with higher
wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers
and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help
build Asia's middle class and rebalance the global economy. Canada and
Mexico have already joined the original TPP partners. We continue to
consult with Japan. And we are offering to assist with capacity building,
so that every country in ASEAN can eventually join. We welcome the interest
of any nation willing to meet 21st century standards as embodied in the
TPP, including China." [State Department, 11/17/12]

5. November 15, 2012: Remarks at Techport Australia

"...we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners
across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or
TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in
trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of
environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when
negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade
and build in strong protections for workers and the environment." [State
Department, 11/15/12]

6. November 2012: Remarks With Australian Foreign Minister Robert Carr,
Australian Defense Minister Stephen Smith, and Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta

"Our diplomats work side by side at regional organizations to address
shared security challenges and hammer out new economic agreements, and we
congratulate Australia upon becoming a new nonpermanent member of the
Security Council. Our growing trade across the region, including our work
together to finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership, binds our countries
together, increases stability, and promotes security." [State Department,
11/14/12]

7. November 2012: Remarks at the Opening of the AUSMIN Ministerial

"That means finalizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will lower
trade barriers, raise labor and environmental standards, and drive growth
across the region. And it includes, of course, working closely together at
the upcoming East Asia Summit to advance a shared agenda." [State
Department, 11/14/12]

8. September 2012: Remarks at APEC CEO Summit

"That means pushing governments to support high-standard trade agreements
like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to drop harmful protectionist policies.
It means playing by the rules, respecting workers, and opening doors
qualified women. And most of all, it means doing what you do best: build,
hire, and grow." [State Department, 9/8/12]

9. August 2012: Remarks With New Zealand Prime Minister Key

PRIME MINISTER KEY: "Secretary Clinton and I discussed the broad range of
issues in the Asia Pacific region as we look towards the APEC summit in
Russia in around 10 days time. New Zealand warmly supports the United
States rebalancing towards the Asia-Pacific and we welcome the
opportunities to cooperate further. In that context, we discussed our
ongoing efforts to negotiate, alongside a number of other countries, a
Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement."

...

SECRETARY CLINTON: "I'm also very committed to expanding investment and
trade in the region, in pursuit of sustainable economic growth. Later
today, I'll meet with local pearl vendors from here in the Cook Islands who
are running their businesses while also protecting marine resources."
[State Department, 8/31/12]

10. July 2012: Remarks to the Lower Mekong Initiative Women's Gender
Equality and Empowerment Dialogue

"We've also made workers rights a centerpiece of a new far-reaching trade
agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We are working with
Vietnam, Malaysia, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and others in these
negotiations." [State Department, 7/13/12]

11. July 2012: Remarks With Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh After Their
Meeting

"So we're working on expanding it through a far-reaching, new regional
trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would lower
trade barriers while raising standards on everything from labor conditions
to environmental protection to intellectual property. Both of our countries
will benefit. And in fact, economists expect that Vietnam would be among
the countries under the Trans-Pacific Partnership to benefit the most. And
we hope to finalize this agreement by the end of the year." [State
Department, 7/10/12]

12. July 2012: Remarks at American Chamber of Commerce Reception and
Commercial Signings

"Domestic and international businesses alike continue to face rules that
restrict their activities, and that, in turn, deters investment and slows
growth. So we are encouraging the Government of Vietnam to keep on the path
of economic and administrative reform to open its markets to greater
private investment. And through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we're
working with Vietnam and seven other nations to lower trade barriers
throughout the region, as we ensure the highest standards for labor,
environmental, and intellectual property protections. Vietnam was an early
entrant to the TPP, and we're hoping we can finalize the agreement this
year. And the economic analysis is that of all the countries that will be
participating -- Australia, Canada, Mexico, others -- of all the countries
participating in the TPP, Vietnam stands to benefit the most. So we're
hoping to really see this agreement finalized and then watch it take off."
[State Department, 7/10/12]

13. July 2012: Remarks With Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba

"We also discussed the opportunity to strengthen our economic relationship,
and the United States welcomes Japan's interest in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, which we think will connect economies throughout the region,
making trade and investment easier, spurring exports, creating jobs. The
TPP is just one element of our increased focus on the Asia Pacific, but it
is important that we recognize that the Japanese-American relationship is
really at the cornerstone of everything we are doing in the Asia Pacific.
We are not only treaty allies; we are friends and partners with common
interests and shared values." [State Department, 7/8/12]

14. April 2012: Remarks With Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Philippines
Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, and Philippines Defense Secretary
Voltaire Gazmin After Their Meeting

"Finally, we discussed the maturing economic relationship between our
countries as well as our shared commitment to enhanced development, trade,
and investment. We would like to see the Philippines join the Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade community. The foreign secretary raised the Philippines'
interest in seeking passage of the Save our Industries Act, and we have
conveyed that message to the United States Congress."[State Department,
4/30/12]

15. April 2012: Remarks at the White House Conference on Connecting the
Americas

"Now President Obama and I have said many times that this will be America's
Pacific century, and we are focused on the broader Pacific. But remember,
the Pacific runs from the Indian Ocean to the western shores of Latin
America. We see this as one large area for our strategic focus. That's why
we're working with APEC; that's why we're creating the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. We recognize the mutual benefits of engagement between the
Americas and the rest of the Pacific." [State Department, 4/12/12]

16. April 2012: Forrestal Lecture at the Naval Academy

"As part of that same trip last November, the President built momentum for
a new far-reaching trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership
that we are negotiating with eight other countries in the Asia-Pacific
region. This agreement is not just about eliminating barriers to trade,
although that is crucial for boosting U.S. exports and creating jobs here
at home. It's also about agreeing on the rules of the road for an
integrated Pacific economy that is open, free, transparent, and fair. It
will put in place strong protections for workers, the environment,
intellectual property, and innovation -- all key American values. And it
will cover emerging issues such as the connectivity of regional supply
chains, the competitive impact of state-owned enterprises, and create trade
opportunities for more small-and-medium-sized businesses." [State
Department, 4/10/12]

17. April 2012: Keynote Address At Global Business Conference

"Big or small, we're standing up for an economic system that benefits
everyone, like when our Embassy in Manila worked with Filipino authorities
on new intellectual property protections or when our negotiators ensure
that the new Trans-Pacific Partnership requires that state-owned
enterprises compete under the same rules as private companies." [State
Department, 2/21/12]

18. February 2012: Remarks With Singaporean Foreign Minister and Minister
for Law K. Shanmugam

"This is a very consequential relationship. The multidimensional growth of
our relationship with Singapore is an example of the importance that the
United States sets on strengthening our engagement in the Asia Pacific. We
are working together on a full range of issues, including moving forward on
a high-quality trade agreement through the Trans-Pacific Partnership
process." [State Department, 2/1/12]

19. December 2011: Remarks With Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba
After Their Meeting

"The minister and I also discussed a number of bilateral and regional
issues and reviewed the close and ongoing collaboration between Japan and
the United States in the aftermath of last March's earthquake, tsunami, and
nuclear crisis. We discussed Japan's recent move to pursue consultations on
joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations to resolve longstanding
trade concerns in order to deepen the economic ties to the benefit of both
our countries. I also urged that Japan take decisive steps so that it
accedes to The Hague Convention on International Parental Child Abduction
and address outstanding cases."[State Department, 12/19/11]

20. November 2011: Remarks at ASEAN Business and Investment Summit

"Now let me describe briefly four ways that we want to work with you:
first, by lowering trade barriers; second, by strengthening the investment
climate; third, by pursuing commercial diplomacy; and fourth, by supporting
entrepreneurs. We're excited about the innovative trade agreement called
the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. That would bring economies from
across the Pacific, developed and developing alike, into a single trading
community, not only to create more growth, but better growth." [State
Department, 11/18/11]

21. November 2011: Presentation of the Order of Lakandula, Signing of the
Partnership for Growth And Joint Press Availability With Philippines
Foreign Secretary Albert Del Rosario

"Together we hope to deliver an array of benefits to the people, including
more foreign investment to create new jobs, a more streamlined court system
that can deliver justice and protect local businesses, better services, and
more resources to fight poverty. Over time, these steps will better
position the Philippines to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which we
hope will dramatically increase trade and investment among the peoples of
the Pacific." [State Department, 11/16/11]

22. November 2011: America's Pacific Century

"There is new momentum in our trade agenda with the recent passage of the
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement and our ongoing work on a binding,
high-quality Trans-Pacific Partnership, the so-called TPP. The TPP will
bring together economies from across the Pacific, developed and developing
alike, into a single 21st century trading community. A rules-based order
will also be critical to meeting APEC's goal of eventually creating a free
trade area of the Asia Pacific." [State Department, 11/10/11]

23. October 2011: Economic Statecraft

"One of America's great successes of the past century was to build a strong
network of relationships and institutions across the Atlantic -- an
investment that continues to pay off today. One of our great projects in
this century will be to do the same across the Pacific. Our Free Trade
Agreement with South Korea, our commitment to the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, are clear demonstrations that we are not only a resident
military and diplomatic power in Asia, we are a resident economic power and
we are there to stay." [State Department, 10/14/11]

24. September 2011: Celebrating 60 years of the U.S.-Australia Alliance

"We are working to encourage trade through the Trans-Pacific Partnership
and through APEC, whose leaders the President will be hosting this fall in
Hawaii. Together, we are strengthening regional institutions like the East
Asia Summit and ASEAN. And as Secretary Panetta will explain, our military
relationship is deepening and becoming even more consequential."[State
Department, 9/15/11]

25. July 2011: Remarks on Principles for Prosperity in the Asia-Pacific

"That is the spirit behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the so-called
TPP, which we hope to outline by the time of APEC in November, because this
agreement will bring together economies from across the Pacific—developed
and developing alike—into a single trading community." [State Department,
7/25/11]

26. July 2011: Remarks on India and the United States: A Vision for the
21st Century

"The United States is pushing forward on comprehensive trade deals like the
Trans-Pacific Partnership and our free trade agreement with South Korea. We
are also stepping up our commercial diplomacy and pursuing a robust
economic agenda at APEC. India, for its part, has concluded or will soon
conclude new bilateral economic partnerships with Singapore, Malaysia,
Japan, South Korea, and others. The more our countries trade and invest
with each other and with other partners, the more central the Asia Pacific
region becomes to global commerce and prosperity, and the more interest we
both have in maintaining stability and security. As the stakes grow higher,
we should use our shared commitment to make sure that we have maritime
security and freedom of navigation. We need to combat piracy together. We
have immediate tasks that we must get about determining." [State
Department, 7/20/11]

27. May 2011: Secretary Clinton's Remarks With New Zealand Foreign Minister
Murray McCully

"We looked ahead to the East Asia summit where President Obama will
participate for the first time, and the United States will send our
largest, most senior delegation ever to the Pacific Island Forum in New
Zealand later this year. We talked about developments in Fiji, and both New
Zealand and the United States agree that the military junta must take steps
to return Fiji to democracy. And we agree on the importance of pursuing
negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will provide a free
trade agreement for nine countries across the region, including both of
ours. We're making steady progress on this. We hope to be able to have the
negotiations complete by the time we all meet in Hawaii for APEC toward the
end of this year." [State Department, 5/17/11]

28. May 2011: Remarks With Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd After
Their Meeting

"And both of us understand the benefits of deeper economic integration and
fair trade. Minister Rudd was very influential in helping us to work toward
a greater, more relevant involvement in the Pacific-Asian institutions,
such as joining the East Asian Summit. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, which
is exploring ways to expand opportunity, is critical, and APEC and ASEAN
are two other organizations where we work together." [State Department,
5/2/11]

29. April 2011: Remarks at the American Chamber of Commerce Breakfast

"We will be hosting the 2011 APEC summit in Hawaii later this year. We are
pushing to advance economic integration, remove trade barriers, and make
sure that our national regulations line up in a way that encourages trade.
We are also working hard on the trans-Pacific partnership, a cutting edge
regional free trade agreement that would eventually cover an area
responsible for over 40 percent of global trade."[State Department, 4/17/11]

30. March 2011: Remarks at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) on Latin America

"As countries step up on the global stage, they will make essential
contributions to helping all of us meet some of those most important
challenges. Mexico, for example, made a crucial contribution to the fight
against climate change through its remarkable leadership in Cancun last
year. Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina in the G-20; Chile and Mexico in the
OECD; Chile and Peru in the Trans-Pacific Partnership; and along with
Mexico in APEC, these are all helping to build a foundation for balanced
global growth, a transparent global economy, and broad-based opportunity.
"[State Department, 3/18/11]

31. March 2011: Remarks at the First Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) for the
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum

"The United States is also making important progress on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, which will bring together nine APEC economies in a
cutting-edge, next generation trade deal, one that aims to eliminate all
trade tariffs by 2015 while improving supply change, saving energy,
enhancing business practices both through information technology and green
technologies. To date, the TPP includes Brunei, Chile, New Zealand,
Singapore, Australia, Malaysia, Peru, Vietnam and the United States."
[State Department, 3/9/11]

32. January 2011: Inaugural Richard C. Holbrooke Lecture on a Broad Vision
of U.S.-China Relations in the 21st Century

"We are taking steps to ensure that our defense posture reflects the
complex and evolving strategic environment in the region and we are working
to ratify a free trade agreement with South Korea and pursuing a regional
agreement through the Trans-Pacific Partnership to help create new
opportunities for American companies and support new jobs here at home.
Those goals will be front and center when we host the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Forum in Hawaii later this year." [State Department, 1/14/11]

33: November 2010: Remarks at U.S. Trade Promotion Event

"Now, we've seen how bilateral trade benefits both sides. Our challenge now
is to broaden those benefits. That means we have to look for even more
opportunities to increase trade and investment between us. And it means
that we work harder to broaden the benefits of trade even beyond our two
countries. Australia is an important partner in negotiating the ambitious
new multilateral trade deal called the Trans Pacific Partnership. Over
time, we hope to deliver a groundbreaking agreement that connects countries
as diverse as Peru and Vietnam with America and Australia to create a new
free trade zone that can galvanize commerce, competition, and growth across
the entire Pacific region." [State Department, 11/7/10]

34. November 2010: Speech and Townterview with Australian Broadcasting
Company

"To continue this progress, we are both pressing ahead on something called
the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It's an ambitious multilateral free trade
agreement that would bring together many more nations of the Pacific Rim.
Australia and the United States are helping to lead those negotiations and
we're also working through APEC, which the United States will host in
Hawaii in 2011. We see that as a pivotal year to drive progress on internal
economic changes that will open more markets and make sure that any growth
is more sustainable and inclusive. And finally, we believe that the United
States and Australia have been at the forefront of organize the entire
region for the future." [State Department, 11/7/10]

35. November 2010: Christchurch Trade Reception Hosted by the American
Chamber of Commerce

"We are looking for ways to broaden and deepen our economic ties and build
on the strong foundation we already have. And we think that the
Trans-Pacific Partnership is a very exciting opportunity. This multilateral
free trade agreement would bring together nine countries located in the
Asia Pacific region -- New Zealand and the United States, Australia, Chile,
Singapore, Brunei, Peru, Vietnam, and Malaysia. By eliminating most tariffs
and other trade barriers, and embracing productive policies on competition,
intellectual property, and government procurement, we can spur greater
trade and integration not only among the participating countries, but as a
spur to the entire region.

[State Department, 11/5/10]

36. November 2010: Remarks With New Zealand Prime Minister John Phillip Key
and New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray Stuart McCully

" Well, let me say that we discussed at some length, both the foreign
minister and I and then the prime minister and I, the way forward on trade.
We are very committed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and New Zealand,
again, is playing a leading role. And we want to expedite the negotiations
as much as possible. So we are exploring ways that we can try to drive this
agenda. I am absolutely convinced that opening up markets in Asia amongst
all of us and doing so in a way that creates win-win situations so that
people feel that trade is in their interests." [State Department, 11/4/10]

37. November 2010: Remarks at the Pratt & Whitney Trade Event

"That is why the United States is very pleased by Malaysia's decision to
join the negotiations for the Trans Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership.
This regional trade agreement will promote shared success by expanding
markets and building a level playing field for workers in every country
that participates." [State Department, 11/3/10]

38. November 2010: Remarks with Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman

"Finally, we are pleased that Malaysia joined last month's negotiations for
the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That is a pact that would expand markets and
create a level playing field for people in every country that does
participate. I know there are tough issues to work out, as there always are
with these agreements, but Malaysia's leadership in this region for greater
economic growth is absolutely essential." [State Department, 11/2/10]

39. November 2010: Secretary Clinton's Meeting with Kuala Lumpur Embassy
Staff and Their Families

"And I think we have tremendous opportunities here. But I know when I leave
tomorrow, the work to make those opportunities into realities falls to all
of you. So I know a lot is expected of you, but we're going to be doing
even more in Malaysia. We have a lot of plans for educational exchanges. We
have some very exciting work on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, enhancing
trade and investment (inaudible) that will promote closer cooperation."
[State, Department, 11/2/10]

40. November 2010: Townterview Hosted by Media Prima in Malaysia

"So in our meetings with your government officials and even in my
conversation with the prime minister earlier today, we of course talked
about our bilateral relationship but we also talked about the role that
Malaysia is playing in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a new free trade
agreement that will enhance market access, but also working to support
Afghanistan and the people there with training and medical services."
[State Department, 11/2/10]

41. October 2010:Remarks With Vietnamese Foreign Minister Pham Gia Khiem

"I n trade, our two countries have already made great progress. Fifteen
years ago, our bilateral trade was about $450 million. Last year it was
more than $15 billion. And the foreign minister and the prime minister and
I talked about how to expand this trade relationship, including through the
Trans-Pacific Partnership. The United States, Vietnam, and seven other
countries finished a third round of negotiations on the TPP this month and
we hope that Vietnam can conclude it in internal process and announce its
status as a full member of the partnership soon." [State Department,
10/30/10]

42. October 2010: America's Engagement in the Asia-Pacific

"We are also pressing ahead with negotiations for the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, an innovative, ambitious multilateral free trade agreement
that would bring together nine Pacific Rim countries, including four new
free trade partners for the United States, and potentially others in the
future. 2011 will be a pivotal year for this agenda. Starting with the
Korea Free Trade Agreement, continuing with the negotiation of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, working together for financial rebalancing at
the G-20, and culminating at the APEC Leaders Summit in Hawaii, we have a
historic chance to create broad, sustained, and balanced growth across the
Asia Pacific and we intend to seize that. [State Department, 10/28/10]

43. September 2010: Remarks on United States Foreign Policy

"On the economic front, we've expanded our relationship with APEC, which
includes four of America's top trading partners and receives 60 percent of
our exports. We want to realize the benefits from greater economic
integration. In order to do that, we have to be willing to play. To this
end, we are working to ratify a free trade agreement with South Korea,
we're pursuing a regional agreement with the nations of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, and we know that that will help create new jobs and
opportunities here at home." [State Department, 9/8/10]

44. July 2010: Remarks With Vietnam Deputy Prime Minister And Foreign
Minister Pham Gia Khiem

"And I am very much supportive of Vietnam's participation as a full member
in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. As Vietnam embarks on labor and other
reforms, the American businesses that are investing in Vietnam can provide
expertise that will aid Vietnam's economic and infrastructure
development."[State Department, 7/22/10]

45. January 2010: Remarks on Regional Architecture in Asia: Principles and
Priorities

"In addition, the United States is engaging in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade negotiations as a mechanism for improving linkages among
many of the major Asia-Pacific economies. And to build on political
progress, we must support efforts to protect human rights and promote open
societies." [State Department, 1/12/10]

*How Hillary Clinton Gets Around Answering Questions About Fast-Track
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/how-hillary-clinton-gets-around-answering-questions-about-fast-track-20150615>
// The National Journal // Emma Roller – June 15, 2015 *

At her official campaign kickoff rally on Saturday, Hillary Clinton
continued to brand herself as an economic populist while also being the
most likely to beat a Republican in the general election.

But Clinton has had a tough time mapping out the specifics of that
populism, particularly in relation to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. At a
news conference after an event in Concord, New Hampshire on Monday,
multiple reporters tried to get Clinton to come down for or against trade
promotion authority (TPA), also known as "fast-track," which would make
Congress pass trade agreements such as the TPP on an up-or-down vote
without amendments.

With some fancy rhetorical footwork, Clinton was able to give them some
fairly long-winded answers without saying much of anything. When asked if
she thought the fast-track authority is appropriate, Clinton pointed out
that Congress would not be passing the deal sight unseen. While the actual
text of the TPP is not yet public, members of Congress and select others
have access to the details.

"The TPA is a process issue. The issue for me is, what's in the deal?"
Clinton said Monday. "I will wait and see what the deal is, and then I will
tell you what I think about it."

That is not a very satisfying answer for more progressive members of
Clinton's party. Labor unions and environmental groups bitterly oppose the
trade deal and TPA, and liberal House Democrats were able to scuttle a vote
Friday that would have allowed fast-track to move forward.

Clinton does not have much to lose by pleading ignorance about the details
of the deal—which, to be fair, have not been finalized. If she were to come
out against fast-track, as her Democratic opponents Bernie Sanders and
Martin O'Malley have, she risks alienating more moderate Democrats and the
White House while opening herself up to yet another line of attack from
Republicans.

Another reporter asked Clinton if she believes the president should have
fast-track authority. And, like any seasoned politician, Clinton
successfully answered a yes-or-no question with an extended nonanswer, with
some tautological rhetoric mixed in.

"If [Obama] wants to get fast-track authority, then he's going to have to
try to figure out how to use the vote on Friday, to get some changes, to
get fast track authority," Clinton said. "There's always room to maneuver,
and I think this is one of those times."

The only problem is, if the White House had its druthers, the public would
not be able to see the details of the deal until Congress had made it far
easier to pass through without opposition. So under that timeline, Clinton
weighing in on the details would be a foregone conclusion.

O'Malley—who has said he opposed the White House's fast-track
authority—quickly set to work responding to Clinton's answers.

"For the thousands of American workers whose jobs are on the line with TPP,
fast-track is not a 'process' issue, it's a straightforward vote on their
future and their livelihood," Lis Smith, O'Malley's deputy campaign
manager, said in a statement. "Governor O'Malley believes we must stop the
fast-track vote in Congress now because TPP will be a bad deal for
America's middle class. Now is a time for leadership, not political dodges."

Until Congressional Democrats reckon with the White House—which could
happen as soon as this week—Clinton will have to continue walking the
tightrope of vaguely criticizing the trade deal process and siding with
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi while not upsetting the White House too
much. And until then, Sanders and O'Malley will have some free political
leverage of their own.

*If Hillary Clinton wants to fix income inequality, here’s how to do it
<http://finance.yahoo.com/news/if-hillary-clinton-wants-to-fix-income-inequality--here-s-how-to-do-it-182338055.html>
// Yahoo News // Rick Newman – June 15, 2015 *

She has identified the right problem. The question is whether she’ll be any
better at solving it than, say, President Obama, who has tried and
struggled.

Hillary Clinton has begun to articulate the issues she’ll campaign on as
she aims for the White House, focusing above all on the patchy prosperity
that has left some Americans richer than ever while millions of others fall
behind. “Prosperity can’t be just for CEOs and hedge fund managers,” she
said during a recent speech her campaign managers characterized as a sort
of coming-out party for the Democratic candidate. “The middle class needs
more growth and more fairness.”

While leaving specific proposals till later, Clinton vowed to boost
middle-class incomes and reduce income inequality, which has been worsening
for roughly 35 years. Expect that to be a familiar theme among all the 2016
presidential candidates, from Jeb Bush to Bernie Sanders, since Americans
continue to say economic issues such as unemployment and stagnant wages are
the nation's biggest problem. The growing gap between rich and poor
obviously isn’t new. But it now seems apparent that much of the middle
class remains worse off than before the recession that began in 2007. That
could become a decade-long decline in middle-class living standards by the
time the next president takes office -- an unprecedented economic slump.

There are many ideas for how to reduce income inequality, and while none is
exactly proven, there is a form of consensus on measures likely to be most
effective. They include:

* Education and training programs that help people develop the skills most
needed by employers.

* Tax reform that would lower rates on businesses, close loopholes and make
the tax system leaner and more efficient.

* Public-private infrastructure programs that would invest more in roads
and bridges while leveraging private-sector know-how to prioritize projects
and assure they run efficiently.

* Better access to education, especially for underprivileged kids,
including programs to make college more affordable.

* Streamlined regulations for businesses and especially for startups, which
would make it easier for companies to expand, hire and thrive.

* Trade deals that open more foreign markets to U.S. products and services
while protecting Americans who might be harmed if jobs move overseas.

Other ideas are more partisan, which could bedevil Clinton just as it has
Obama, since whoever wins the White House in 2016 will probably have to
work with a Republican-controlled House and possibly Senate. Liberal
Democrats, for instance, want to raise taxes on the wealthy and transfer
more money to those who might be struggling. Conservatives, by contrast,
want to slash regulation, cut taxes and encourage the wealthy to spend
more. For any president who wants to tackle income inequality, coming up
with political compromises that include ideas appealing to both parties is
at least as important as crafting an economic strategy, maybe more.

Obama has been vowing to combat income inequality for much of his time in
office, with little to show for it. The economy has improved significantly
since bottoming out in 2009, but it’s been the slowest recovery since World
War II. The Federal Reserve, which the White House doesn’t control, has
done more to stimulate the economy than any policy passed by Congress or
driven by the White House. Obama has a detailed plan he calls “middle class
economics” that would cut regulatory red tape, boost manufacturing, provide
work retraining, improve access to education and do many other things to
reduce the wealth gap. But Congress won’t approve any of it and has even
shot down bills to promote free trade, traditionally a Republican, not a
Democratic, priority.

If Clinton basically adopts the Obama agenda, there’s no reason to think
she’ll have any more success reducing income inequality than Obama has had.
Instead, she might want to start by finding ways to give Republicans some
of what they want, in order to get some of what she wants. If she doesn’t,
income inequality may continue to get worse, no matter how many speeches
she gives on it.

*Clinton urges tax cuts to help families pay for child care
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/15/us-usa-election-clinton-children-idUSKBN0OV2A320150615>
// Reuters – June 15, 2015 *

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Monday called for
a tax cut to help middle-class parents cope with rising child care costs
and said she wanted to boost services for low-income families with young
children.

"We shouldn't think of child care as just a place to deposit our children,
a warehouse," Clinton said during a campaign event in Rochester, New
Hampshire.

Clinton, the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state, is
seeking the Democratic nomination for president in the November 2016
elections, her second bid for the party nod.

This time, much of her campaign has focused on promoting liberal policies
aimed at helping low-income and middle-class families, children and working
women.

On Monday, Clinton said she wanted to expand Early Head Start, a federally
funded program that provides education and health services to low-income
families with young children.

Clinton will press for states and communities to guarantee in the next 10
years that every American 4-year-old can attend a high-quality preschool,
and she will roll out other proposals related to children in the coming
months, an official with her presidential campaign said in a statement.

*Clinton, in NH, calls for universal preschool, chides GOP
<http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150615/NEWS0605/150619463&source=RSS>
// Union Leader // Dan Tuohy – June 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton called for universal preschool Monday while accusing
Republicans of "missing the boat" on the importance of early childhood
education.

Clinton made her remarks at a forum at the Rochester YMCA, the first of
three events in New Hampshire as she seeks to shift her Democratic
presidential campaign into a higher gear.

Clinton, answering a question on funding for education, criticized
Republicans.

"Republican leaders aren’t just missing the boat on early childhood
education they are trying to sink it," she said. "In their budget proposal
they cut funding for Head Start. Did they cut subsidies oil companies? No.
Did they go after carried interest for those running hedge funds? No. The
leaders took care of those at the top and went after the kids.”

Clinton's remarks were are being provided by a press pool of the event.

She is scheduled to speak before a larger rally at Carter Orchard in
Concord during the early afternoon.

This is Clinton's first visit to New Hampshire since her relaunch speech
Saturday in New York City.

Three others are running for the Democratic Party's nomination: Sen. Bernie
Sanders of Vermont, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and former Rhode
Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee.

As Clinton’s day began, her campaign was dealing with a controversy from a
national print pool reporter being barred access to the candidate’s first
event at the Rochester YMCA. David Martosko, who is the U.S. political
editor for the Daily Mail of London, said he was denied access.

Clinton’s front-runner status remains apparent from statements issued
Monday from her Democratic opponents. Matt Sheaff, New Hampshire deputy
state director for O’Malley, called O’Malley the “only candidate in this
race who has 15 years of executive experience expanding access to pre-K
education.”

*Hillary Clinton Offers Obama-Like Vision for America
<http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-offers-obama-vision-america-n374891>
// NBC News // Perry Bacon Jr. – June 15, 2015 *

In her first major campaign speech Saturday, Hillary Clinton promised
essentially a more aggressive and liberal version of Barack Obama's
presidency, listing a series of challenges such as the huge wealth gap
between the rich and the rest of America that the president has tried to
address but even many Democrats say Obama has not fully solved.

Clinton's husband famously declared in 1996 that "the era of big government
is over." But the former secretary of state and First Lady argued in her
campaign "kickoff speech" that the wealthy and the powerful are
increasingly capturing the gains of the U.S. economy and that a more
forceful role for the government is needed to help middle-class and poor
Americans.

While not explaining how she would fund these programs, Clinton urged the
creation of millions of clean-energy jobs, paid sick and family leave for
all workers and pre-school for all American children.

Clinton said she would push to make sure women get paid as much as men and
reform the nation's immigration laws to create a pathway to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants.

Obama has proposed versions of all of those ideas.

But Clinton went further left than the president on some issues, calling
for automatically registering all Americans to vote when they hit age 18
and a constitutional amendment to limit how much wealthy individuals and
corporations can be spend on political campaigns.

"The middle class needs more growth and more fairness, for a lasting
prosperity," Clinton said.

Her speech illustrated the sharp changes in politics since Obama's election
in 2008. Obama rose to the presidency with a huge focus on foreign affairs,
namely getting U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And the president
suggested he would unify Washington and end the bickering between the two
parties.

Clinton's speech had only a few sentences on national security, even though
she served as Secretary of State from 2009-2013. This may reflect the
challenges Obama and his team have faced in trying to wind down the U.S.
military presence abroad while also preventing civil wars and the rise of
groups like ISIS in the Middle East.

Clinton made a few nods to working with Republicans, but much of her
language was a blistering attack on the GOP. Clinton suggested Republicans
are obsessed with cutting taxes on the rich, ready to deport undocumented
immigrants and intolerant toward gay, lesbian and transgender Americans.

"They shame and blame women rather than respect our right to make our own
reproductive health decisions," Clinton said in her remarks.

At another point in the speech, Clinton argued Republicans, "turn their
backs on gay people who love each other."

In another shift from the start of her husband and Obama's presidencies,
Clinton was very populist in tone, reflecting a Democratic Party that in
2015 increasingly views Wall Street and the financial sector as directly
pitted against everyday Americans. She specifically named nurses and
veterans as the kind of people who she is looking to help.

"While many of you are working multiple jobs to make ends meet, you see the
top 25 hedge fund managers making more than all of America's kindergarten
teachers combined. And, often paying a lower tax rate," Clinton said.

She added, "Prosperity can't just be for CEO's and hedge managers," Clinton
said. "Democracy can't just be for billionaires and corporations."

And Clinton, dogged for months over the millions she and her husband have
made by giving speeches to financial institutions, said "reining in the
banks" was one of her major goals.

Clinton's speech was akin to a State of the Union address by a sitting
president at times, as she covered a wide range of different policy issues
without going into great detail on any. It at times closely paralled the
State of the Union Obama gave in January, in part because Clinton and the
presidency share many of the same policy ideas.

The kickoff speech, delivered in New York, will do little to alter the
direction of the 2016 race. Clinton, who had been expected to run for years
before, formally announced her candidacy in April and is the overwhelming
favorite to win the Democratic nomination.

And many of the ideas Clinton articulated are familiar to Republicans,
since President Obama has proposed many of them.

But Clinton's focus on gay rights, voting rights and women's pay pose
challenges for the GOP. Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part because young,
minority and female voters heavily favored him.

Clinton' speech illustrated that she will appeal strongly to those same
voting blocs. Republicans will have to figure out both issues and political
appeals that can blunt her advantages among these voters.

*Ex-Obama Advisor: In the Game of Dynasties, House Clinton Will Always
Crush House Bush
<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ex-obama-advisor-in-the-game-of-dynasties-house-clinton-will-always-crush-house-bush/>
// Mediaite // Josh Feldman – June 15, 2015*

The excitement for a potential matchup between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush
is… well, virtually non-existent. If 2016 ends up being Clinton v. Bush
again, many voters will likely grow fatigued and roll their eyes.

But in the game of dynasties, who will reign supreme and be deemed fit to
rule King’s Land––er, the United States?

Well, following Bush’s announcement today, former Obama advisor Dan
Pfeiffer talked about which candidates would have the best chance against
Clinton, like Marco Rubio and Scott Walker.

As for a Clinton-Bush match-up, “I think Jeb Bush would be one of the worst
nominees Republicans could have because if you’re having a battle of
dynasties, the Clinton dynasty’s gonna beat the Bush dynasty every time.”

Or they burn the country to the ground and Donald Trump becomes king of the
ashes.

*Sunday Spin from Clinton Surrogates
<http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/sunday-spin-from-clinton-surrogates/> //
FactCheck.org // D’Angelo Gore & Eugene Kiely – June 15, 2015 *

Two of Hillary Clinton’s high-profile surrogates made false and misleading
claims on the Sunday talk shows the day after she officially kicked off her
campaign:

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said that “no poll shows that voters
don’t trust Hillary Clinton.” That’s false. At least two recent polls, one
conducted by CNN and one jointly by the Washington Post and ABC News, found
that a majority did not find Clinton to be “honest and trustworthy.”

Bill Clinton claimed “we didn’t have a commerce secretary” for “much of the
time” his wife was secretary of state, so she did economic diplomacy work
that nobody was doing. In fact, for most of her time in office — 36 of 48
months — there was a Senate-confirmed commerce secretary on the job.

Trust in Clinton

On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Mook flat-out rejected host John Dickerson’s
claim that “polls have shown” that “voters do not trust” Hillary Clinton.

Dickerson, June 14: Here’s the question that — when I talk to Democratic
strategists, people who even are anxious for her to be president. They say
she can list a lot of things. The biggest problem for her is trust. The
voters in the polls have shown this. Voters do not trust her. How does she
overcome that?

Mook: Well, first of all, there — no poll shows that voters don’t trust
Hillary Clinton.

Dickerson: They don’t find her honest and trustworthy.

Mook: Well, no poll says that.

But Mook is wrong.

A Washington Post/ABC News national poll published on June 3 found that 52
percent of all adults, and 56 percent of registered voters, answered “no”
when asked if Clinton was “honest and trustworthy.” Just 41 percent of all
adults, and 38 percent of registered voters, said that she was. The poll
had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

Langer Research Associates, which produced the poll, noted that Clinton’s
ratings for honesty and trust had declined significantly since about this
time last year.

Langer Research Associates, June 2: Perhaps most alarmingly for her
campaign, the number who see Clinton as honest and trustworthy has dropped
from 53 percent a year ago, then 46 percent two months ago, to 41 percent
now. Fifty-two percent now don’t see her as honest and trustworthy, the
most, again, since April 2008.

A CNN-ORC International survey from late May produced similar results.

In that poll, 57 percent of those asked said that “honest and trustworthy”
are not characteristics that apply to Clinton. And only 42 percent said
they did apply to her. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage
points.

The percentage who didn’t find Clinton “honest and trustworthy” was up 8
percentage points from March of this year and up 14 points since March 2014.

Mook argued that “the central question in this race is whether voters can
trust Hillary Clinton to be a tenacious fighter for them, to go to bat for
them, to push back on the stacked deck that has kept the middle class
behind.”

“And the answer to that is overwhelmingly yes,” he said.

Neither poll asked the question that Mook posed. However, they did ask if
Clinton “understands the problems of people like you” and “cares about
people like you.” We’ll note that the answers were not “overwhelmingly yes.”

In the Washington Post/ABC News poll, 49 percent of all adults, and 47
percent of registered voters, said that Clinton understands their problems.
On the other hand, 46 percent of all adults, and 50 percent of registered
voters, said that she did not.

In the CNN-ORC International poll, 52 percent of respondents said that
“cares about people like you” is not a characteristic that applies to
Clinton, while 47 percent felt that it did apply.

No Commerce Secretary?

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Bill Clinton made his remarks about the
commerce secretary and economic diplomacy when asked if any contributors to
the Clinton Foundation sought favors from the State Department. He said he
did not know.

Bill Clinton, June 14: But I will say this. She believed — and I did too. I
did the same thing when I was president. She believed that part of the [job
of the] secretary of state was to advance America’s economic interests
around the world and for much of the time she was secretary, for a number
of complex reasons, we didn’t have a commerce secretary. Now we’ve got
Penny Pritzker and she’s very vigorous and very good, I think. But we
didn’t have one. If she hadn’t been doing this economic diplomacy work,
nobody would have been doing this.

The fact is that for much of the time there was a Senate-confirmed commerce
secretary during Hillary Clinton’s four years in office.

Hillary Clinton headed the State Department for about 48 months, from Jan.
21, 2009, to Feb. 1, 2013. For 36 of those 48 months, Gary Locke and John
Bryson served as commerce secretaries. Gary Locke served from March 26,
2009, to Aug. 1, 2011. John Bryson served from Oct. 21, 2011, until June
11, 2012, before officially resigning for health reasons on June 21, 2012.
(He was involved in two car accidents June 9 after suffering a seizure.)

Before Locke took office, Otto Wolf served as acting secretary for a little
more than two months, from Jan. 21, 2009, to March 26, 2009. After Locke
resigned, Rebecca Blank served as the acting secretary for nearly three
months, from Aug. 1, 2011, to Oct. 21, 2011. Blank also served as acting
commerce secretary after Bryson took a leave of absence, and she remained
as acting secretary after he resigned. In all, Wolf and Blank served in an
acting capacity for about 12 of the 48 months that Hillary Clinton was in
office. That’s not “much of the time”; that’s some of the time.

As for Clinton using her office “to advance America’s economic interests
around the world,” as her husband put it, the State Department has long
been involved in economic diplomacy.

In 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice created an advisory board to
make recommendations on how to “transform the Department of State.” In a
2007 report, the 17-member panel — which included Carly Fiorina, who is now
a Republican presidential candidate — recommended elevating economic
diplomacy.

The Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy, 2007: Maintaining
U.S. leadership in a rapidly growing and “flattening” global economy will
be one of the pre-eminent challenges for U.S. diplomacy in the 21st
century. The Department of State must increase its focus on economic
diplomacy, bolster its capabilities in this area, and bring a
forward-looking, strategic unity to USG foreign economic and development
policy.

Under Clinton, the State Department did elevate economic diplomacy. On Feb.
16, 2012, Clinton announced an initiative she called “Economic Statecraft.”
Among other things, the department created a new position called the under
secretary for economic growth, energy, and the environment.

But the initiative, which came in her final 12 months in office, was
launched while Bryson was serving as commerce secretary. In fact, Bryson
addressed the first-ever State Department Global Business Conference, which
was Feb. 21-22, 2012.

So Hillary Clinton was involved in economic diplomacy and even elevated it,
but it’s not accurate to say that the Obama administration “didn’t have a
commerce secretary” for “much of the time” that Clinton was at the State
Department or that she did economic diplomacy alone.

*Hillary Clinton, the center-left's champion
<http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/hillary-clinton-the-center-left-s-champion-1.10544662>
// Newsday // Stephen Stromberg – June 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton ended much of the suspense about what she's running on,
delivering her first full campaign-style stump speech on New York's
Roosevelt Island on Saturday. The result was a platform of workmanlike
liberal policy that neither mimics her husband's agenda nor fully dignifies
the populists pushing the Democratic Party from the country's ideological
governing space. America's center-left has a champion.

Clothed in rhetoric condemning economic and social inequality, Clinton's
address acknowledged the power of the Obama coalition of young and minority
voters, striking a very different note from the triangulated social
conservatism of her husband's presidency. She promised to help pretty much
everyone except Republican presidential candidates and hedge-fund managers,
arguing that the country needs an "inclusive economy" supported by an
"inclusive society."

She proposed laws barring discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender people, backed universal preschool and child care, supported a
pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants with clean records, demanded
easier access to the polls and endorsed a constitutional amendment
re-imposing restrictions on political spending.

In one of the best lines in her speech, Clinton mocked the cowardice of
Republicans who dodge reporters' questions on climate change. "They'll say,
'I'm not a scientist,'" she said. "Well, then why don't they start
listening to those who are?" In one of the worst lines in her speech,
Clinton again punted on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, bowing to
progressives' current anti-trade hysteria. "Advances in technology and the
rise of global trade have created whole new areas of economic activity and
opened new markets for our exports," she said, "but they have also
displaced jobs and undercut wages for millions of Americans."

But, thankfully, Clinton also avoided some of the worst populist excesses
of the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.
Crucially, Clinton emphasized the importance of economic growth, innovation
and efficient government, not rigid regulatory and tax policies or
unaffordable expansions of entitlements. "The middle class needs more
growth and more fairness," she said. "Growth and fairness go together. For
lasting prosperity, you can't have one without the other."

Clinton appears to be aligning herself with Democrats who stress the
importance of economic competitiveness and flexibility in enabling the
country to keep up with global competition and advance the standard of
living.

It remains to be seen whether Clinton can harness the energy of
progressives without buying more fully into their extravagances. But for
those seeking care and substance, her speech was a pretty good opening move.

*Hillary and Bill Clinton: Campaign Speech Twinsies
<http://time.com/3921240/hillary-and-bill-clinton-campaign-speech-twinsies/>
// TIME // Nell Scovell – June 15, 2015 *

All campaign speeches have overlap. Blah, blah, middle class… Wah-wah
education… Rah-rah, opportunity for all. But comparing then Governor
Clinton’s kick-off campaign speech on October 3, 1991, with former Senator
Hillary Clinton’s kick-off campaign speech on June 13, 2015, reveals some
interesting overlaps and omissions.

ROOSEVELT MENTIONED

Bill: Teddy

Hillary: Franklin

STRUGGLES THEIR MOTHERS ENDURED

Bill: “My mother had been widowed three months before I was born. I was
raised for four years by my grandparents, while she went back to nursing
school.”

Hillary: “[My mother’s] own parents abandoned her, and by 14 she was out on
her own, working as a housemaid.”

24 YEARS AND DOCTORS STILL HAVEN’T FOUND A CURE FOR DC’S PARALYSIS

Bill: “… all we have out of Washington is status quo paralysis. No vision,
no action. Just neglect, selfishness, and division.”

Hillary: “Our political system is so paralyzed by gridlock and dysfunction
that most Americans have lost confidence that anything can actually get
done.”

WHAT DO WE WANT? EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT. WHEN DO WE WANT IT? ONE OF THESE
DAYS WOULD BE NICE…

Bill: “I want to reinvent government to make it more efficient and more
effective.”

Hillary: “Government is never going to have all the answers — but it has to
be smarter, simpler, more efficient…”

STILL WAITING ON THAT CLEANER, SAFER PLANET…

Bill: “…We must protect our environment and develop an energy policy that
relies more on conservation and clean natural gas so all our children will
inherit a world that is cleaner, safer, and more beautiful.”

Hillary: “And we will make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st
century. Developing renewable power — wind, solar, advanced biofuels.
Building cleaner power plants, smarter electric grids, greener buildings…”

AH, YES, THE ‘PROMISE OF AMERICA’

Bill: “The small towns and main streets of America aren’t like the
corridors and backrooms of Washington. People out here don’t care about the
idle rhetoric of ‘left’ and ‘right’ and ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’… These
families are crying out desperately for someone who believes the promise of
America is to help them with their struggle to get ahead…”

Hillary: “There are allies for change everywhere who know we can’t stand by
while inequality increases, wages stagnate, and the promise of America
dims.”

THINGS BILL MENTIONED THAT HILLARY DID NOT

Communism, Cold War, the American Dream, Welfare, New Millennium, Hope

THINGS HILLARY MENTIONED THAT BILL DID NOT

LGBT Community, Biofuels, Technology, Hedge Fund Managers, Silicon Valley,
Coloring hair

THINGS NEITHER OF THEM MENTIONED

Yale

BEST QUOTE/PROPHECY

Bill: “I’m not out to soak the rich. I wouldn’t mind being rich.”

Hillary: “Well, I may not be the youngest candidate in this race. But I
will be the youngest woman President in the history of the United States.”

*The Critical Missing Sentence From Hillary Clinton's Roosevelt Island
Speech
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2015/06/15/the-critical-missing-sentence-from-hillary-clintons-roosevelt-island-speech/>
// Forbes // Rick Ungar – June 15, 2015 *

As one whose political philosophy tends to lean to the left, it should come
as no surprise that there was much in Hillary Clinton’s “reintroduction”
speech that I found to my liking.

But there was something missing—something that would have told me, and
millions of Americans who want to support Mrs. Clinton but just aren’t yet
convinced, that she understands that progressives are grown-ups who are
more than capable of hearing reality and responding positively to the same.

More on that in a moment.

The speech began well for me. After all, what Democrat with an
understanding of our nation’s history is not a sucker for a speech designed
to follow in the legendary footsteps of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

By the way, if you do not have much of a historical understanding or “feel”
for what FDR was all about, it wouldn’t be a terrible idea to watch the
multi-part PBS special on The Roosevelts—brilliantly put together by Ken
Burns—to gain some sense of how the modern Democratic Party came to be.

Doing what no presidential candidate has done in a very long time, Mrs.
Clinton invoked and honored this most significant of American presidents,
not only by holding her first major rally on New York’s Roosevelt Island,
but by reminding one and all of the greatness of Roosevelt and what has
allowed him to achieve such status in the pantheon of great American
leaders, noting:

“President Roosevelt called on every American to do his or her part, and
every American answered. He said there’s no mystery about what it takes to
build a strong and prosperous America: ‘Equality of opportunity… Jobs for
those who can work… Security for those who need it… The ending of special
privilege for the few… The preservation of civil liberties for all… a wider
and constantly rising standard of living.’ That still sounds good to me,”
Clinton said. “It’s America’s basic bargain. If you do your part you ought
to be able to get ahead. And when everybody does their part, America gets
ahead too.”

Not only was Mrs. Clinton bringing context to what makes a Democrat a
Democrat, she managed to channel her inner-Elizabeth Warren to the base of
her party—a base that fears that Hillary Clinton is running to be
“triangulator-in-chief,” meaning that she may be all too willing to make
any number of deals with the devil if it gets her the presidency.

While the speech likely bolstered Hillary’s stock with the left-wing
base—who will remain suspicious if temporarily mollified—Clinton
miscalculated in one area and, by so doing, failed in the opportunity to
reach out to the average American who describes himself or herself as
socially moderate or liberal while fiscally conservative.

The fact that Mrs. Clinton provided a laundry list supporting virtually
every liberal cause in the book in the effort to establish her social
progressiveness was certainly to be expected. And while some of the items
on her list of objectives could be accomplished at no financial cost to the
nation, most of her proposals would, indeed, come with a heavy price tag.

That is a reality that will not be missed by millions of progressives, not
to mention the independent and centrist Americans whose support is critical
to a candidate of either party.

Mrs. Clinton would have done well to confront that elephant on the island
head on.

After putting forth her wish list for a better America, Hillary would have
been wise to point out that much of this will cost money—more money than
the nation actually has or can expect to have in the years to come. As a
result, it will be necessary to prioritize her goals in the effort to
create that America where everyone willing to work has a chance for a
better life.

Clinton should then have invited Americans to tell her how they would set
the priorities of her administration so as to guide her along the path to
succeeding in many—if not all—of her goals without breaking a bank that is
already hanging by a chad.

By failing to call out this reality, Mrs. Clinton pretended that she could,
somehow, succeed in bringing about all of these transformative proposals in
an eight year period and that this would be doable without further digging
the debt hole even larger than it already is.

*Hillary Clinton has always been to Obama's left on economics
<http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8779449/hillary-clinton-populist-record> //
VOX // Matthew Iglesias – June 15, 2015 *

At a dramatic weekend rally on Roosevelt Island, Hillary Clinton unleashed
a speech that was in some ways strikingly liberal, especially for a
candidate who's not facing meaningful opposition in the Democratic primary.
Politico's Glenn Thrush says it shows that "the Democratic Party is moving
left fast" and Clinton knows it, which is why she uncorked
"economic-inequality rhetoric could have been comfortably uttered by the
likes of Elizabeth Warren, Joseph Stiglitz, Bernie Sanders, or Martin
O’Malley."

The truth, however, is that on the kind of pocketbook issues Clinton spent
most of yesterday's speech discussing, she's always been on the left wing
of the Democratic Party. She's been in the public eye far too long to have
avoided inconsistencies over the years. But in positional terms, somewhat
to the left of Obama — or Bill Clinton — on economics is where she's been
this whole time.

Clinton's voting record was to the left of Obama's

In 2008, both Clinton and Obama spent a lot of time debating a single
fateful vote she cast in 2002 in favor of George W. Bush's invasion of
Iraq. But if you look at all the votes that were cast during the four years
they served together in the Senate, it was Clinton who amassed the more
liberal record.

In the 109th Senate, Obama was the 17th most liberal member (between Chuck
Schumer and Tom Harkin), while Clinton was the 13th most liberal member.

In the 110th Senate, Obama was the 18th most liberal member (again one tick
to the left of Schumer) while Clinton was again 13th most liberal.

Another way of looking at it is that of the two Democratic senators from
New York, Clinton was the more liberal. Of the two Democratic senators from
Illinois, Obama was the more conservative.

Of course, one could say that these kind of crude vote-agglomeration
methods miss a lot of what matters. A single vote on Iraq was more
consequential than dozens of votes on budget amendments. But this is the
point. Clinton's reputation as a centrist Democrat comes largely from her
foreign policy. On the economic issues that dominate congressional votes by
volume, she's liberal.

On economics, Clinton ran left in 2008

In keeping with her voting record, Clinton ran to Obama's left on economic
issues in the 2008 primaries. This manifested itself most clearly on the
subject of health care, where Clinton was willing to include a politically
unpopular individual mandate to buy health insurance as part of a program
for universal coverage. Obama was not willing to go so far, and came in for
substantial criticism from liberals for it. Less famously, Clinton proposed
a Cabinet-level poverty czar position — an idea that might make a comeback
in 2016.

The ideological divide here was not large, but it was reflected in patterns
of support for the two candidates. Clinton secured more labor union backing
than Obama, and Obama did better than Clinton at gaining primary votes from
self-identified independents.

Much of the primary debate ended up focusing on foreign policy, where
Clinton was (and continues to be) more hawkish than Obama. But there's
nothing new about her running left on economics.

Hillary led the left wing of the Clinton administration

Reaching further back in time, there is considerable evidence that Hillary
was to the left of her husband on economics in the 1990s. As Peter Beinart
recounts, she was the senior adviser through whom liberals generally tried
to win over the White House.

Carl Bernstein reports that in 1993, Hillary opposed the decision to
prioritize deficit reduction, saying, "You didn’t get elected to do Wall
Street economics."

Sally Bedell Smith reports that in 1995, Hillary and Robert Reich tried
(and failed) to get Bill to make a big stink about CEO pay.

George Stephanopoulos, who was in a position to know, referred to Hillary
as "the most powerful liberal in the White House."

A then-obscure law professor named Elizabeth Warren reached out to Hillary
and helped convince her to persuade her husband to veto a bank-friendly
bankruptcy bill at the very end of the Clinton administration.

Some of this, especially the parts about Clinton being out of step with the
Wall Street wing of the party, has been obscured by subsequent events.
Clinton, for example, flip-flopped on the bankruptcy issue in 2005.

But one should be cautious about reading too much into a New York
politician's friendliness to Wall Street — especially a politician with
such tenuous ties to New York. As a senator from Illinois, Obama was an
ally of the Illinois coal industry. Elizabeth Warren is a dogmatic liberal
on virtually every issue, but also a loyal ally of the medical device
industry, which happens to be substantially based in the Boston area.
Things can change over time, but it seems likely that First Lady Hillary
Clinton rather than Fake New Yorker Hillary Clinton is the better guide to
her views on Wall Street.

*Hillary Clinton Calls Trade Stalemate 'a Process Issue'
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-15/hillary-clinton-calls-trade-stalemate-a-process-issue->
// Bloomberg News // Ali Elkin – June 15, 2015 *

Campaigning in New Hampshire, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton on
Monday continued to hedge on whether President Barack Obama should have
fast-track authority in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement—and
whether she would want it if she were the president.

"I'm going to say this," she said, speaking to reporters at an orchard in
Concord, N.H. "I believe that you take whatever happens to you in a
negotiation and you try to leverage it. In this case, I believe that one of
the ways the president could get fast-track authority is to deal with the
legitimate concerns of those Democrats who are potential 'yes' voters, to
see what within the negotiation or what's even in the existing framework
agreement that's being drafted, could be modified or changed."

Saying the failed House vote on Friday was "a process issue," Clinton
echoed her remarks on Sunday in Iowa. “The president should listen to and
work with his allies in Congress, starting with Nancy Pelosi,” she said.
“And if we don't get it, there should be no deal.”

Monday's press conference followed weeks of complaints from reporters about
Clinton's lack of availability, as well as a weekend of appearances by
members of her staff, who also would not give an opinion on Clinton's
behalf about the trade agreement. Senator Bernie Sanders and others have
sharply criticized Clinton's refusal to take a position. "I am not clear,
nor do I believe the American people are clear, as to what Secretary
Clinton's position is," he said. "Is she for it or is she against it? Those
are your two options."

After the failure of a strategic vote crucial to sending fast-track trade
authority to the White House—a stunning defeat for Obama—Republicans are
pushing for a new vote this week.

In New Hampshire, Clinton also touched on the criticism that her own
family's wealth stands at odds with her campaign's populist message.

"I'm very grateful for the success that Bill and I have had," she said. "We
both come from hardworking families and we have worked really hard, both of
us, over the course of our lives and we feel blessed. We feel absolutely
grateful for the opportunities that we've had. But I've been saying pretty
much the same thing since I was a college student: I'm proud of my
progressive credentials and experiences and accomplishments and I am waging
a campaign about what I think is best for the country and it's going to be
up to the American people to draw their own conclusions."

*Clinton campaign bans national pool reporter from N.H. events
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/06/15/hillary-clinton-campaign-barred-national-pool-reporter-from-new-hampshire-events/EgANuZJ7EnNAjZnKiKxcJO/story.html?event=event12>
// The Boston Globe // Annie Linskey – June 15, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign this morning banned a
representative from the national print pool from attending any of her
events in New Hampshire, a development that will make coverage for her trip
to New Hampshire spotty for some of the country’s largest print outlets.

The campaign team for Clinton, who is a former US secretary of state, is
not allowing a reporter from the Daily Mail, a London news outlet, to have
access to her events. Nick Merrill, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said that
the campaign is getting “blowback” from foreign outlets. Foreign outlets
have not been granted access to some Clinton events because the campaign
wants to give preference to US publications.

“We need to rethink it all, maybe for a day,” Merrill told David Martosko,
a reporter for the Daily Mail, according to the reporter’s account of the
conversation sent to other outlets in the national pool. “And just cool
things off until we can have a discussion.”

The flap is the latest flashpoint between the Clinton campaign and the
political press corps. Clinton has only answered a handful of questions
from the press, and over the weekend sat for her first interviews since she
declared her candidacy in mid-April. Her near universal name recognition
sets her apart from other political candidates who typically seek news
coverage to promote their campaigns.

Instead, intense media interest in the Clinton campaign prompted the
campaign to request that the media form a pool for coverage. In the pool, a
group of roughly a dozen outlets take turns traveling to cover Clinton in
small, closed events and write reports off her remarks. The dispatches are
first shared by e-mail with the outlets participating in the rotation, and
then sent at the end of the day to all interested news outlets.

The pool was organized by the participating media, not the Clinton
campaign. Any print outlet that commits to join the traveling rotation can
join. It’s currently being run by reporters from Buzzfeed and Politico.

Merrill said the Daily Mail reporter was denied because the campaign is
trying to follow White House conventions for pooled coverage. The Daily
Mail hasn’t been added to the White House’s regular print pool – though the
publication does have a regular White House correspondent with a so-called
“hard pass” that allows her access to the West Wing.

The Boston Globe, which participates in the Clinton traveling press pool
and the White House pool, has access to Clinton’s events today because a
reporter from the paper was selected as a member of the local pool. The
Globe’s circulation area includes New Hampshire. The Clinton campaign has a
policy to always allow wire reporters access to pool events.

Clinton is holding three events today, and two of them are open only to
pooled coverage. Those include a forum in this morning in Rochester, N.H.,
on early childhood education and a dinner this evening in Manchester.
Clinton is set to give the keynote address at the Manchester City Democrats
Flag Day Dinner.

When Martosko showed up at their first event in Rochester, he said he was
denied access inside the YMCA of Strafford County by a “Secret Service
agent.” When he requested to use the restroom, the agent told him the area
had already gone through a security sweep and he should “hit the woods.”

Unlike her Democratic rivals, Clinton’s campaign has only held a handful of
public events since she announced her candidacy – meaning access to the
smaller or pooled events are critical to understanding how she’s
formulating positions.

For example, on Sunday, Clinton gave a full explanation of her position on
trade Sunday evening at a small house party in Burlington, Iowa. She also
foreshadowed this morning’s Rochester forum by saying the campaign will
focus on early childhood education.

*Hillary Clinton Again Avoids Taking A Position On Trade Deal
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-again-avoids-taking-position-trade-deal-n375826>
// NBC News // Leigh Ann Caldwell – June 15, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gave her first organized
news conference on Monday since she announced her candidacy two months ago.
Despite being pressed on her position on the trade deal that has divided
Democrats and consumed Congress, Clinton still refused to take a position
and maintained that she would "judge the final product."

"I will judge what's in the final agreement but hope it can be made
better," Clinton told reporters in New Hampshire.

Like she did in Iowa over the weekend, Clinton said she thinks President
Barack Obama should use the failure of the trade agreement in the House of
Representatives as leverage to get more out of the deal and attract more
Democrats.

"I think this is a chance to use this leverage so the deal does become one
that more Americans and more members of Congress can vote for," she said.

While Clinton gave Obama such advice, she also praised him for an economic
recovery and said he "doesn't get the credit he deserves."

"I think the president has done an extraordinary job dealing with a
terrible set of issues," she said of the president coming into office
amidst a deep recession.

The former Secretary of State also addressed the criticism that she is too
wealthy to understand the needs of the middle class and those who are
struggling financially. She said she's "proud of her progressive
credentials," adding that she's believed in progressive ideals "since
college."

"When I say I'm going to fight ... that's what I'm going to do every single
day," Clinton said.

*De Blasio says Hillary Clinton lacks 'vision'
<http://nypost.com/2015/06/15/de-blasio-still-waiting-on-hillarys-vision/>
// Marisa Schultz and Michael Gartland – June 15, 2015 *

Even after delivering a campaign speech packed with eat-the-rich rhetoric,
Hillary Clinton was still unable Sunday to win an endorsement from her
far-left-leaning former protégé, Mayor Bill de Blasio.

“I’ve been waiting to hear a vision,” de Blasio said. “She’s doing more
each time to give us a clearer picture, and I’m very optimistic, but we’ve
got to see the plan of how she’s going to turn around this horrible
income-inequality problem.”

In her Saturday campaign kickoff rally on Roosevelt Island, Clinton pledged
support for gay rights, universal pre-K, paid family leave and higher wages
for workers — all while vowing to keep corporate CEOs and hedge-fund
managers in check.

But it wasn’t enough for de Blasio, who seeks to be a progressive kingmaker.

“It was a great speech,” he conceded, calling her “tremendously qualified.”

“I really commend her for what I thought was a powerful and progressive
speech.”

Still, he said, he wants “to see those details.”

Clinton took another progressive turn Sunday by offering support for the
Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who together defied President Obama on
Friday in sinking a key trade-deal vote.

“The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress,
starting with Nancy Pelosi, who had expressed their concerns about the
impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers to make sure we get
the best, strongest deal possible,” Clinton told about 600 supporters in
Iowa at her first public rally. “And if we don’t get it, there should be no
deal.”

Clinton had been pounded from the right and left for failing to pick a side
on whether to grant Obama fast-track authority for an Asia trade deal.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic nomination, said Sunday
on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the trade deal would be a “disaster” and
that Clinton should “side with every union in the country” and oppose the
measure.

Earlier Sunday, Rep. Paul Ryan called her silence on the issue “mystifying.”

“Pick a position; that’s what leaders do,” he said on “Fox News Sunday”
after a Clinton spokeswoman punted the question.

Meanwhile, hubby Bill Clinton sought to build up Hillary’s trust after a
poll found that more than half of Americans believe her to be dishonest.

“I trust her with my life,” he told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

And he dismissed allegations that his wife’s policies as secretary of state
were influenced by foreign donors to the family’s Clinton Foundation.

“She was pretty busy those years,” Bill Clinton said. “I never saw her
study a list of my contributors, and I had no idea who was doing business
before the State Department.”

Also Sunday, Hillary Clinton sat for an interview with Radio Iowa in Des
Moines, where she equated the attacks on her as “a strange form of respect
and even flattery, because if they weren’t so concerned about me, they’d
leave me alone.

“They get up every day, you know, worried that the case I’m making will
break through,” she said.

*Hillary Clinton Is Taking Sides in Obama's Trade Fight With Liberal
Democrats
<http://mic.com/articles/120672/hillary-clinton-taking-liberals-side-on-obama-s-trade-policy>
// Mic // Gregory Krieg – June 15, 2015 *

In politics, there is a distinct difference between giving an answer to a
question and actually answering the question. Reporters have for weeks been
asking Hillary Clinton's campaign whether she supports giving President
Barack Obama the power to unilaterally negotiate a controversial trade deal
currently pitting the White House against liberal Democratic leaders in
Congress. For weeks, Clinton and her team seem to have done everything in
their power to avoid giving a serious answer.

On Sunday in Iowa, that changed.

Speaking to a crowd of supporters in Des Moines, then in separate
interviews with the Des Moines Register and Radio Iowa, Clinton broke from
Obama and urged the administration to both partner with House Democratic
Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and use the opposition in her caucus as
leverage to negotiate a more labor-friendly version of the pending
12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership.

"I think what Nancy Pelosi said on the floor when she voted to essentially
stop it is the right approach to take," Clinton told the Register.

Following an afternoon rally, Clinton went into greater detail, telling
Radio Iowa that Obama should "go back to the other countries and say: 'You
want a lot out of this. I need more. Our market is still the biggest, most
consumer friendly in the world, but I can't go forward unless I get X, Y
and Z from you.'"

"Convince people who are convincible ... that you have answered some of the
legitimate questions that have been raised," she said.

Clinton was just as blunt during her live remarks, according to MSNBC,
saying Obama "should listen to and work with his allies in Congress,
starting with Nancy Pelosi, who has expressed concern about the impact a
trade agreement could have on our workers, to make sure we get the best
deal possible.

"And if we don't get it, there should be no deal."

Why it matters: While this might seem pretty cut-and-dry, Clinton's critics
continue to assert that she is vacillating. But here's the thing: Clinton
is not running for a seat in Congress. If she was, it would make sense for
voters and journalists to demand an immediate, real-time answer on whether
she would vote to give the president "fast-track" authority. That bit of
legislation, also called Trade Provisional Authority, provides the White
House with the autonomy to negotiate the trade agreement and present it to
Congress for a straight up-or-down vote without amendments.

But Clinton is running for president. With her comments Sunday, Clinton
simply articulated what she would do if elected to the office she is
campaigning to win. (Though it would be reasonable to assume, given her
explicit backing of Pelosi's tactics, that she would have voted with the
liberal detractors.)

If we can't accept that level of nuance, then it is the line of
questioning, not Clinton's answers, that begins to seem disingenuous or
cynical. There are plenty of reasons to oppose the Trans Pacific
Partnership on its face. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), is a vocal opponent
of free trade expansion, stating his very reasonable worries that these
agreements tend to favor multinational corporations at the expense of
American workers.

You might agree with Sanders. There is a lot of evidence showing that the
North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by former President Bill
Clinton in 1993 after being granted an extension to his "fast-track"
authorities, was a disaster for the U.S. middle class. But the TPP is a new
deal. Obama calls it the "most progressive trade agreement in our nation's
history." Is he being truthful? The administration's decision to keep the
details hidden from the public is a good reason to be skeptical.

Either way, Clinton has planted her flag. As she said later during her talk
with Radio Iowa, "I'm going to set forth what I believe, what I think will
work ... and then people will make their own decisions."

*Top hedge fund managers make more than all kindergarten teachers combined
<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-top-hedge-fund-managers-make-more-/>
// Politifact // Lauren Carroll – June 15, 2015 *

At her presidential campaign kick-off rally June 13, Hillary Clinton said
the rich are getting richer, while many Americans are struggling to make
ends meet. Case in point: the disparity between Wall Street hedge fund
managers and kindergarten teachers.

"While many of you are working multiple jobs to make ends meet," she said,
"you see the top 25 hedge fund managers making more than all of America’s
kindergarten teachers combined. And, often paying a lower tax rate."

Is the salary gap between kindergarten teachers and hedge fund managers
really so wide? We decided to check it out. (We previously looked into a
Clinton claim about taxes among the working class and the ultra-wealthy.)

Kindergarten teachers

The best data we could find on kindergarten teachers comes from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. Other statistical sources, such as the National Center
for Education Statistics, don’t separate out kindergarten teachers
specifically.

According to a 2014 BLS report, there are about 158,000 kindergarten
teachers in the United States. The figure includes teachers from both
public and private schools, though it excludes special education
instructors.

The average annual pay for a kindergarten teacher is $53,480 -- ranging
from less than $34,000 to more than $78,000. This is higher than what the
average preschoolteacher makes, but slightly lower than that of elementary,
middle and high schoolteachers.

So the aggregate pay for kindergarten teachers is about $8.5 billion.

For some historical context, Susan Moore Johnson, an education professor at
Harvard University, said kindergarten teachers have traditionally been paid
less than teachers at higher grade levels. But the implementation of
district-wide pay scales has made pay mostly uniform across all grades
within a district -- with exact salary varying based on experience and
education, rather than the grade level. However, this is not the case in
all districts.

Johnson added that, according to the National Center for Education
Statistics, private school elementary teachers get paid, on average,
several thousand dollars less than their public school counterparts.

So how does the $8.5 billion collective salary of America’s kindergarten
teachers compare to the top-25 hedge fund managers’ take-home pay? This
number is a little bit more elusive.

Hedge fund managers

In its 2015 ranking of the top-earning hedge fund managers, Institutional
Investor’s Alpha magazine said the group of 25 collectively earned $11.62
billion in compensation.

At the top of the list is Citadel founder and CEO Kenneth Griffin, who
earned an estimated $1.3 billion off his fund.

Lest your jaw remain fully hinged, 2014 was a bad year. The magazine called
the total $11.62 billion bounty "paltry" compared to what it was in 2013,
when the top-25 hedge managers made about twice as much -- $21.15 billion.

There are, however, some issues with measuring hedge manager salaries,
though the experts we polled couldn’t name a source that would necessarily
be more accurate than Alpha magazine’s list.

The magazine’s report is just an estimate -- based on the manager’s capital
gains in the fund, as well as his (the top 25 are all men) estimated share
in the firm’s management and performance fees charged to clients.

These numbers are hard to verify because no one really knows for certain a
manager’s stake in his or her firm, said Nicole Boyson, a finance professor
at Northeastern University.

Additionally, funds charged to clients vary drastically among and within
the different firms, and one would also have to account for how much of
these fees go toward running the business, rather than the salary, Boyson
said.

"If you could get comfortable with the ‘right’ number for a hedge fund
manager, which I am not sure is possible, then you could compare it
directly to the gross pay of teachers ... with the caveat that these two
groups are likely subject to different tax rates, etc.," Boyson said.

In any case, the best information we have shows 25 hedge managers making
about $3 billion more than the country’s 158,000 kindergarten teachers
combined -- and that’s in a bad year for the hedge managers. The data here
isn't perfect, but the gap between the two professions is so wide that it
seems a safe bet that hedge fund managers make more.

Our ruling

Clinton said, "The top-25 hedge fund managers (are) making more than all of
America's kindergarten teachers combined."

Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that America’s 158,000 kindergarten
teachers together make $8.5 billion a year.

There are a few possible problems with the data for hedge fund managers’
earnings, but there’s no denying it’s significantly higher than a
kindergarten teacher’s compensation. A rough estimate for the top-25 hedge
fund managers shows they collectively earned $11.62 billion in 2014, and
that was a bad year. In 2013, they earned approximately $21.15 billion. So
using the smaller number, kindergarten teachers come up shy of hedge fund
managers by about $3 billion, a huge margin.

We rate Clinton’s claim True.

*How Hollywood Helped Hillary Clinton
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-hollywood-helped-hillary-clinton/> // CBS
News // Rebecca Kaplan – June 15, 2015 *

When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, she said she felt like she
had an "extra burden" of convincing the American people that a woman could
be president and commander in chief. Now, she notes in an interview with
the Des Moines Register, television is full of women in power.

The Democratic secretary of state noted two contemporary shows that feature
women in power: "Veep," an HBO comedy in which Julia Louis-Dreyfus portrays
a vice president who ascends to the top office when the president steps
down. Then there's "Madam Secretary," a CBS show featuring Téa Leoni as
U.S. Secretary of State.

"Madam Secretary" star Tea Leoni on hit series, women on TV

Years before either of those shows, Clinton was a reference point on
"Gilmore Girls," a show about the life of single mother Lorelai Gilmore and
her daughter, Rory, that aired for seven years on the WB and the CW
networks. During the show's third season, Rory tells her boyfriend, Dean,
that she plans to write her college application essay about Clinton.

"She's so smart and tough and nobody thought she could win New York but she
did and she's doing amazing, and have you heard her speak?" Rory says. When
Dean responds that she's made him watch "thousands" of hours of footage of
Clinton on C-SPAN, Rory gushes, "She's a great speaker, strong and
persuasive with a wonderful presence, and even those suits of hers are
getting better." (The Hillary essay plan is derailed when a college
admissions officer sitting on a panel at Rory's high school says, "If I
read one more over-adulating piece of prose about Hillary Clinton and her
profound influence, my head will explode.").

"A lot of different cultural references, which I find both fascinating and
kind of reinforcing, because it does take a leap of faith of imagination
for people to envision a woman in the Oval Office, and oftentimes culture,
entertainment is ahead of the political system in lots of ways," Clinton
told the Des Moines Register.

The creators of "Madam Secretary" have said that Clinton was an inspiration
for fictional Secretary Elizabeth McCord, but that the character also drew
on former female Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza
Rice.

"When we got into developing [the show], to me, the first thing I had to do
was make it fictional, make a character who wasn't Hillary," writer and
creator Barbara Hall told Politico when the show first hit the airwaves in
the fall of 2014. She said she doesn't "mind" the discussion which compares
the show to Clinton, but said, "I think it's clear in the show, that that's
not what we're doing."

In fact, the show spent more time looking at Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New
York, who, like Leoni's character, has young children that she balances
with her high-profile job.

*Bill Clinton: ‘You can’t have people walking around with guns’
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/15/bill-clinton-you-cant-have-people-walking-around-w/>
// The Washington Times // Jessica Chasmar – June 15, 2015 *

Former President Bill Clinton on Sunday blamed the recent unrest in
Baltimore on people owning too many guns in this city, combined with a lack
of trust in the local police department.

Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Mr. Clinton first suggested that
development opportunities and more jobs could be the solution in Baltimore.
He cited the Baltimore-based athletic clothing company Under Armour as
keeping 17,000 jobs in the city.

“I’d go get that guy from Under Armour and I would bring all these leaders
and all these kids and I’d figure out what to do and come up with a
strategy. You don’t have to solve it all overnight, you just have to make
it better than it was,” he said.

“The Baltimore thing came on the heels of what happened in Ferguson, what
happened in New York City and all these other places. And there is a big
national movement about whether the lives of young African-American men
count,” Mr. Clinton said, referring to the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

“You can’t have people walking around with guns. I used to tell people when
we did Bosnia, Kosovo, anything like that: You get enough people with
weapons around, and there will be unintended consequences. People make
mistakes. People do wrong. Things happen,” he continued.

“To hold a community together, you’ve got to have a high level of community
trust. Somebody that’s in your family gets shot, you want an answer from
somebody you know, and you want to be able to ask questions and get them
answered and resolve that. So I think that in addition to economics, we
need to look at the places in America where these things happen and they
don’t drive people into the streets because they actually trust the process
in resolving them. There’s such a trust deficit in America today,” Mr.
Clinton said.

*Clinton: I never saw Hillary 'study a list of my contributors'
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244938-clinton-i-never-saw-hillary-study-a-list-of-my-contributors>
// The Hill // Cory Bennett – June 15, 2015 *

Former President Bill Clinton emphatically denied that 2016 Democratic
frontrunner Hillary Clinton gave any favors to Clinton Foundation donors
during her time as secretary of State.

“She was pretty busy those years,” Clinton said during an interview aired
Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

“I never saw her study a list of my contributors, and I had no idea who was
doing business before the State Department," he added.

In the early days of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president, the former
New York senator and first lady has faced attacks about foreign government
funding for her family’s charitable organization, which does humanitarian
work around the world.

The organization has admitted to omitting certain donations from its
publicly available records.

Clinton specifically defended one donation that has come under scrutiny, a
$500,000 check from the Embassy of Algeria in 2010. The foundation has
acknowledged that the donation was not properly approved under rules the
Obama administration put in place after Hillary Clinton became Secretary of
State.

“I can say the one thing that there’s nothing to it is the Algeria giving
half a million dollars for the Haiti earthquake,” Clinton said. “That
Algerian money, we didn’t report that not because we were ashamed of it,
but because it was coming within two days of the earthquake and they were
performing imputative surgery on the lawn outside the major hospital with a
flashlight at night and vodka for anesthesia and antiseptic. Nobody thought
about it.”

Clinton also promoted the “economic diplomacy” that his wife did during her
time in the Obama administration, pointing out that there was not a
secretary of Commerce during much of that span.

“If she hadn’t been doing this economic diplomacy work, nobody would have
been doing this,” he said. “I never thought about any overlap.”

*Clinton camp shuts out foreign reporter
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/244974-clinton-camp-shuts-out-foreign-reporter>
// The Hill // Ben Kamisar – June 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is not allowing a Daily Mail reporter access to
campaign events despite being chosen by media outlets to provide pooled
coverage of Monday’s trip around New Hampshire.

Nick Merrill, a senior Clinton campaign press aide, told David Martosko,
the U.S. political editor for the Daily Mail, was shut out because of
“blowback from foreign outlets that want to be a part of the pool.”

“We need to rethink it all, maybe for a day, and just cool things off until
we can have a discussion,” Merrill told Martosko.

When Martosko pointed out that non-American news sites like the Guardian
are part of the pool, Merrill said that those outlets were a part of the
official White House press pool, so the campaign treated those outlets
differently.

Martosko said on Twitter that he still plans to drive to Clinton’s event in
Rochester, N.H.

News outlets covering Clinton set up the pool independently so that
participating outlets would not have to always have someone traveling with
the campaign. One representative chosen from the rotation each day travels
closely with the campaign and provides all pool members with notes from her
events.

But only outlets that have pledged to help with the travel pool receive
immediate updates; other media outlets do not receive an aggregate list of
all the reports until the end of Clinton's trip. That includes foreign
outlets that can't send reporters stateside.

"We want a happy press corps as much as the press corps does. And we work
very hard to achieve that in tandem with them," Merrill told Politico in a
statement.

"It's a long campaign, and we are going to do our best to find equilibrium
and best accommodate interest from as many news outlets as possible, given
the space limitations of our events."

*EXCLUSIVE: The day Hillary’s team booted me off the bus: ‘The Clinton's
campaign wants to control which reporters can come along for the ride.
Today it was supposed to be me - but at the last minute I was shut out.
That's NOT okay'
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3125579/Hillary-Clinton-s-campaign-wants-control-reporters-come-ride-Today-supposed-minute-shut-s-NOT-okay.html#ixzz3dBGq5bkH>
// The Daily Mail // David Martokso – June 15, 2015 *

Driving through New Hampshire in the rain without knowing where you're
headed is an unnerving experience, but that's where I found myself this
morning after Hillary Clinton's staff said I wouldn't be allowed to do my
job reporting on her campaign.

At the Clinton camp's request, a group of journalists set up a traveling
'pool' so a single print reporter can be everyone's eyes and ears at events
where a room is too small to fit a crush of questions from a larger group.

Plus it saves more than a dozen news organizations the expense of having to
be on the campaign trail every time Clinton decides to speak.

On Monday I was the designated 'pooler,' tasked by this informal group of
my colleagues with going to two events in New Hampshire.

I landed at the Manchester, N.H. airport well after midnight, thanks to a
lengthy flight delay in Washington. A message was waiting for me from one
of the reporters who has the thankless task of coordinating the pool with
the Clinton campaign.

There was a problem: Hillary's press staff said DailyMail.com wasn't
welcome, and they decided it at the last minute.

The pool was asked to send a different reporter. It was too late to
substitute someone else in the Live Free or Die state at that point, so I
said I'd show up anyway.

Six hours earlier I had received emails from two different Clinton media
liaisons – including the former secretary of state's traveling press
secretary, Nick Merrill – telling me where to show up and when.

So what happened? That's the nagging question.

Monday morning I showed up at 7:45 in a parking lot where I was to hop on a
Clinton campaign van for a drive to the town of Rochester, where the first
event would be.

A very junior staffer told me I couldn't climb aboard: I wasn't 'on the
list.'

No matter – I'm paid to chase stories, not to take no for an answer. I got
back in my rental car and followed them to Rochester.

On the way, I spoke with Merrill for 10 minutes. He gave me a handful of
reasons for the sudden rug-pulling.

At first it was because the campaign didn't want some foreign press outlets
participating in the pool when others were giving them 'blowback' about
being shut out of events when space is limited.

OK, so DailyMail.com is owned by the Daily Mail newspaper from England but
the US content is not EDITED by that newspaper, it is edited in New York
and currently has nearly 200 employees growing at about 50% a year – and
more US online readers than every big city newspaper in America other than
the New York Times.

The Clinton campaign hired two passenger vans to drive reporters to
Rochester, NH on Monday morning but refused to let me board them, saying I
wasn't approved to attend the morning event

The Clinton campaign hired two passenger vans to drive reporters to
Rochester, NH on Monday morning but refused to let me board them, saying I
wasn't approved to attend the morning event.

(The traveling press pool welcomes all credentialed outlets, whether
they're from the U.S. or Antarctica. The Guardian and AFP, from the UK and
France respectively, are already part of it.)

Perhaps they realized that wasn’t going to fly because next they claimed
the campaign was trying to follow the example of the White House pool, and
by that standard we should have been excluded.

(DailyMail.com is part of what's called the 'supplemental' White House
pool. Although our excellent White House correspondent, Francesca Chambers,
has the same permanent credentials as her counterparts at The New York
Times, the Associated Press and CNN.)

Ultimately, Merrill said they just wanted time to figure things out. Just
enough time, I thought, for me to leave New Hampshire.

The bottom line is that for whatever half-baked reason, the Clinton
campaign has decided that it wants to control which reporters, from which
news organizations, can come along for the ride and report their
impressions of what’s going on.

That's not okay. It's the kind of thing that raises questions about
transparency and launches let-them-eat-cake metaphors.

The Clinton campaign asked the press to set up the pool. But just like the
White House pool – which is run by the White House Correspondents
Association, not the Obama administration – Merrill and his team don't get
to pick and choose who's on duty.

(That's decided by a rotating schedule.)

I showed up in Rochester on Monday morning, found the YMCA where the
Clinton event was being held, and walked through the front door. A Secret
Service agent wouldn't let me go any further.

Clinton's Secret Service detail drove her to New Hampshire in the famous
'Scooby' van, dropping her off Monday morning for a forum on early
childhood education – which DailyMail.com was forbidden to cover

Clinton's Secret Service detail drove her to New Hampshire in the famous
'Scooby' van, dropping her off Monday morning for a forum on early
childhood education – which DailyMail.com was forbidden to cover

Hillary Clinton's Scooby van seen topping speeds of 80mph

He sent me to another door, where the agent in charge of Clinton's
protection detail heard who I work for and said, 'Oh. No.' I was sent back
to door number one.

The first agent called a campaign staffer, and then told me that a final
decision had been reached: I couldn't come in.

He also told me that for security reasons, I couldn't walk down the hall to
use the bathroom.

'Hit the woods,' was his advice.

The question remains: Why?

As well as its huge US audience, DailyMail.com has a larger online audience
than any other English-language newspaper in the world. More than 225
million unique visitors come to our website every month. Every political
campaign worth its salt should welcome a news organization of our size and
influence to show up, kick the tires and report what's going on.

Smaller outlets, too, including those with foreign ownership, should be
welcome. Candidates and their handlers shouldn't have a say.

I suspect the decision has little to do with where my employers are from,
and a lot to do with how we cover the news.

DailyMail.com doesn't hire stenographers. We chase stories aggressively. We
don't pull punches. As a British-owned outlet, we don't institutionally
have a dog in the U.S. election fight.

We genuinely haven’t already decided which candidates we want to see get
the nominations or which party’s candidate eventually win.

We tell it as we see it – without fear and without favor to any side.

Two days ago, after Clinton delivered a speech in New York City to
re-launch her campaign, I tweeted my view of scribes who 'reported exactly,
and only, what the campaign wanted them to.' I don’t believe in
coincidences.

I've followed Clinton's motorcade as it sped past a small New Hampshire
airport, drove all the way to Boston, and deposited her on a large jet that
had First Class seats.

I got on the plane and watched her in a Washington, D.C. airport, asking
her the campaign’s first questions about the Benghazi terror attack. She
met me with stone silence.

After a Clinton photo-op at a bakery in April, I reported that the kitchen
staff didn't want to come out and shake her hand.

The nature of Clinton's very first small-scale event in Iowa – an intimate
and apparently unscripted coffee-shop meet and greet – was called into
question after I spoke to an attendee who said all of Clinton's table-mates
were vetted and driven there by a political operative.

I get it: This kind of reporting doesn't make DailyMail.com the Clinton
campaign's favorite outlet.

In the land of the free press, it's the journalists acting on behalf of
readers – not the politicians acting in their own self-interest – who get
to decide what's important and who's hiding the ball. We have to show up to
get these stories. They can’t be covered via Google. And that’s why
controlling who shows up is the equivalent of torching the free press.

Via email and telephone calls, I've heard from about 50 political
journalists today, including some from nearly every major news brand I can
think of.

No one who spoke to me thinks Clinton has a leg to stand on.

Journalists who do this job every day know the stakes: If we're going to
elect a president who believes she's above meaningful scrutiny this early
in the campaign, just imagine what things might be like in the West Wing in
2017.

That goes for everyone on the Republican side of the ledger too. (Welcome
to the race, Jeb! And it’s your turn tomorrow, Mr. Trump.)

At dinnertime I headed to Monday's other 'pooled' press event, a Clinton
keynote speech at the Manchester City Democratic Committee's annual dinner
commemorating Flag Day.

They shut me out again, meaning that fewer people will learn what she has
to say. That's ridiculous. And fans of the First Amendment may as well
switch out that flag for a white one.

A press aide told me: 'You're not on the pool list so you need to leave.'

Daily Mail Online has reached out to Nick Merrill, spokesman for Hillary
Clinton's presidential campaign more than a half-dozen times today and have
yet to hear back.

*Longtime Hillary Clinton Confidant to Testify About Benghazi Emails
<http://www.voanews.com/content/ap-clinton-confidant-to-testify-before-house-benghazi-panel/2824258.html>
// VOA News - June 16, 2015 *

A longtime confidant to former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will
testify Tuesday before a special congressional committee investigating the
2012 deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

Sidney Blumenthal will tell the House Select Committee on Benghazi in a
closed door session about a series of emails he sent to Clinton about the
situation in Libya after the overthrow of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi
in 2011. Blumenthal has been close to both Hillary Clinton and her husband,
former President Bill Clinton, ever since he served as aide to Clinton
during his administration.  He sent the emails to the personal email
account Hillary Clinton used during her tenure as secretary of state, a
process which led to massive criticism and charges that she was hiding
information.

Blumenthal turned over the emails to the committee last week in response to
a subpoena.  The emails were not part of the hundreds of emails involving
the Benghazi attack that the State Department turned over to the House
panel earlier this year.

The attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi left four Americans
dead, including Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

Clinton, the front-runner for the nomination to represent the Democratic
Party in the 2016 presidential election, admitted to using a private server
and email address during her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

The personal email account she used was hosted on a private server in her
New York state home instead of a government one. She has said she used a
private account because it was more convenient and points out that she
violated no rules.

'Only the facts'

A spokeswoman for the committee, Amanda Duvall, said the GOP-led panel “is
only interested in the facts,” adding that Blumenthal was called to testify
because of the large number of emails he sent Clinton regarding Libya.

Hillary Clinton's earlier efforts to hire Blumenthal, who has spent nearly
two decades working for the Clinton family, as a State Department employee
were rejected by White House aides. Those aides feared that Blumenthal's
role spreading harsh attacks against Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential
primaries would cause discomfort within the Obama administration.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., said he and other committee members want to
know the depth of Blumenthal's involvement in Libya policy, why he had the
information and who gave it to him.

The five Democrats on the Benghazi panel said their Republican colleagues
were no longer interested in discovering facts about Benghazi, but merely
were trying to prove that Clinton “engaged in some sort of conspiracy” over
the attacks.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the senior Democrat on the panel, said
Blumenthal's deposition was the latest example of how the committee “has
strayed far from investigating the Benghazi attacks and is now focused like
a laser on attacking Secretary Clinton in her run for president.”

Cummings called it a “travesty” that the committee has spent more than $3.5
million on what he called a “partisan fishing expedition with no end in
sight.”

Blumenthal was willing to testify yet was served with a subpoena by armed
marshals, Cummings said. He called the subpoena, issued by the panel's
chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., “abusive” and difficult to understand.

*Hillary Clinton's campaign isn't about populist ideals. It's about Hillary
Clinton.
<http://theweek.com/articles/560683/hillary-clintons-campaign-isnt-about-populist-ideals-about-hillary-clinton>
// The Week // Edward Morrissey - June 16, 2015*

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton tried for a populist reboot of her
meticulously stage-managed campaign over the weekend. But look beyond the
spin, and you'll see the former secretary of state offered nothing new or
exciting or bold. In fact, her big speech was less a reboot than it was a
rerun.

Hillary Clinton has essentially spent the past 15 years running for
president. Returning to the White House is the singular motivation driving
everything in her public life. The Clintons' strategy as they prepared to
leave the White House in early 2001 could not have been clearer. They
intended to make their departure temporary, preferably returning at the end
of an Al Gore presidency, by having the first lady establish her
credibility by building her own career in electoral politics. The Clintons
seized on an open Senate seat in New York, and expected to launch their
second bid for the White House after an easy re-election bid in 2006.

That strategy worked — sort of. Gore lost a nail-biter election in 2000 to
George W. Bush, which made a Democratic bid in 2008 even easier. The
Clintons had leveraged their political power through Sen. Clinton's Capitol
Hill career and with their family foundation, collecting chits from Wall
Street and party movers and shakers. Team Clinton ran the 2008 presidential
campaign as a preordained coronation, betting that the bitterness of the
Bush era meant a good environment for Clinton nostalgia. Unfortunately for
the Clintons, Democrats didn't want to embrace the past. They chose the
future, in the form of one Barack Obama.

The Clinton project was far from over, however. Hillary Clinton took the
job of secretary of state to add executive and foreign-policy experience to
her resume, after embarrassing herself in the 2008 campaign by claiming
foreign-policy expertise with the lie that she'd landed in Tuzla under fire
during the Balkans wars. After four years at the State Department, Clinton
left in early 2013. It was the first time in 20 years that both Bill and
Hillary Clinton had no official office in the federal government. They did
not plan on keeping it that way for long.

Clinton soon published her second memoir, Hard Choices. It revealed little
insight and offered even less political conviction. The lackluster reviews
got overshadowed by Clinton's claims to have been "dead broke" coming out
of the White House while she and Bill earned millions in advances for their
first two books. After a few weeks, Team Clinton slipped off the public
stage to recalibrate.

Clinton came back early this year — and once again, she appeared to have
nothing to add to the political conversation. She just really, really
wanted to be president.

Meanwhile, a series of scandals involving the Clinton Foundation, her
secret email system while at the State Department, and questions about the
connections between Bill Clinton's paydays and entities having business
before the State Department dominated the headlines. Clinton offered no
serious answers to any of those scandals.

Nor did she do much talking about anything else as she traveled through the
key early primary states over the next three months. She avoided clearly
staking out policy positions. She dodged reporters. Even in her claimed
areas of policy expertise, Clinton and her team refused to get pinned down
— on ISIS strategy and on the Trade Promotion Authority in particular.
While the progressives she courted rallied to embarrass President Obama on
trade, all Team Clinton would concede was that the candidate was keeping an
open mind on the matter.

With the campaign hiding behind skittish generics, Clinton and her advisers
decided to hype a reboot. They staged a big speech on Roosevelt Island in
New York City, and played it up as though it would be a re-debut. The media
gathered to hear Clinton finally stake out her positions and her agenda.
And once again, Team Clinton offered a rerun.

The Atlantic's Molly Ball found it "almost aggressively pedestrian," in "a
surprisingly small venue that did not fill up." Ball argued that Clinton
offered "a barrage of proposals," but a read of the speech transcript shows
that Clinton offered at best a laundry list of traditional liberal agenda
items, none of which would distinguish her from almost any other Democratic
presidential contender. It more closely resembled a State of the Union
speech than a campaign call to arms, especially in the manner in which it
was delivered. "Clinton read it slowly off the teleprompter," Ball wrote to
describe the "flat" delivery, "articulating every word, sometimes with odd
emphasis, in a near-monotone."

As if to underline the dustiness of her tired strategy and message, the
former secretary of state decided to use a 50-year-old pop-culture
reference to attack Republicans. "Now, there may be some new voices in the
presidential Republican choir," Clinton said in one of the few moments that
showed any dynamism, "but they're all singing the same old song — a song
called 'Yesterday.'"

The Beatles recorded that ballad 50 years ago this month, when Hillary
Clinton graduated from high school. Marco Rubio, who wouldn't be born for
another six years, has campaigned this spring in part on the slogan that
"Yesterday is over." His team leaped to take advantage of the
contradiction, and Clinton's case of projection.

Even more telling, though, was the lack of any substance on issues that are
priorities for American voters. She weighed in with no particularly
interesting or surprising stands on America's hottest debates. She made
just one passing reference to trade that offered no insight whatsoever on
TPA or the massive Pacific trade deal that House Democrats all but
submarined last week. She made passing mention of foreign policy and
national security by pledging — wait for it — to "do whatever it takes to
keep Americans safe." After four years at State, one would expect her to
elaborate on exactly what whatever looks like, but Clinton offered nothing
at all. The only reference to creating jobs in the entire speech was part
of her pledge to fight climate change — a very low priority for American
voters — and promised that "this will create millions of jobs and countless
new businesses." Barack Obama promised that, too. How did that work out?

This was not a relaunch, let alone a reboot. The event turned out to be
just another Saturday afternoon rerun. And it's a movie we've seen many
times before: The Clintons lust for power, not to affect populist change on
a national scale, but to accrue power for the Clintons.

*2016 Is the Latest Bump in the Long Clinton-Bush Friendship
<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/history-clinton-bush-friendship.html>
// NY Mag // Margaret Hartmann – June 16, 2015*

After months of speculation, it's finally official: the 2016 election will
be a showdown between the Bush and Clinton political dynasties – that is,
if Jeb manages to claw his way to the front of the GOP pack. Pundits are
already placing bets on which house will win 2016's (relatively tame) game
of thrones. "If you’re having a battle of dynasties, the Clinton dynasty is
gonna beat the Bush dynasty every time," former Obama senior adviser Dan
Pfeiffer told CNN on Monday.

While the Bushes and Clintons have proven that they're fiercely dedicated
to electing whatever family member happens to be running, the two families
may actually have a healthier view of the competition. Over the past two
decades, they've gone from being political enemies to declaring themselves
as close as family, only to lash out again when another election rolls
around. He's a recap of the drama behind Hillary and Jeb's potential
showdown.

In the 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton managed to make George H.W.
Bush a one-term president by attacking him on the economy and painting him
as out of touch. Character played a large role in the campaign (and it
remains a theme in the Bush/Clinton relationship), with Republicans
attacking Clinton for his infidelities, draft dodging, and marijuana use.

In one of the harsher debate moments from the 1992 election, President Bush
attacked Governor Clinton's patriotism and lack of military service (though
he claimed he wasn't), saying he found it "impossible to understand" how
Clinton could organize anti-Vietnam War demonstrations while studying in
England, as men his age were serving their country. Clinton shot back with
a Senator Joe McCarthy comparison, and praised the president's father,
Senator Prescott Bush, for standing up to the Red Scare.

Jeb and Hillary got in some jabs as well, though they left the most vicious
attacks to other campaign surrogates. In a local news interview captured by
C-SPAN, Hillary called out the first couple by name, accusing them of
"launching these untrue attacks against me" after previously thanking her
for her work on children's issues. "They know what my husband and I have
stood for, and it's just kind of sad that in the heat of a political battle
when they're behind and they can't run on their record and they have no
plan for the future that they would engage in these kinds of tactics," she
said.

In a 1992 interview that aired on C-SPAN, Jeb said he had a problem with
Governor Clinton's "series of deceptive comments and statements," but at
another point he had a prescient prediction. "I know my dad well, and win
or lose, he'll shake Bill Clinton's hand, look him in the eye and say 'you
fought the good fight' and not hold anything against him personally, or his
family," Jeb said.

Hillary Clinton and Barbara Bush represented two very different generations
of women, and they were pitted against each other in the media –
particularly after Clinton quipped that she chose to be an attorney rather
than staying home to "bake cookies and have tea."

However, immediately after the election they had a friendly meeting at the
White House, and during a Christmas event the first lady went out of her
way to praise Clinton and urge the press to "give her a break." "I hope you
all will treat her like you treated me," she told reporters. "Wait til she
makes her mistakes. You waited until I made mine."

Once they were all full-fledged members of the "presidents club," the
Bushes and Clintons managed to remain cordial at the occasional events
where all former White House inhabitants are required to assemble.

Senator Hillary Clinton was frequently at odds with the George W. Bush
administration, but recently she had some kind words about her effort to
lobby the president for aid to New York post-9/11. "President Bush looked
at us and said, 'What do you need?' And I said, 'We need $20 billion to
rebuild New York Mr. President.' And he said, 'You got it.' I will never
forget that," Clinton said. "If you don’t build relationships with people
and all you do is show up to argue and show up to point fingers, you can’t
get anything done."

Then as both presidents assisted with relief efforts following the Asian
tsunami in 2005, a friendship blossomed between Bill Clinton and George
H.W. Bush. "I thought I knew him; but until this trip I did not really know
him," 41 said of traveling with his former rival in February of that year.

They worked together again when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2006, and
afterward Bush wrote Clinton a note about how much he appreciated their
friendship, and alluded to Hillary's potential 2008 run. "The politics
between now and two years from now might put pressure on our friendship,
but it is my view that it will survive," he wrote.

January 2014, Barbara Bush described the relationship, telling C-SPAN, "I
love Bill Clinton."

While the two presidents regularly visit each other's homes and it appears
their father-son dynamic is genuine, the relationship has also been played
up in the media by members of both clans. "A friendship with the older,
steadier Bush conferred a legitimacy on Clinton that he had partly
squandered in his final years in office," Time magazine journalists Nancy
Gibbs and Michael Duffy wrote in their book The Presidents Club. "For Bush,
the political math was just as obvious — and even closer to home: his son,
the president, was a divisive figure across the nation and having the
spiritual leader of the Democratic Party as a partner made it more likely
that the forty-second president would deliver his criticisms of the
forty-third in a kinder, gentler fashion."

While the Clinton team was accused of pulling the "W" off keyboards before
vacating the White House, Bill bonded with the younger Bush too when they
both pitched in after Haiti's earthquake in 2010. In November 2014, W. told
Sean Hannity he wasn't worried about campaigning against his family's
adopted "black sheep son" in 2016. "It means that Bill and I are going to
have to have some interesting things to talk about," Bush said, adding,
"Look, I’ll still like him when Jeb beats Hillary."

Hillary and Jeb's role in all this Bush-Clinton camaraderie is hazy. W. has
said the former secretary of state is like his "sister-in-law," and two
years ago, his daughter Barbara Bush said she hoped she would run for
president, calling her "unbelievably accomplished." (Though she added that
she didn't know who her opponent would be, and wouldn't necessarily be
voting for her.)

But Jeb is actually the Bush who's offered the lengthiest public ode to
Hillary – which according to several conservative groups, is why the former
Florida governor is "unelectable." As chairman of the National Constitution
Center, in 2013 Bush was tasked with awarding Clinton the organization's
Liberty Medal. He praised Clinton for her "lifelong career in public
service," and joked, "Hillary and I come from different political parties
and we disagree about lots of things. But we do agree on the wisdom of the
American people — especially those in Iowa and New Hampshire and South
Carolina."

In her speech, Clinton joked that bipartisanship had become a "family
tradition" thanks to the relationship between the former presidents. "[Jeb
and I] also share something that is far more important than any of our
political differences," she said. "We both love this country and we believe
in the wisdom of our founders and the constitution."

It appears the ex-presidents are still on good terms, but Hillary and Jeb
began taking shots at each other, and the opposing administration, before
they even declared they were running. Last month on Face the Nation, Bush
blasted the Clinton Foundation for its lack of transparency. "It turns out
that the rules don't always apply consistently for the Clintons," he said.

And two weeks ago, Jeb was among the 2016 candidates Clinton called out by
name for allegedly restricting voting rights. "In Florida, when Jeb Bush
was governor, state authorities conducted a deeply flawed purge of voters
before the presidential election in 2000," she said.

Clinton even got a shout out – in the form of a widely mocked "that's what
she said" – as Bush officially announced his candidacy on Monday.

It looks like the truce between the Bushes and the Clintons may be off, at
least until it's politically expedient for them to be friends again.

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*O’MALLEY*

*Martin O’Malley pins hope on Iowa caucuses
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/06/14/martin-malley-counts-iowa-bid-erode-hillary-clinton-lead/MG3UeeeH4c8mmhwXca0F9L/story.html>
// The Boston Globe // Annie Linskey – June 15, 2015 *

Martin O’Malley makes his way to the back of a crowded pub on a rainy
night. He grabs a chair and climbs up.

“I’m running for president of the United States and I need your help,” he
says, holding his right hand on his chest. He promises not to talk long.
“We are going to do Q&A because that is the Iowa way.”

For O’Malley the Iowa way is the only way. The former Maryland governor’s
narrow path to the Democratic nomination hinges on persuading people at
this bar and in homes across the state to support him in the caucuses seven
months from now, longtime advisers and donors agree. A strong second, or
even an upset, is possible here in a way that isn’t in the cards anywhere
else.

He knows it, too; that’s why he and a crew of staff piled into a white
sport utility vehicle and drove at breakneck speeds past rain-soaked farms
from event to event last week. Even though O’Malley’s name remains
unfamiliar to many Iowans, and he still barely registers in that state’s
polls, political elites have talked of an O’Malley presidential run since
his early days as Baltimore’s mayor.

Still, the already faint track to victory for him in 2016 has been muddied
recently by several factors out of O’Malley’s immediate control.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has vacuumed up voters on the left who
are skeptical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, landing him in the valuable
second-place berth here that could ignite a candidacy. And riots in
Baltimore beamed some of America’s most hopeless neighborhoods into homes
across the country, undercutting O’Malley’s message of progress in that
city.

Both of these issues came up at campaign events in Iowa last week, and
O’Malley stayed resolute in a commitment to keep showing up in the state
and take sometimes uncomfortable questions. When asked at his third press
conference of the day how much time he plans to spend here he said: “As
much time as I possibly can.”

The trip to Iowa was O’Malley’s 10th since January 2014. He has made eight
trips to New Hampshire — including one Saturday — and four trips to South
Carolina in the same time period.

A super PAC supporting O’Malley’s candidacy has so far run TV ads in three
cities, all of them in Iowa. The campaign opened a Des Moines office the
day O’Malley announced his presidential campaign (it’s the only one he has
outside Baltimore). Last week, he had about a half-dozen Iowa staff and
volunteers collecting e-mail addresses and passing out “O’Malley for
president” stickers.

Still, O’Malley’s late start — his May 30 announcement was six weeks after
Clinton and a month after Sanders — means he missed a critical window where
he could have soaked up news coverage in the state.

Clinton’s campaign was always going to be an oxygen-sucking bonfire, but
Sanders used his headstart on O’Malley to define himself, in the absence of
an Elizabeth Warren candidacy, as the liberal alternative. The Vermont
senator got three standing ovations from an audience of more than 700
people Friday evening at Drake University before he even opened his mouth.

Advisers believe O’Malley, 52, will emerge as the more electable
alternative to the 73-year-old Sanders, particularly after voters realize
that both are running on a similar populist message.

“I think Bernie is a bit of a stalking horse,” said George Appleby,
O’Malley’s state chairman. “He’s putting those issues on the table.”

Appleby and O’Malley both know well how a low-polling candidate can catch
fire in Iowa. In 1983, both organized for Gary Hart, another long-shot
candidate, who saw his chances lifted by finishing second in the 1984 Iowa
caucuses.

“He knows how to run in Iowa,” Appleby said, as he stood in a kitchen while
O’Malley spoke in the living room at a Marshalltown house party. “Coming
out and doing this over and over.”

The work has yet to pay off. O’Malley remains stuck in the low single
digits in Iowa polls, compared to the mid-teens for Sanders (Clinton is at
a whopping 60 percent). But he has clearly made some of the right
connections. At the Iowa City pub, O’Malley was introduced by Kevin Kinney,
a Democratic state senator for whom O’Malley raised money last year. Hours
earlier Mark Smith, the top Democrat in the Iowa House, did the same in
Marshalltown.

“The thing about O’Malley is he gets things done and he does them with
respect,” said Sarah Stutler, a preschool teacher who has heard him several
times, including in Mount Vernon Thursday. “He is Biden-esque,” she added,
comparing him to the vice president.

O’Malley is careful never to criticize his opponents by name on the trip;
when their names come up, he says he has respect for both of them. However,
his most powerful line, and one he didn’t repeat at all last week in Iowa,
takes aim at both Clinton and former Florida governor Jeb Bush, a GOP
favorite.

“The presidency of the United States is not some crown to be passed between
two families,” he said in an ABC interview in March. “It is an awesome and
sacred trust that is to be earned and exercised on behalf of the American
people.”

Questions about how O’Malley can win over supporters dogged him at every
stop.

“Can you tell me why I should change my support from Bernie Sanders to
you?” asked Dorie Tammen, shouting her question to O’Malley through a
screen window at a sweaty house party in Marshalltown.

O’Malley stresses his relative youth in the field and his 15 years of
executive experience. Progressive highlights of his eight years as governor
include ending the death penalty, allowing illegal immigrants to pay lower
in-state university tuition, expanding gun control laws, raising the
minimum wage, and approving same-sex marriage.

Yet it is O’Malley’s record as Baltimore’s mayor that is getting the
closest scrutiny from Iowa voters. Faced with a persistently high murder
rate, O’Malley ushered in an era of zero-tolerance policing that was
imported directly from Rudy Giuliani’s New York City. Some, including
Baltimore’s current mayor, have pointed to those O’Malley-era policies as
the point where relations frayed between police and the policed in
Baltimore.

In the Iowa pub, one woman asked a lengthy and detailed question about his
law enforcement record.

“As mayor of Baltimore you oversaw an era of mass arrests,” she said,
recounting the hundreds of thousands of people arrested on his watch.

He responded by saying that violent crime was a scourge when he took over,
and it plummeted on his watch.

“You weren’t in Baltimore in 1999,’’ O’Malley said, “but I was.”

*SANDERS*

*Meet the people coming to see Bernie Sanders in Iowa
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/15/meet-the-people-coming-to-see-bernie-sanders-in-iowa/>
// WaPo // John Wagner – June 15, 2015 *

As the Democratic presidential field descended on Iowa this weekend,
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s visit generated more headlines -- but Democratic
rival Bernie Sanders drew more people.

The independent senator from Vermont, who rails against greedy corporate
interests ruining the country’s democracy, drew overflow audiences nearly
everywhere he went here over the weekend.

That included Des Moines, where close to 800 people streamed to a
university auditorium on Friday night, and Waterloo, where more than 500
people gathered in a theater on Sunday afternoon.

The Vermont senator had the support of 16 percent of likely Democratic
caucusgoers in a Des Moines Register/Bloomberg News Iowa poll earlier this
month, to Clinton's 57 percent.

So who's coming to hear him speak?

This weekend, there were those fully sold on the self-described democratic
socialist -- they were the ones wearing “Bernie for president” t-shirts and
holding the “Feel the Bern” signs. There were some others shopping for an
alternative to Clinton, the formidable front-runner. Still others were
merely curious about the fuss surrounding the frumpy politician who’s seen
his poll numbers surge.

Terry Pensel, a Web developer who traveled more than 90 minutes from
Guttenberg to see Sanders in Waterloo, was among those in the fully-sold
category.

“I don’t want to bash Hillary Clinton or any of the other Democrats, but I
don’t see them having a plan to deal with the concentrated wealth,” said
Pensel, 47, as he left the auditorium with several yard signs and bumper
stickers tucked under his arm. “They’re giving lip service to a lot of the
issues Bernie has been talking about for a long, long time.”

Those issues, as Sanders described them, include the the “grotesque level
of wealth and income inequality” in the country, the corrosive effects of
big money on politics and the “disastrous” trade deals the country has
entered into.

While Pensel was clearly pumped up about Sanders’s prospects, he also
complained that the media -- the corporate-controlled media, as he
described it -- has given Clinton so much more attention than Sanders.

Tara Monson, meanwhile, was fired up about Sanders even before he appeared
at a union hall in Marshalltown on Saturday.

The 31-year-old mother of two arrived with her 6-month-old daughter in a
carrier on her chest. The carrier sported a Bernie button, and Munson’s
daughter was wearing a bow and a homemade “Feel the Bern” t-shirt.

“I never really heard of Bernie Sanders until he started running, and he’s
really grabbed me,” said Monson, who performs audits for a goat farm. “He
brings a different ball to the game.”

Monson said she particularly liked what Sanders has been saying about
policies affecting families. He is calling for guaranteed vacation, family
leave and sick time and says Americans should be working fewer hours. One
of the biggest laughs Sanders gets on the trail comes from rattling off how
many more hours a year Americans work than the French.

“My husband has been trying to get me to move to a socialist country for
years,” said Monson, whose spouse hails from Norway. “Now I’m telling him
it might come here.”

On a more serious note, she said that she’s not a big Clinton fan and
thinks “it’s a little ridiculous that the Democratic party is just letting
her have the spotlight.”

For every fan like Pensel and Monson who attended Sanders events, though,
it seemed there was also someone like Ed Canade, who said he likes what the
senator has to say but has some reservations about making him the party’s
nominee.

Canade, a 68-year-old semi-retired paramedic, said he considers Clinton “a
polarizing candidate” and is looking for an alternative. But he wasn’t
ready to commit to Sanders after seeing him in Marshalltown.

“He kind of speaks with a grumpy-old-man kind of tone,” Canade said of
Sanders, who is 73. “I don’t know if people are going to find that
appealing.”

Canade said Sanders also doesn’t look the part of a president, adding: “I
know glamor and appearance are a thing in politics.”

Canade said he is considering another Democratic candidate, former Maryland
governor Martin O’Malley. But, he said, “I’m concerned that he’s this
unknown at this point in the race.”

Kathleen Murrin, who came to see Sanders Friday night in Des Moines, said
she can envision Sanders as the Democratic nominee, dismissing talk by
pundits that Sanders would have a hard time winning a general election.

“Have you looked at the Republicans who’ve come into this state?” asked
Murrin, 68, who works for a nonprofit organization focused on mental health
issues.

Sanders, Murrin said, has “got real solutions that he’s talking about. And
he’s got real heart.”

Still, she said she’s not ready to commit. For her, it’s partly a sense of
duty.

“I’m an Iowan,” Murrin said, pledging to check out other candidates as
well. “We have a long way to go to the caucuses.”

She said she has her doubts about Hillary -- “she’s very polarizing and
tried this before” -- and said she just doesn’t know that much about
O’Malley or the other Democrats.

Lance Wilson, who caught Sanders on Saturday night at a labor dinner in
Cedar Rapids, said he admires Sanders for running at a time when Clinton’s
presence kept many other Democrats out of the presidential race.

“Because Hillary is so big, other candidates don’t want to step out,”
Wilson said. “What I like about Bernie is he’s willing to step out.”

Wilson, 36, works in collections for a company that makes car loans. Many
of the people he talks to are down on their luck, he said, and what Sanders
is saying should resonate with them. Wilson also thinks Clinton is too much
of a centrist and likes Sanders’s candor.

“He says what needs to be said rather than what people want to hear,”
Wilson said.

Dan Friedrichs, co-chairman of the Boone County Democrats, made a similar
point in the Marshalltown union hall, where he came to see Sanders on
Saturday.

“What people like is he shoots from the hip, but he has something
substantive to say,” Friedrichs said. “He’s talking the language the middle
class wants to hear: Protect us. That’s what Bernie is all about.”

A retired teacher, Friedrichs said he particularly likes Sanders call for
free public university tuition and universal pre-kindergarten. But for now,
Friedrichs said, he’s encouraging people to see all the Democratic
candidates before making a final decision.

Bob Handel, a semi-retired real estate agent, is among those who don’t need
any more convincing. A self-described “Sanders groupie,” Handel traveled
from Davenport to Cedar Rapids on Saturday to catch yet another appearance
by the Vermont senator.

Handel said that the race should be about issues, and that there’s too much
about Clinton that detracts from that -- the email controversy, countless
articles about the Clinton Foundation’s donors and the Benghazi controversy.

Sanders, meanwhile, has a message that should resonate broadly, Handel
argued.

“If people get past the socialism and just hear him, these aren’t far-out,
crazy ideas,” he said. “I think people are going to get behind him.”

*Early-state polls hint at Bernie Sanders surge
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-democrats-2016-early-states-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119004.html#ixzz3d9GxQZDU>
// Politico // Nick Gass – June 15, 2015 *

In a trio of new polls in early primary states, Hillary Clinton leads
Democratic rivals in Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire.

It’s in the Granite State, however, where the former secretary of state’s
standing is the least rock-solid, according to new polls conducted by
Morning Consult.

Among Democratic voters who say they will participate in the state’s
primary next year, 44 percent back Clinton. Next up: independent Sen.
Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist from neighboring Vermont, who
grabs 32 percent. Vice President Joe Biden, who has shown little
inclination to run, claims 8 percent of likely Democratic voters.

In Iowa, Clinton picked up 54 percent, with no other candidate over 20
percent. Sanders grabbed the next closest, at 12 percent. In South
Carolina, 56 percent of likely primary voters expressed support.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and
former Rhode Island Sen. and Gov. Lincoln Chafee polled low in all three
early states.

The survey polled 905 registered voters in Iowa, including 313 likely
Democratic caucus-goers; 906 registered voters in South Carolina, including
309 likely Democratic primary voters; and 816 registered voters in New
Hampshire, including 279 likely Democratic voters.

The overall margin of error for each state is plus-or-minus 3 percentage
points, while the margin of error for Democratic respondents in all three
states is plus-or-minus 6 percentage points.

*Bernie Sanders Is Building an Army to Take D.C.
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/15/bernie-sanders-is-building-an-army-to-take-d-c.html>
// The Daily Beast // Eleanor Chift – June 15, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders is mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore. That’s
why he's running for president. He’s filled with righteous anger about a
lot of things, and lots of people agree with him. Close to a thousand
people turned out to see him in New Hampshire; 750 in Iowa, one of the
largest crowds for any of the candidates. He’s “bulking up” now in terms of
his campaign staff and he’s doing pretty well fundraising, too: With
200,000 contributors at 40 bucks a piece, that's $8 million dollars.

“We’re going to be outspent, but it doesn’t matter,” he says. “We can run
the kind of campaign I want.” His kind of campaign is about the big
challenges facing the country, income inequality, climate change, the
unaffordability of college, a disappearing middle class. He speaks about
these issues with an ever present edge of outrage, what he calls “from my
heart,” that lets you know he’s not just spouting briefing papers, these
are his causes.

The reception he's gotten in the four or five weeks since he announced his
candidacy has persuaded him that maybe the country's disgust with politics
as usual has created an opening for somebody like him, a 73-year-old
self-described "democratic socialist" who calls out the excesses of Wall
Street and stands up for working families. "It is not a radical agenda," he
told reporters at a breakfast organized by The Christian Science Monitor.

He wants to expand Social Security, move away from Obamacare to Medicare
for all, and make tuition free at public universities. He would pay for
these expanded benefits with a tax on Wall Street speculative trading, and
he would end the loopholes that allow corporations to store their profits
tax-free offshore. He doesn't expect support from the Business Roundtable,
the Chamber of Commerce, or Wall Street, he says with delight, treating
their opposition like a badge of honor.

There's nothing wrong with running to get your ideas heard, he says, but he
insists he's in the race to win, however improbable that is given Hillary
Clinton's big lead, and his own marginal status as a national candidate
given his age and leftist politics. Asked what Clinton's biggest
vulnerability is in a debate setting, he says, "I like Hillary Clinton, I
respect Hillary Clinton, I disagree with Hillary Clinton...We don't have to
make these campaigns personal, but we do have to discuss these issues."

"I like Hillary Clinton, I respect Hillary Clinton, I disagree with Hillary
Clinton...We don't have to make these campaigns personal, but we do have to
discuss these issues."

He wants to know what "the Secretary" thinks about the Keystone pipeline.
He led the fight against it and believes climate change is a "planetary
crisis." Where is she on the trade debate roiling the Congress? Asked if
Clinton's vote for the Iraq war should disqualify her from the presidency,
he said no, that he didn't intend to bring up that years-ago vote. (Someone
else will.)

Listening to Sanders is like going back to the future. He is introducing
legislation that would guarantee workers 10 days of vacation. These are the
kinds of victories that labor unions won decades ago, but that are under
assault in a Wall Street-driven economy. Sanders recalled American workers
a century ago held up placards that said, "Give us a 40-hour week." Today,
he says, millions of Americans don't have that guarantee because they're
working two, three, four jobs to get by.

Asked what his first executive order would be as president, he was stumped,
admitting he hadn't thought about that yet. He used the question to segue
into the impact of big money on everything that goes on in Washington, and
the reality that no one person can make the changes that he is advocating
for. "I have a lot of respect and admiration for Barack Obama," he said,
but the "biggest mistake" he made after running "one of the great campaigns
in American history" was saying to the legions of people who supported him,
"Thank you very much for electing me, I'll take it from here."

"I will not make that mistake," Sanders said, making a pitch for a
mobilized grassroots movement that every candidate dreams of and that in
'08 Obama came closest to achieving. The Obama movement faltered amidst
legal issues once he was in the White House, and in '12 became Organizing
for America, primarily a vehicle for fundraising and a shadow of what it
once was.  Sanders sounds like the political science major he was in
college, explaining that the free tuition in public universities he seeks
will not happen if it comes down to President Sanders negotiating with
Republican leader Mitch McConnell.  "It will happen,”he says, “if a million
young people are marching on Washington."

The challenge for the Democratic nominee is to generate the kind of
excitement that led to Obama's election and reelection. Among the issues
that get Sanders most exercised is the "massive alienation among the
American people" that leads to low voter turnout. If 60 percent and more of
eligible voters don't vote, "nothing significant will change," he says. He
is not happy about the Democratic National Committee scheduling only six
debates, beginning in the fall, and decreeing if candidates participate in
other debates, they will not be allowed in the sanctioned ones. "It's much
too limited," he said. "Debates are a means to get people interested and
engaged."

If it were up to him, candidates would debate across party lines.
"Republicans have gotten away with murder because a lot of people don't
know what their agenda is," he says. "Christie, Perry, Bush are all in
favor of cutting Social Security. I want to expand it. Let's have that
debate," he says. Sanders has never played party politics. He's the great
disrupter. He's there to break the rules and regulations, and the voters
are cheering him on.

*Bernie Sanders Can Win the Iowa Caucus
<http://observer.com/2015/06/bernie-sanders-can-win-the-iowa-caucus/> //
The Observer // Brent Budowsky – June 15, 2015 *

Let me be the first commentator to state explicitly what many Democratic
insiders fear and many of the most progressive activists in the party yearn
for: There is a very real prospect that Senator Bernie Sanders wins an
outright victory in the Iowa caucus and pulls off one of the most stunning
upsets in modern political history.

At this moment I would put the odds that Mr. Sanders upsets Hillary Clinton
in the Iowa caucus at nearly 40 percent. As someone who can fairly be
called a Democratic insider myself, I can report that some of the smartest
Democratic strategists in national politics privately believe this but will
not publicly state it. I just did.

To fully understand the powerful forces at work within the Democratic Party
and national politics, and why Bernie Sanders has suddenly vaulted to a
clear second place in the race for the Democratic nomination, lets briefly
consider political events in the three days that began last Friday and
ended on Sunday.

First, on Friday, President Obama was rebuked by Democrats in the House of
Representatives over the fast track trade legislation which led—at least
for now—to the bill being defeated in the House.

Then, on Saturday, Hillary Clinton made a major speech in New York in which
she echoed many of the themes of progressive populist Democrats while
appearing to wrap herself around the political mantle of President Obama
with language so compelling it gave credence to the Republican charge that
she is running for the third Obama term. I would emphasize—and this is
important—that while Clinton was embracing Obama, progressives remember
that not long ago Obama was personally and politically insulting prominent
progressives such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), which I have
previously written about in the Observer.

Next, on Sunday, Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton were both campaigning in Iowa,
where he again aggressively opposed the trade bill and she implied that she
would be a stronger trade negotiator than the president but again took no
position on the trade bill.

Bernie Sanders took a position of conviction and purpose opposing the trade
bill, while Hillary Clinton took a position that the Washington Post today
correctly reported left her “a lot of wiggle room.”

The common denominators during these three days were that Bernie Sanders
took a position of conviction and purpose opposing the trade bill, while
Hillary Clinton took a position that the Washington Post today correctly
reported left her “a lot of wiggle room” by failing to take any position on
the trade bill.

These three days, from Friday through Sunday, are a microcosm of the forces
at work within the Democratic Party that began in Washington and arrived in
the heart of Iowa during campaigning for the caucus vote by the frontrunner
candidate and her closest competitor.

The reason that Bernie Sanders has a viable chance of defeating Clinton in
the Iowa caucus is that caucus elections involve a far smaller pool of
voters than primary elections. In the caucus variation of “one person, one
vote,” the candidate who can best inspire fervent supporters to attend a
caucus on a frigid Iowa evening is the candidate who will win. A student at
an Iowa college has the same “one vote” as the chair of the Democratic
Party of an Iowa county.

In Washington Elizabeth Warren has seized the mantle of being the
progressive conscience of the United States Senate, while in Iowa and other
states Bernie Sanders is seizing the mantle of being the progressive
conscience of the campaign for the Democratic nomination for president at a
time when the progressive movement is on the ascendancy in national
politics.

Mr. Sanders is the ultimate conviction politician in American politics. He
is the epitome of authenticity. You will never see Mr. Sanders give paid
speeches to big banks or Wall Street firms. Nor do his supporters dream of
making their financial fortunes as highly paid lobbyists for special
interests in Washington.

When the evening of the Iowa caucus arrives it is very possible that
political experts and insiders will be astonished and confounded by the
sudden appearance of new caucus participants who have never attended party
meetings or caucus votes, and trudge through frigid cold and piles of snow
to cast their caucus vote for Bernie Sanders.

Politics is similar to the concept of alternative universes in theoretical
physics. Most political reporting in major media comes out of the universe
of political insiders, where insider reporters report what they hear from
insider politicians.

There is an alternate universe to this, which I would call “The Real
America,” which is often missed by political insiders, which is why pundits
are so often wrong.

In this alternate universe of real Americans who are suspicious of
political insiders, there are people with passions and principles who are
occasionally inspired to participate in politics in ways that are missed by
the mainstream media until a shocking event unfolds in real time.

It is very possible that such an event could occur in the Iowa caucus in
2016, when Mr. Sanders inspires a wave of participation from highly
motivated and idealistic outsiders who suddenly descend on the caucuses and
carry him to a victory that will shock and stun the political establishment
and political media.

This column will cause great consternation among my friends in the Clinton
campaign, but I would argue that the surge Mr. Sanders could ultimately
prove a blessing in disguise for Hillary Clinton. The Sanders challenge
will make her a stronger and better candidate and if she is nominated, Mr.
Sanders could be a kingmaker if not a king by rallying his troops to vote
for Ms. Clinton or any nominee, which he surely will for whomever is
nominated.

I believe it is profoundly helpful, for Democrats and for America, that Mr.
Sanders is bringing his integrity, passion, sincerity and progressive
principles to center stage in the presidential campaign. It is good for
Democrats and for America that new people are being inspired to join the
political process which can only revitalize our democracy.

In the meantime, do not be surprised if the Iowa caucus in 2016 brings an
earthquake to American politics and Bernie Sanders wins one of the great
upset victories in modern times.

*Poll: Sanders Gains on Clinton in New Hampshire
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/15/poll_sanders_gains_on_clinton_in_new_hampshire_126979.html>
// Real Clear Politics // Matthew Disler – June 15, 2015 *

The Morning Consult survey released Sunday shows the Vermont senator with
32 percent support among likely Democratic voters, compared with 44 percent
for Clinton. This result should offer encouragement to the independent
senator from Vermont (who is running as a Democrat) – but only in his
neighboring state. Consult polls conducted in other early voting states
show Sanders lagging much farther behind: He trails Clinton by 42
percentage points in Iowa and by 46 points in South Carolina. In the
Palmetto State, in fact, Vice President Joe Biden is the second-place
finisher, 41 points behind the frontrunner. (In Iowa, “Don’t Know” comes in
second with 20 percent of responses; Sanders is third with 12 percent.)

In New Hampshire, however, Sanders’ 32 percent support has him well ahead
of Biden (8 percent), former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (2 percent) and
former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (1 percent), according to the Consult.
Notably, however, Biden is not in third place, as that distinction goes to
“Don’t Know” at 11 percent.

Only Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley have declared their candidacy, along
with former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, who failed to register in the
Iowa and New Hampshire polls, and drew 1 percent in South Carolina.

Sanders has been gaining on Clinton elsewhere. Last week, he placed a
relatively close second in the Wisconsin Democratic Party’s presidential
straw poll, winning 41 percent of the 551 delegates’ votes to Clinton’s 49
percent.

In the RealClearPolitics average for New Hampshire, Sanders trails Clinton
by 28.5 percentage points.

Nationally, the RCP average has Clinton in front with a whopping 59 percent
of support to Sanders’ 11.5 percent, Biden’s 11.3 percent, O’Malley’s 2.3
percent, Webb’s 1.5 percent and Chafee at 0.8 percent.

The Morning Consult survey, conducted May 31-June 8 online and by phone,
has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points in Iowa,
South Carolina, and New Hampshire individually and six percentage points
when all three polls are lumped together. The Iowa poll surveyed 905
registered voters, 313 of whom said that they intended to vote in the
Democratic caucuses; in New Hampshire, the group polled 816 registered
voters, 279 of whom planned to vote in that state’s Democratic primary; and
in South Carolina, 906 register voters were polled, including 309 who
planned to vote in the Democratic primary.

*Sanders: I won’t wage personal attacks on Hillary Clinton
<http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell/sanders-i-wont-wage-personal-attacks-hillary-clinton>
// MSNBC // John O’Brien – June 15, 2015 *

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders drew contrasts between himself and Hillary
Clinton ahead of the former secretary of state’s official campaign kick off
over the weekend.

On msnbc Friday, Sanders spoke with Andrea Mitchell on the main focuses of
his campaign. “People are deeply concerned about the disappearing middle
class, wealth and income inequality, the fact that their young kids can’t
afford to go to college,” Sanders said. “Those are the issues that we are
talking about.”

He added that there was a “need to transform our economics and politics so
that millionaires and billionaires can’t buy elections.” His biggest
difference from Hillary Clinton? Sanders points out that he does not have a
super PAC and won’t be soliciting donations from wealthy campaign
contributors.

Instead, Sanders said that average Americans make up the backbone of his
campaign donors. “Working families all over this country are saying,
Bernie, we want to stand with you,” he said. Sanders’ website even boasts
that it is “paid for by Bernie 2016, not the billionaires.”

Sanders has also made clear that he will run a positive campaign focused on
the issues. “I’ve known Hillary for 25 years. I am not going to be waging
personal attacks against her. We differ on issues, and those are the areas
that I’ll be focusing on,” Sanders said.

*Why Bernie Sanders wins the crowds
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/opinions/zelizer-bernie-sanders/> // CNN //
Julian Zelizer – June 15, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders is drawing some large and enthusiastic crowds.

In New Hampshire at the Keene Recreation Center, which can hold more than
750 people, the place was packed to capacity with an overflowing crowd
outside eager to hear him speak. This comes as a surprise. After all,
Sanders has been a Democratic socialist for much of his political career.
It would seem he is too far left on the political spectrum to be taken
seriously.

The senator from Vermont is gaining attention among candidates and the
press. Although some observers have explained the Sanders phenomenon as a
product of Democratic politics shifting to the left, the truth is that much
of what he has to say resonates with a broad spectrum of middle-class
voters. Even if some of his solutions are far too much government for a
broad portion of the electorate, what he's saying about American politics
is resonating with voters.

A brief look at Sanders' stump speeches quickly reveals the senator is not
always as "radical" as many people believe him to be. In many ways, he is
as American as apple pie.

One of the biggest issues that helped Sanders gain traction is his passion
for revitalizing the middle class.

Many voters in blue and red states are scared about the "new normal" of
sluggish economic growth. They see their grown children struggling to
obtain economic security. Polls indicate that people in both parties are
greatly concerned about the expanding divide between the rich and poor.

While most Democrats still dance around this issue, fearful that their
opponents will tag them as "too liberal" if they call on government to do
something, Sanders tackles the issue directly. "In my view, the issue of
wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time; it is
the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue
of our time," he said.

Unlike many candidates on the campaign trail, Sanders understands that
these economic problems are directly related to the problems with the
political process; namely, the power of private money in elections.

Economic inequality is not inevitable, in his mind. Polls show Americans
are greatly concerned about the damaging reverberations of the Supreme
Court's Citizens United case, which opened the floodgates to private money
in campaigns. Sanders is unabashedly a critic of super PACs, large
donations, and exorbitant campaign expenses. If it were up to him, the
senator would revitalize the Watergate-era campaign finance reforms and go
even further. He taps into deep discontent when he tells voters, "Enough is
enough. This great nation and its government belong to all of the people,
and not to a handful of billionaires, their super PACs and their lobbyists."

And, in an age when so many politicians seem to be scripted and elected
officials willing to say anything to do better in the polls, Sanders
actually believes in something.

Sanders believes in government.

When confronted with the major problems of the day, Sanders insists that
government has historically done a pretty good job with issues like
employment and infrastructure. He has no problem saying that the government
can do a great job.

With many political advisers thinking about more "triangulation," Sanders
harkens back to the accomplishments of the New Deal and Great Society. "If
we are truly serious about reversing the decline of the middle class,"
Sanders said, "we need a major federal jobs program which puts millions of
Americans back to work at decent paying jobs. At a time when our roads,
bridges, water systems, rail and airports are decaying, the most effective
way to rapidly create meaningful jobs is to rebuild our crumbling
infrastructure."

His speeches are littered with examples of programs that have been
effective. While most Republicans and a large number of independents and
Democrats won't agree with his conclusions, there is something inescapably
appealing about a candidate who stands for something with such clarity and
verve.

Will he win? Probably not. Hillary Clinton will embrace many of these
themes and speak more vocally about these issues, though probably with more
hesitation and equivocation than Sanders. Clinton has launched a strong
campaign, and with the possibility of electing the first female president,
there's optimism and excitement in the air.

But Sanders' arguments will continue to resonate with middle-class voters
and his speeches will put immense pressure on Clinton and other Democrats.
Even if Sanders is too far left, candidates in both parties should listen
to what he is saying and learn about some of the concerns that are shaping
the electorate.

*Bernie Sanders says a black male baby born today has 1-in-3 chance of
prison
<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/15/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-black-male-baby-born-today-has/>
// Politifact // Louis Jacobson – June 15, 2015 *

Several 2016 presidential candidates in both parties have discussed how the
criminal justice system might be improved. The latest to address this issue
was Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders during a June 11,
2015, interview on PBS.

"A black male baby born today, if we do not change the system, stands a
one-in-three chance (of) ending up in jail. This is (an) unspeakable
tragedy."

When we took a closer look, we found that the statistic may not be far off
-- but it’s hard to know for sure, because the data Sanders relies on is so
old. As with other dramatic talking points we’ve seen over the years, this
one has been repeated and repeated over a decade and a half without being
updated, despite evidence that the underlying trends have changed direction.

The statistic dates back to a 2003 paper published by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, a division of the U.S. Justice Department. The Bureau of
Justice Statistics paper includes the line, "About 1 in 3 black males ...
are expected to go to prison during their lifetime, if current
incarceration rates remain unchanged."

By contrast, the paper said, one of every six Hispanic males and one of
every 17 white males can be expected to go to prison during their lifetime.
(For this fact-check, we’ll ignore Sanders’ imprecise use of "jail," where
people are held temporarily, rather than "prison," where inmates are
typically serving substantial sentences.)

Not only was this data published 12 years ago, but the paper is based on
data from 2001 -- a full 14 years ago. Despite its age, the statistic has
been cited repeatedly -- notably in 2013 with the publication of a report
by the Sentencing Project, a group that advocates for prison reform and
promotes alternatives to incarceration. That report’s claim -- that "if
current trends continue, one of every three black American males born today
can expect to go to prison in his lifetime" -- was footnoted to a 2011
paper by Marc Mauer, the Sentencing Project’s executive director.

When we contacted Mauer, he said he doesn’t know of any updated research
that would shed light on the percentage today. "It's a very complex
analysis to produce, so that's at least part of the reason that it hasn't
been replicated in recent years," Mauer said.

We did, however, find reason to believe that the trend line that had been
assumed in the 2003 paper has changed course.

According to annual Justice Department reports, in 2001 there were 3,535
sentenced black male prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction for
every 100,000 black male residents. By 2013, the equivalent number was
2,805. So black incarceration rates were 21 percent lower in 2013 than they
were in 2001.

That said, there’s little doubt that black men have disproportionately
higher incarceration rates. For instance, a study published in the journal
Crime & Delinquency found that nearly half of black males and almost 40
percent of white males in the United States have been arrested by the age
of 23.

But because of the complexities of modeling the statistics, Mauer said,
it’s hard to know how much the decline in incarceration rates would
specifically change the one-in-three statistic Sanders used.

"We can't necessarily say that the one-in-three figure should be reduced by
21 percent, although if we did, it would bring it down to about 1 in 4,
which is still quite dramatic," Mauer said.

Our ruling

Sanders said that "a black male baby born today, if we do not change the
system, stands a one-in-three chance (of) ending up in jail."

This calculation, while it’s the most recent one available, is 14 years
old, and changes in the underlying data suggest that the actual odds of
incarceration may be somewhat smaller today. Still, other evidence suggests
that blacks have a disproportionate likelihood of ending up in prison. On
balance we rate it Mostly True.

*WEBB*

*Jim Webb to decide on presidential campaign in next two weeks
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/jim-webb-to-decide-on-presidential-campaign-in-next-two-weeks/2015/06/15/b134b018-136b-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html>
// WaPo // Rachel Weiner – June 15, 2015 *

As Jeb Bush announces the launch of a presidential campaign that has been
all but official for months, Jim Webb is still openly wrestling with
whether or not to run in the Democratic primary next year.

“We’re going to make a decision within the next two weeks,” the former
Virginia senator told an Iowa radio host Monday morning. “The decision
point is — can we put together a viable campaign without having to fall
into this financial campaign funding process which I think is damaging to
the country?”

Webb is back in Iowa on Monday and Tuesday, touring a wind farm and holding
events around the Des Moines area.

Since launching an exploratory committee last fall with a low-budget Web
video, Webb has acknowledged that he might not be able to raise the funds
to compete on the national stage. He has been dipping in and out of early
states while retreating from the trail for long stretches. He has gone
through two Iowa operatives since he began considering a bid.

But he told Des Moines’ WHO Radio that the huge audience that turned out to
see Vermont’s independent Sen. Bernie Sanders in Iowa this past weekend was
a sign that some Democratic voters were “uneasy” with their choices and
“looking for a different form of leadership.”

Unlike Sanders, who this weekend went after Hillary Rodham Clinton for
avoiding a clear position on a major free trade deal with Asia, Webb has
avoided directly criticizing the former secretary of state. However, he
agrees with Sanders and fellow Clinton opponent Martin O’Malley that the
plan should not be fast-tracked through Congress.

“We need to see in writing what it is that the country is supposed to be
approving,” he said of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

*OTHER*

*Labor buys ‘thank you’ ads for lawmakers who blocked Obama trade pact
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/15/labor-buys-thank-you-ads-for-lawmakers-who-blocked-obama-trade-pact/?postshare=9041434391106168>
// WaPo // David Nakamura – June 15, 2015 *

The AFL-CIO is thanking Democratic lawmakers who stood with organized labor
and blocked President Obama's trade deal in the House last week.

The ads, featuring individual members, will run on Facebook, and in print
in the members' district. The labor union also is purchasing mobile ads in
The Hill, a Capitol Hill publication.

"Thank you for standing with working families," the ads state, featuring
photos of the lawmakers.

Labor has waged a fierce battle to block Congress from granting Obama
fast-track powers to speed up completion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
a 12-nation free trade and regulatory deal. The AFL-CIO has said past trade
deals have resulted in lost jobs and declining wages for workers in
traditional manufacturing jobs.

The vast majority of House Democrats — 144 of 188 —  voted Friday against a
bill to offer financial assistance and job retraining for workers displaced
by global trade. Though Democrats generally support such aid, the lawmakers
voted against it to block a related bill to fast-track the TPP. Both bills
were required to pass for the package to move forward, and it remains
stalled in the House.

The Obama administration and Republican leaders have vowed to try again on
the trade package as soon as this week.

*Immigration 2016: Dems Try to out-DACA Each Other, While Mitt Admitting
Mistake Gives GOP ‘Chance to Win’
<http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/06/15/immigration-2016-dems-try-to-out-daca-each-other-while-mitt-admitting-mistake-gives-gop-chance-to-win/>
// PJ Media // Bridget Johnson – June 15, 2015 *

If Hillary Clinton’s opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination
were chasing her on trade yesterday, today they’re getting out front on
immigration.

Today is the third anniversary of the announcement of the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals program that has given legal work status to 700,000
illegal immigrants.

“If it weren’t for DREAMers, their voices and efforts, DACAmented youth
around the country wouldn’t be able to contribute their skills, work and
ingenuity to the country they call home,” former Maryland Gov. Martin
O’Malley said in English and Spanish statements today. “These are the young
New Americans who are doing what so many of our ancestors have done before
them: making our nation stronger with their passion, their talent, and
their love of country.”

“I’ve had the honor of working side by side many of these New Americans. I
am proud of what we fought for together – passing the DREAM Act in Maryland
and making sure that all New Americans regardless of their status could
drive lawfully and safely in our communities.”

However, he said, “DACA is just a temporary solution, and it is a moral and
economic imperative that we make sure DREAMers and other New Americans can
fully contribute to our country.”

“I know the urgency to fix our broken immigration system,” O’Malley said.
“I’m the only candidate in this race who has committed to tackle
immigration reform in my first 100 days in office and the only one with a
proven record of advancing New American rights.”

Last month, Clinton hired a DREAMer activist as her campaign’s Latino
outreach director.

Campaigning in Nevada in early May with DREAMers — illegal immigrants
brought to the country as children, named so for the DREAM Act — Hillary
Clinton vowed “to stop partisan attacks on the executive actions that would
put DREAMers – including many with us today – at risk of deportation.”

“And, if Congress refuses to act, as president I will do everything
possible under the law to go even further. There are more people – like
many parents of DREAMers and others with deep ties and contributions to our
communities – who deserve a chance to stay. I’ll fight for them too,” she
added.

Clinton’s campaign released a fact sheet on her plans for comprehensive
immigration reform, stressing that anything from Congress “must include
nothing less than a full and equal path to citizenship.”

But the Dems aren’t the only one staking out their claims on immigration.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), vying for the Republican nomination, told CBS
on Sunday that “Mitt Romney and Ann Romney did our party a great service by
admitting that embracing self-deportation in 2012 was their biggest
mistake.”

“They have given us a chance in 2016 to win,” Graham said. “You’re not
going to self-deport 11 million people. You’re not going to be able to do
that. I’m not going to be a Republican nominee wanting to try to do that.
If you pass a criminal background check, I will allow to you stay here
legally and earn your way to citizenship. It will be hard-earned pathway.
But I hope every candidate on the Republican side will follow Mitt Romney’s
lead and admit it was a mistake to embrace self-deportation. And I hope
self-deportation is in our rear-view mirror as a party, because if it is
not, we will lose in 2016.”

“…There are some people saying we need to limit legal immigration. To me,
they’re just looking in a different world than I am. We will be down to two
workers for every retiree in the next 20 years. We’re going to need more
legal immigration. And I hope we will embrace a comprehensive approach that
is realistic and humane.”

*GOP*

*BUSH*

*Jeb Bush’s Surprising Struggle With Moderates
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/upshot/jeb-bushs-surprising-struggle-with-moderates.html?abt=0002&abg=1>
// NYT // Nate Cohn – June 15, 2015 *

It was easy to see Jeb Bush’s path to the Republican nomination when he
announced the formation of his super PAC in December. He wasn’t guaranteed
to pull it off — not by any stretch — but he seemed well positioned to
appeal to the coalition of party elites and blue-state voters that has
allowed center-right establishment candidates to win the party’s last two
contests.

Mr. Bush might still take exactly this path to the nomination. But the
striking — and surprising — thing about his candidacy is that he will
formally enter the race Monday bearing many of the costs of the
center-right approach without seeming to enjoy many of the benefits.

He has not won the invisible primary, the behind-the-scenes competition for
elite support that often decides the nomination, and he has not even
emerged as a favorite of the party’s large block of more moderate voters.
He starts in a weaker position than not only his brother in 1999 or his
father in 1987, but also Mitt Romney in 2011.

To a certain extent, Mr. Bush is a victim of unfair expectations. He was
often called the front-runner, even though it was obvious that the party’s
large conservative and populist base would have serious reservations about
an establishment candidate who often seemed to attack conservatives. And he
was likely to face stronger competition, like Scott Walker, than recent
Republican nominees.

What is surprising, though, is Mr. Bush’s relatively vulnerable standing in
the places he had seemed strong only a few months ago. It’s no surprise
that he has miserable numbers among Iowa caucus-goers, who are very
conservative, and Tea Party supporters nationwide. It is surprising that he
has not emerged as a clear favorite in New Hampshire, where self-identified
moderates make up nearly half of the electorate. In national polls, he
fares no better against Hillary Rodham Clinton than Marco Rubio or Mr.
Walker, and his favorability ratings are worse than all of them. The party
establishment hasn’t unified around him, perhaps in part as a result of
these indicators.

Mr. Bush’s struggle is a reflection of his own missteps and weaknesses,
like a handful of stumbles on the campaign trail and his unpopular last
name. But it is also a reflection of the strength of his competition — not
just from the mainstream candidates who can take a slice of the relatively
moderate voters and elites he requires to be viable, but also from the
conservative candidates he ultimately needs to defeat.

The early signs of Mr. Bush’s strength — like prominent hires, reports of
prodigious fund-raising, Mitt Romney’s decision to stay out of the race,
and reports that similarly positioned candidates were struggling to find
breathing room — have all faded. Some are no longer true.

Mr. Romney’s exit now looks like the exception, with a flood of candidates
joining the race. Most significant is Mr. Rubio, the senator who many
believed would not run if Mr. Bush, his mentor, entered the race.

Mr. Rubio, 44, may offer the field’s best case for “electability” because
of his youth, charisma and Cuban heritage, and he is competing for many of
the same supporters as Mr. Bush, including in their home state of Florida.
A stronger Mr. Bush would have made it very difficult for Mr. Rubio to win
the nomination, but Mr. Bush’s weakness has created an opening for Mr.
Rubio that didn’t even seem to be there as recently as two or three months
ago.

John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, also seemed unlikely to run until a few
months ago. Like Mr. Rubio, and along with Chris Christie and Lindsey
Graham, he could draw at least some supporters and voters from Mr. Bush. “I
didn’t think I was going to be back up here again because, frankly, I
thought Jeb was just going to suck all the air out of the room,” Mr. Kasich
said two weeks ago in New Hampshire, “and it just hasn’t happened.”

Mr. Bush’s fund-raising, with a goal of $100 million for his super PAC, is
impressive. But it’s hard to say just how impressive it really is in an era
of unlimited contributions, when even a candidate like Ted Cruz can raise
more than $30 million for his super PAC in a few weeks. And in recent days,
there have been reports that Mr. Bush might fall well short of early
fund-raising expectations — a further sign of weakness.

Even if his fund-raising is as strong as he hoped, there is no reason to
expect it will be decisive: Mr. Romney barely won pivotal states like Ohio
and Michigan in the 2012 primaries, despite an overwhelming financial and
organizational edge over a candidate, Rick Santorum, who was not nearly as
strong as Mr. Bush’s competition is today.

Perhaps most important, it’s surprisingly hard to find prominent elites who
support Mr. Bush — aside from a spurt of donors and high-profile aides who
joined his team a few months ago and late last week. When my colleague
Peter Baker recently surveyed 120 people who worked for President George W.
Bush, only about 25 responded to say they supported Jeb Bush. You won’t
find many Republicans and conservatives praising him on television or in
print. So far, Mr. Bush has received no formal endorsements from outside
Florida, and nothing is a better indicator of primary strength than
endorsements.

Mr. Bush, of course, might eventually generate a surge of endorsements.
Fund-raising strength usually correlates with endorsements, even if a
handful of candidates with unusually close ties to Wall Street and strong
fund-raising performances but poor results — like Phil Gramm, chairman of
the Senate committee on banking, and the former New York mayor Rudy
Giuliani — have soured analysts on this metric.

But much of the Republican elite has serious reservations about whether Mr.
Bush is the best candidate to face Mrs. Clinton. It’s not hard to imagine
why: His favorability ratings and standing against her are dismal. Whatever
the actual value of public opinion polling at this early stage, the polls
give no reason for elites to assume that Mr. Bush is a particularly strong
general election candidate.

His performance on the campaign trail hasn’t given them much reason to
assume he could be a strong candidate, either. Last month, he struggled to
answer a question about whether he would have invaded Iraq, given what we
know today. It at once made him seem unprepared for a predictable question
while highlighting the vulnerability posed by his last name. It was a very
different Mr. Bush than the one depicted in initial press reports, which
quoted Republican donors who insisted that he was such an impressive
candidate that he could distinguish himself from his brother.

Candidates like Mr. Rubio, Mr. Walker, Mr. Kasich, Rick Perry, Mr. Christie
and Rand Paul can compete for moderate and independent voters in New
Hampshire, a state that Mr. Bush may need to win. On paper, one would
expect that a relatively moderate Republican would fare well in New
Hampshire. But Mr. Bush has struggled to take a lead there, and it’s fair
to wonder whether he is as good a fit for the state as one might guess from
his moderate reputation.

The state’s voters aren’t just relatively moderate; they’re independent and
iconoclastic. John McCain won the state in 2000 and 2008, while Jon
Huntsman and Ron Paul combined to amass more support than Mr. Romney
received four years ago. One wonders whether an establishment-backed Bush
is the right candidate to appeal to a state with a penchant for “mavericks.”

Just as important, the field includes candidates who have the potential to
consolidate conservatives without alienating the rest of the party. The
inability of conservatives to get their act together has been one of the
biggest assets to the establishment. In the last two Republican primaries,
conservatives settled on two evangelical favorites — Mr. Santorum and Mike
Huckabee — who had little chance of defeating the more mainstream
front-runner in a long battle.

This year, both Mr. Walker and Mr. Rubio have the potential to consolidate
conservatives and win a national campaign. Of the two, Mr. Walker has the
easier path. He already holds a modest but consistent lead in Iowa polls,
and, unlike recent Iowa winners, he has the broad appeal and elite support
necessary to win a protracted contest. He could even win New Hampshire,
especially over a divided field, something that could not be said for
either of the last two winners of Iowa.

Mr. Rubio has a somewhat harder path. While Mr. Walker is a natural
candidate of very conservative voters in part because of his victories over
unions and liberal opponents in Wisconsin, Mr. Rubio lacks as clear a pitch
to one of the party’s major factions. So far, he is the second choice of
many.

But Mr. Rubio offers the conservative elite a reliable representative of
their views, and they believe he is well positioned to face Mrs. Clinton in
the general election. He is also a charismatic enough politician to become
the first choice of many if elites bestow the necessary resources, or if
another candidate stumbles, and it would be unwise to rule out the
possibility that he could simply outperform Mr. Bush in the minds of voters
and elites alike.

Mr. Walker and Mr. Rubio could certainly falter. Well-positioned candidates
have done so before, like Mr. Romney in 2008 and Mr. Perry in 2012. But if
they do not, Mr. Bush will need to defeat them the old-fashioned way. He
will need to perform better on the campaign trail, reassuring Republican
elites and eventually swaying voters in New Hampshire.

This is not the path of an invisible primary leader, like that of his
brother 16 years ago or of Mrs. Clinton today. It’s a tougher one.

*Jeb Bush Announces White House Bid, Saying ‘America Deserves Better.’
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/us/politics/jeb-bush-presidential-campaign.html>
// NYT // Michael Barbaro and Jonathan Martin – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush, the son and brother of a president, offered himself up as the
most accomplished leader in the 2016 field, declared war on Washington’s
political culture and insisted that his family name gave him no singular
claim to the Oval Office as he formally entered the race for the White
House on Monday.

As his mother, Barbara, the former first lady, looked on, Mr. Bush directly
confronted the central doubt looming over his campaign: that he presents
the latest incarnation of a tired dynasty and is entitled to the Republican
nomination by virtue of his surname.

“Not a one of us deserves the job by right of resume, party, seniority,
family, or family narrative,” Mr. Bush said inside a community college
gymnasium. “It’s nobody’s turn. It’s everybody’s test.”

In declaring his presidential bid before a cheering crowd at Miami Dade
College, Mr. Bush promised to remove Washington as an obstacle to effective
government and economic prosperity by declaring that “America deserves
better.”

Mr. Bush, whose two terms as governor of Florida were marked by the
privatization of traditional state services, vowed to “take Washington –
the static capital of this dynamic country – out of the business of causing
problems.”

Mr. Bush called upon his own record of ambitious, conservative-minded
change as Florida’s chief executive. “I know we can fix this,” Mr. Bush
said. “Because I’ve done it.”

Mr. Bush, 62, declared his White House ambitions nearly 27 years after his
father was elected president, molding a political dynasty that would propel
one son into a governor’s office and another into the White House.

But Mr. Bush entered a presidential contest — unruly in size, unyielding in
pace and voracious in cost — that is unlike any faced by his father, George
Bush, who won the office in 1988, or his brother, George W. Bush, who
claimed it in 2000.

In his speech, Mr. Bush offered himself up as a counterpoint to a
Republican Party that has struggled to connect with minority voters,
costing it the last two presidential elections. He also vowed to remain
true to his principles, an implicit attack on his Republican rivals who
have changed their views to appeal to the party’s conservative base.

And as the third member of his family to seek the nation’s highest office,
he brings to the race a last name that at once burnishes and tarnishes,
evoking the nobility of public service and a deep distrust of political
entitlement.

Mr. Bush’s campaign highlighted that tension on Monday with the selection
of a spare logo, first used in his failed 1994 race for governor, that
excludes his surname. It reads simply “Jeb!” And while Mr. Bush’s wife,
Columba, and his three adult children attended his speech, his father and
brother did not join him for the announcement at the Kendall Campus of
Miami Dade College.

Mr. Bush’s advisers and allies once predicted that he would emerge as the
dominant Republican in the 2016 campaign, fueled by his record of
conservative accomplishment as Florida’s governor, his popularity at the
end of his time in office and the fund-raising prowess of the Bush family
network. But now they are resigned to a far longer and uglier slog for him
in the Republican nominating contest.

“The operative word inside the campaign is patience,” said Al Cardenas, a
former Florida Republican Party leader and longtime ally of Mr. Bush. “As
people get to know him, things will get better.”

Mr. Bush made his formal announcement here in the multicultural city that
allowed him to escape from his family’s patrician roots in the ivy-covered
walls of Connecticut and in the oil patches of Texas. It was Miami that
eventually nurtured the political ambitions that had long been a birthright
of his clan.

In his speech, he both embraced elements of his heritage and tried to
transcend them, portraying himself as an entrepreneurial figure who, in the
Bush family way, struck out on his own, built up a real estate business and
became a governor who delivered on a promise of sweeping change.

“I said I was going to do these things, and I did them,” Mr. Bush declared
in a video released by his political operation on Sunday night. “The result
was Florida’s a lot better off.”

Joining a field crowded with governors and senators, he tried on Monday to
distinguish himself as an executive animated by big ideas and uniquely
capable of carrying them out, pointing to his record in Florida of
introducing a taxpayer-financed school voucher program, expanding charter
schools, reducing the size of state government by thousands of workers and
cutting taxes by billions.

Above all, he offered himself as a messenger of optimistic conservatism,
uninterested in the politics of grievance, obstructionism and partisanship
that, in his eyes and those of his allies, have catapulted less
accomplished rivals, like Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of
Kentucky, to national prominence.

Leadership, he says in the video, is “not just about yapping about things,”
an unmistakable attack on his voluble, less seasoned rivals from the Senate.

He adds: “There’s a lot of people talking. And they’re pretty good at it.
But we need to start fixing things.”

The risk for Mr. Bush, a cerebral figure who seems more at ease debating
the intricacies of education policy with business leaders than electrifying
a crowd of voters, is that the charismatic talkers in his party may
outshine him before ballots are cast. He has yet to emerge as a
front-runner in polls, lagging rivals in crucial states like Iowa, which
will hold its caucuses early next year.

Mr. Cardenas said Monday’s speech was only the beginning of a long sales
pitch that Mr. Bush must make in states with early nominating contests like
Iowa and New Hampshire.

“I consider the early states an asset for most candidates who are
introducing themselves, and a burden for Governor Bush,” Mr. Cardenas said.

“The reason for that is that since 2006, many of our pundits in the party
have not been kind to the Bush family,” Mr. Cardenas said.

Many Republican elected officials who admire Mr. Bush have nevertheless
held back from endorsing him, saying he still needs to prove himself as a
candidate.

Jeb Bradley, the majority leader in the New Hampshire State Senate, said
that Mr. Bush met his three criteria for an endorsement — leadership
skills, appealing stances on most issues and ability to win — but that he
was still open to backing two other Republicans, Senator Marco Rubio of
Florida and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

“I want to see what Governor Bush says in Monday’s speech, see him at a
town-hall meeting up here, see what his fund-raising looks like,” Mr.
Bradley said.

The announcement of Mr. Bush’s White House run ends an unusual, legally
problematic and occasionally comical phase in which Mr. Bush traveled,
raised money and campaigned as a full-fledged candidate but insisted,
despite all evidence to the contrary, that he was not officially exploring
a presidential run.

It was a claim that allowed Mr. Bush to collect vast sums of cash for the
political entities that could supercharge his campaign, but it produced
several moments of semantic gymnastics. (A few days ago, to the barely
suppressed laughter of the reporters nearby, Mr. Bush referred to “election
night” and the “campaign that is likely to take place.”)

Despite Mr. Bush’s stumbles so far, his friends and allies said his biggest
asset was his unwillingness to transform himself into something he is not.

“I think he needs to put aside the last few months and continue to calmly
show a grown-up attitude,” said Barry Wynn, a prominent South Carolina
Republican and donor. “The two things that will distinguish him are his
stature, that he is a grown-up ready for the presidency, and his
consistency, that he’s not changing to make everyone happy.”

“The worst thing for Jeb to do,” Mr. Wynn said, “is give his opponents any
opportunity to close the stature gap he enjoys.”

But it remains unclear whether conservative-leaning voters will be as
animated by Mr. Bush’s “grown-up” qualities as the party’s donor class,
which has formed his core of early support.

“I am going to be who I am,” he said in Europe last weekend, on a trip
during which he barely interacted with ordinary people. He seemed content
mostly to bat around policy ideas, as he did on Saturday in Estonia with a
group of technology executives who briefed him on the digitalization of the
country’s government.

“I’m not going to change who I am,” Mr. Bush said as he left the meeting,
his last in Europe, and headed home.

*Jeb Bush on the Issues
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/us/politics/jeb-bush-on-the-issues.html>
// NYT // Gerry Mullany – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush, who was governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007, on Monday
announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. A son
of George Bush, the 41st president, and a younger brother of George W.
Bush, the 43rd, he is known for sometimes bucking Republican orthodoxy.
Here is a look at his stand on important issues.

Foreign Policy

Mr. Bush says that American combat forces should not be sent to Iraq to
fight the group calling itself the Islamic State, but that some troops
should be embedded with Iraqi forces there “to help train them, to identify
targets.” He has called the Obama administration’s framework of an
agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear program a “horrific deal” and, like
fellow Republican contenders, said he would most likely cancel any final
agreement reached by the administration should he become president. Mr.
Bush calls himself “an unwavering supporter” of Israel and its prime
minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and distanced himself from recent comments by
an adviser, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, that were
critical of Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Bush opposes normalizing relations with
Cuba; in early December, before President Obama moved to do so, Mr. Bush
said that “instead of lifting the embargo, we should consider strengthening
it.”

Immigration

Mr. Bush says he believes that people who are in this country illegally
should be offered a path to legal status. “You pay your fines, you get
provisional work permits, where you come out of the shadows, you pay taxes,
you pay fines, you don’t receive government assistance, you learn English,
you don’t commit crimes,” he said in February. “Any of those things that
you do would be a deportable offense.” He also called, as many Republican
candidates have, for tougher enforcement of immigration laws, including
prosecuting businesses that hire undocumented aliens.

Same-Sex Marriage

Signaling his opposition to same-sex marriage, Mr. Bush says he believes in
“traditional marriage.” But he has also suggested an openness to some form
of recognition of same-sex unions. “I hope that we can show respect for the
good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue,” he said in
January, “including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who
are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage
is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty.”

Environment

“The climate is changing, and I’m concerned about that,” Mr. Bush said in
New Hampshire in April, adding that “we need to work with the rest of the
world to negotiate a way to reduce carbon emissions.” Those remarks
distinguished him from most other Republican presidential hopefuls, who
deny that the climate is changing or that global warming is caused by human
behavior. But Mr. Bush also said he was more concerned about protecting the
economy, warning of “the hollowing out of our industrial core, the
hollowing out of our ability to compete in an increasingly competitive
world.”

Education

Mr. Bush has been an outspoken defender of the Common Core national
educational standards, which were intended to raise proficiency in math and
English but have generated a strong backlash among conservatives who see
Common Core as an overreach by the federal government. “Raising
expectations and having accurate assessments of where kids are is essential
for success,” Mr. Bush said in defending the standards.

Economy and Budget

While focusing his economic message on inequality and middle-class wage
stagnation, Mr. Bush has not yet offered detailed proposals to confront
these issues. He has said he would try to nearly double the nation’s annual
growth rate to 4 percent to create jobs. Though he favors simplifying the
tax code, he has not specified how he would change the federal tax system.
As governor, though, he signed several tax cuts into law, including a cut
and then a repeal of Florida’s 0.2 percent tax on stocks, bonds and other
so-called intangible assets.

*Jeb Bush Shows Loyalty to a Logo Derided by Some
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/15/hillary-clinton-pushes-to-expand-access-to-pre-kindergarten/>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush’s new campaign logo — Jeb! — was unveiled to guffaws that it was
unoriginal and lacking in design elements, but for the former Florida
governor, a throwback look appears to have been part of the plan.

Mr. Bush’s logo dates to his 1994 campaign, when he lost to Lawton Chiles,
the incumbent Democratic governor. He stuck with it over the years, and in
2002 filed paperwork to trademark the logo.

The move was considered unorthodox at the time. According to a report from
The Miami Herald, Mr. Bush intended to prevent groups that opposed him from
using his name to raise money.

Mr. Bush remained protective of the trademark over the years. In 2010,
after he had left office, his lawyer accused a Democratic State Senate
candidate, Deborah Gianoulis, of stealing his logo after she distributed
campaign signs and bumper stickers that read “Deb!”

After receiving a cease-and-desist letter, Ms. Gianoulis told The Florida
Times-Union she had no idea about Mr. Bush’s logo and said “Deb” was her
nickname.

“Governor Bush is welcome to borrow the logo we used in my 2010 campaign,”
Ms. Gianoulis said on Monday. “All I ask in return is that his campaign put
an exclamation point behind support for public education.”

Mr. Bush’s trademark lapsed later in 2010, and he reapplied for it this
year, according to filings with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office.

Branding experts noted on Monday that Mr. Bush’s simple, first-name only
logo works well with his 2016 bid, in which he is looking to play down his
connection to a political dynasty.

Erick Erickson, the conservative blogger, suggested that Mr. Bush’s logo is
no worse than Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “H” with an arrow and argued that it
would be hard to trump the success that President Obama had with “O” and a
swooshing flag.

“At least ‘Jeb!’ is consistent and carries some history with it,” Mr.
Erickson said. “Unfortunately for Jeb Bush, so does his last name.”

*Jeb Bush Is Still the Favorite, the Markets Say
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/upshot/jeb-bush-is-still-the-favorite-the-markets-say.html?abt=0002&abg=1>
// NYT // David Leonhardt – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush has had a rough few months. He fumbled a question about the war in
Iraq. He has not consolidated the support of Republican elites, as Nate
Cohn notes. And he has not scared off other candidates who could hurt him
in the primaries, like John Kasich. There is no clever case to be made that
Mr. Bush’s campaign has actually performed well this spring.

But if we’ve learned one thing about presidential campaigns, it’s that most
people who follow them overreact to short-term news. Ronald Reagan’s 1980
campaign had its share of gaffes. Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign lurched from
one crisis to the next. George W. Bush endured a drunk-driving revelation
in the final days of his 2000 campaign. Barack Obama seemed to dismiss guns
and religion as opiates of the masses. All survived to win not only those
campaigns but also re-election four years later.

PredictWise gives him roughly a 31 percent chance of winning the Republican
nomination, a number that has changed little in 2015. It was as low as 27
percent in January and briefly touched 36 percent a couple of times in
early April. He remains the favorite, with Marco Rubio at 25 percent, Scott
Walker at 18 percent and no other individual candidate above 5 percent
(Rand Paul’s chances have generally been rated higher in the last few
months, but he is at 5 percent as of today).

Mr. Bush’s basic strengths and weaknesses have not changed. He is the most
experienced, tested candidate among the Republicans’ major contenders, with
deep ties to party leaders, a popular tenure as Florida’s governor and a
well-known interest in policy. He is also a mediocre speech-giver, the
brother of a president who was among the least popular of the last 80
years, and a person who’s distrusted by many conservatives.

I might quibble with the collective opinion of the prediction markets. (I
believe they’re still overestimating the chances that the nominee will be
someone other than Mr. Bush, Mr. Rubio or Mr. Walker.) But the notion that
Mr. Bush’s chances are only slightly worse than they were at the peak feels
right, for all the negative commentary he is now receiving.

He is both the most likely Republican nominee — and still more likely than
not to lose the nomination. The campaign has a long way to go.

*Jeb Bush repackages his brother’s ‘compassionate conservatism’
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/06/15/jeb-bush-repackages-his-brothers-compassionate-conservatism/>
// WaPo // Paul Waldman – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush will be announcing his presidential candidacy this afternoon,
finally ending all the edge-of-your-seat mystery and speculation about
whether he really is running. And from what we’ve learned in advance, Bush
may be charting an interesting and somewhat risky path to get his party’s
nomination.

Instead of doing what we might have expected from someone in Jeb’s position
— bending over backward to convince base Republicans that he’s a true
conservative — he seems to be going in the opposite direction. It’s almost
as if he’s already running a general election campaign.

We won’t know all the details until he gives the speech, and I’m sure there
will be a reasonable amount of massaging of the conservative pleasure
centers on things like tax cuts and reducing regulation. But Jeb’s first
notes as an official candidate sound a lot like his brother’s
“compassionate conservatism.”

Let’s be clear about what that means. “Compassionate conservatism” was
always light on policy and heavy on image-making. While it’s fashionable
for Republicans to now say that George W. Bush wasn’t a “real” conservative
because he didn’t cut spending enough, the truth is that he gave
conservatives almost everything they wanted: huge tax cuts for the wealthy,
slashing regulations, a belligerent foreign policy, right-wing judges, and
so on. But he also said nice things about poor people and spent lots of
time posing for pictures with African-Americans and Hispanics — hence,
“compassion.” His 2004 campaign web site featured a “Compassion Photo
Album” that was, I kid you not, just a bunch of photos of George and Laura
with black and Hispanic people.

And Jeb is following in those footsteps. Check out this video the campaign
just released:

In this video, the four people offering testimonials on Bush’s behalf are
an Hispanic immigrant man, the family member of a person with disabilities
(also Hispanic), a woman who had been the victim of domestic violence, and
a young African-American woman who was the first in her family to graduate
college. Only one of them, the African-American woman, is associated with a
conservative policy, school vouchers. In the other cases we have no idea
what the actual policies were that helped these people, only that they are
grateful to Jeb Bush. At the end, he says, “What we need is new leadership
that takes conservative principles and applies them so that people can rise
up,” but other than that one mention of the word “conservative,” you might
not even be sure this is a Republican candidate.

Needless to say, this is a stark contrast to the way his opponents are
running; the question most of them are trying to answer is how they can
show primary voters that they’re the most conservative candidate in the
bunch. It’s also a striking departure from the strategy employed four years
ago by Mitt Romney, who had a profile similar in many ways to Bush’s, and
who like Bush had to win over skeptical conservatives.

At the time, Romney went on a national self-flagellation tour, renouncing
his prior beliefs and begging for forgiveness for his past heresies. But
Bush now looks like someone who’s already trying to appeal to the general
electorate. In another video released today, Bush has a litany of Americans
he sees who are “ready” to get on board his train to the future (“children
who are ready to learn, entrepreneurs who are ready to innovate,” etc), and
one of the groups he cites are “immigrants who are ready to contribute.”
You aren’t going to hear that from Scott Walker.

To be clear, this doesn’t mean Jeb Bush is some kind of moderate — he
isn’t, and he isn’t going be claiming to be so in any explicit way. Saying
that clearly would be going too far for the primary electorate (prominent
conservative media figures like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and
Laura Ingraham are already lining up against him because he supposedly
isn’t conservative enough). The differences between him and the other
candidates on policy are tiny, where they exist at all.

But the Bush campaign says he’ll be “showing his heart,” which appears to
mean talking to the kind of people his party has spent the last few years
trying as hard as they could to alienate. It sounds like someone who’s
already looking past the primaries to the general election.

*For Jeb Bush, a moment to refocus
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-jeb-bush-a-moment-to-refocus/2015/06/15/97a4178a-13aa-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html>
// WaPo // Dan Balz – June 15, 2015 *

Campaign kickoffs aren’t what they once were, given the distractions of the
time and speed with which one political event overtakes another. But for
Jeb Bush, Monday’s launch couldn’t have come at a more opportune time.

For the past week, much of the media’s attention on Bush has focused on the
internal machinations of his staff and political operation. Monday’s
announcement provided Bush with a welcome circuit breaker, and he took full
advantage of the moment.

His speech, delivered to an energized audience at Miami Dade College, was
peppered with criticism of President Obama, Democratic front-runner Hillary
Rodham Clinton, the progressive establishment and the lobbyist-dominated
culture of Washington.

It was both personal and thematic, short on policy details but not on
offering a roadmap to the kind of campaign he will run and the kind of
president he would like to be. It was an opportunity for Bush to refocus
attention on himself — and it was a call to Republicans to look more fully
at who he is and isn’t and at what he has to offer.

In his telling, what makes him stand out in a crowded field is a
combination of executive experience as a governor, conservative values, a
compassionate heart, a commitment to small government with what he
described as the instincts of a reformer prepared to disrupt the “pampered
elites” in the nation’s capital.

Implicit in his message, and explicit in the words of some of the speakers
who preceded him on the stage at Miami Dade College, was one more thing
that he and his team believe sets him apart. That is the claim that he
would be better positioned to win a general election and restore
Republicans to the White House than any of his rivals.

That is, if he can defeat those rivals to win the GOP nomination. That is
the central question surrounding his candidacy. He carries a famous name
and would make history by becoming the third member of one family to be
elected president.

On Monday, Bush made a special point of debunking any suggestion that he
believes he has a head start or should be seen as anything approaching a
front-runner or favorite for the nomination.

“Not a one of us deserves the job by right of résumé, party, seniority,
family, or family narrative,” he said. “It’s nobody’s turn. It’s
everybody’s test, and it’s wide open — exactly as a contest for president
should be.”

Bush’s formal announcement ended six months of an exhibition season that
did as much to underscore the obstacles ahead of him in his quest to win
the White House as they did to highlight the reality that he will still
have certain advantages in the months ahead.

He may not be the dominant GOP candidate that some people mistakenly
thought anyone with the Bush name and network should be. But neither is
anyone named Bush merely one more candidate in a crowded field of
contenders, regardless of what the polls show.

Those polls show a compacted field, bunched at the top and with many others
close behind. But Bush still has assets that could give him the staying
power to win what shapes up as an extremely competitive contest.

One is money. When he finally reports on the results of his tireless,
aggressive fundraising of the first months of this year, it is likely to
outdistance his rivals, perhaps by significant millions. If a Bush-allied
super PAC falls short of the $100 million threshold that has been talked
about, it nonetheless is likely to get people’s attention, particularly his
rivals.

Bush also knows what he thinks about issues and is comfortable talking
about them — whether domestic issues that were his bread and butter in
Tallahassee during his two terms as governor or some national security
issues that are newer but not exactly foreign to him. That is an asset not
to be underestimated over the course of a long and rigorous campaign.

He faces resistance inside his party — hesitation born of a belief among
some Republicans that no matter what they might think of the presidencies
of his father, George H.W. Bush, or his brother, George W. Bush, a third
Bush presidency is simply one too many.

He faces resistance from other Republicans who doubt his authenticity as a
conservative. His advisers say he will try to appeal to every segment of
the party, and they believe he has something for each of them.

There were hints of that Monday, from talk of his fiscal conservatism to
mentions of religious freedom and battles between Christian conservatives
and the Obama administration to tough talk to appeal to national security
hawks.

But it is Bush’s differences with party orthodoxy that could disrupt his
campaign for the nomination. He differs with others in his party on the
issue of Common Core, though not on education reform more generally. He
talked about taking on the education unions Monday but did not mention
Common Core, other than to say the federal government should not be in
charge of school curriculum standards.

He also parts company with most of his rivals on immigration. He supports a
path to legal status for those here illegally, but opposes a path to
citizenship, as Obama, Clinton and most Democrats favor.

His prepared text made no mention of immigration, but he could not hide
from it. Two-thirds of the way through the speech, a group of young people
stood up in the balcony with T-shirts that spelled out, “Legal status is
not enough.” In response Bush said that the next president would enact
immigration reform.

Bush pledged an optimistic campaign and said he would run everywhere,
“speaking to everyone, keeping my word, facing the issues without
flinching, and staying true to what I believe. I will take nothing and no
one for granted. I will run with heart and I will run to win.”

He has no other choice. What the past months have shown is that he will
face one of the most competitive contests Republicans have seen in many
campaigns. He has filled his campaign coffers and realigned his staff for
the battles ahead. Now it comes back to him. Can he make the sale to a wary
party?

*Meet the people who will try to get Jeb Bush elected president
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/15/a-guide-to-jeb-bushs-family-friends-donors-staff-and-super-pac-friends/>
// WaPo // Ed O’Keefe – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush launches his presidential campaign on Monday surrounded by a
family all-too familiar with the strains and triumphs of presidential
politics, a handful of friends and confidants who have known him for
decades and younger recruits fluent in the mechanics of modern political
warfare.

The former Florida governor also boasts an unrivaled donor network --
cultivated from his Miami home base and by his extended family for more
than 40 years -- and a campaign team growing across the country. There's
also a super PAC, run by Bush's political alter ego, that is poised to
raise record sums of money.

Out on the campaign trail and behind the scenes, here's a list of people
advising and supporting Bush, compiled by The Washington Post and subject
to change as we learn more:

FAMILY AND FRIENDS:

Jeb Bush speaks to supporters as his wife, Columba Bush, and youngest son,
Jeb Bush Jr., stand on stage with him during a fundraising event at the
Jorge Mas Canosa Youth Center in Sweetwater, Fla., on March 18. (Joe
Raedle/Getty Images)

Columba Bush: The candidate’s wife; they’ve been married for 41 years. The
couple first met in her home town of Leon, Mexico, when he visited on a
high school exchange trip. After marriage, they lived in Venezuela, where
he worked as a bank executive, and the family moved two years later to
Miami. They speak Spanish to one another and their lives have been immersed
in Hispanic culture.

On the campaign trail, Bush frequently mentions the two distinct periods in
his life: “B.C. and A.C.: Before Columba and After Columba.”

"I love her dearly, and she has given me a purpose in my life that makes me
kind of a grinder, if you will," he once said.

George P. Bush: The eldest of Bush’s children and the oldest member of the
family’s next generation. He has two young sons with his wife, Amanda. Bush
did a tour in Afghanistan with the Navy Reserve and now serves as Texas
Land Commissioner, easily winning election last year. He will travel to
Nevada this week to campaign on his father’s behalf and is expected to
focus especially on building Hispanic and younger-voter support.

Noelle Bush: Bush’s middle child and only daughter, who he has described as
"the joy of my life." She has shunned the spotlight and isn’t expected to
play an active role with the campaign. She lives in Orlando and frequently
visits her parents in Miami.

Jeb Bush Jr.: Bush’s youngest child is also expected to be the most active.
He is his father’s former business partner, lives in Miami and has two
young children with his wife, Sandra, who is of Iraqi and Jordanian descent
and grew up in Canada. “Jebbie,” as he’s nicknamed, has already headlined
several smaller-dollar fundraisers for his father’s super PAC.

Former president George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara Bush, seen at a
college basketball regional final game between Gonzaga and Duke, during the
NCAA Tournament on March 29 in Houston. (AP/David J. Phillip)

George H.W. Bush: The 41st president of the United States. Jeb Bush
frequently tells voters that his father is “the greatest man alive.”

Barbara Bush: The former first lady, who suggested in recent years that the
country is “Bushed out” but now fully supports her son’s campaign. Proudly
outspoken, she said in a recent NBC interview, "I’ve promised that during
this next campaign season, I will not talk."

George W. Bush: The 43rd president is Jeb Bush’s older brother and widely
seen as one of his biggest political liabilities. The former president has
also said he plans to stay out of the limelight during the coming campaign
season.

Marvin, Neil and Doro: Jeb Bush’s younger siblings, who are active
political figures. Marvin is usually the foil when Jeb jokes about his
political family: “A lot of people, they know my dad, they know my brother
– and I’m not talking about Marvin,” he once told a Nevada crowd.

Josefina Gallo Esquivel: Jeb Bush's mother-in-law. He has invoked her story
in discussions about federally-funded medical research by revealing that
she has dementia. Esquivel lives under the care of her daughters in Miami.

John and Lucila Schmitz: If not for them, Jeb and Columba Bush probably
would never have met. When Jeb first met Columba in Mexico, she was in a
car with John and Lucila, who were dating at the time. The couple lives in
Miami near the Bushes and Lucila and Columba's mother (see above).

Jorge Arrizurieta, Al Cardenas and Ana Navarro: They're among Bush's
biggest backers and frequently called upon by reporters to illustrate his
Miami roots, explain his political appeal or defend his viability.
Arrizurieta first met Jeb Bush in the 1980s, held various roles during his
governorship and is one of his top donors. Cardenas is a Miami-based
super-lobbyist and his children went to school with Bush's. Navarro is a
CNN commentator, veteran of Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign
and her boyfriend, Gene Prescott, owns the famed Biltmore Hotel in Coral
Gables.

TOP CAMPAIGN AIDES:

Sally Bradshaw: Senior campaign adviser. Next to his family, she’s the most
trusted person in his orbit. Bradshaw served as one of Bush’s chiefs of
staff when he was Florida governor and has spent most of the past year
preparing her former boss to run for president. Her biggest asset? She has
Bush's total confidence and vice versa. Her biggest weakness? Physical
distance. She lives in Tallahassee on her family’s chicken farm and has no
plans to move to Miami and work from campaign headquarters.

Danny Diaz: Campaign manager. A Washington native and one-time plumber, he
earned the big job last week in a surprise shakeup. At 39, he's a veteran
operative who quickly earned the trust of Bush, who recently labeled his
new manager "a grinder" -- high praise from the hard-charging governor.
Diaz co-founded FP1 Strategies (which stands for "50 percent plus one")
with Jon Downs, who will serve as head of Bush's media team (see below). He
previously worked for the Republican National Committee, the National
Republican Congressional Committee and the presidential campaigns of McCain
and Mitt Romney.

David Kochel: Chief strategist. Initially expected to serve as campaign
manager, he will focus first on building support in the first four primary
states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. He was one of
Bush’s first and boldest staff hires and helped signal the seriousness of
the former governor's ambitions. An Iowa native, he’s advised several GOP
candidates for years and helped Romney place a close second in the 2012 GOP
caucus.

Trent Wisecup: Director of strategy. During the 2012 cycle, he was
strategist to the NRCC. He's also worked for former California governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Bush and Romney.
Most recently, he worked for FP1 Strategies.

Justin Muzinch: Policy director. He's one of several Wall Street veterans
poised to join Bush's team. Muzinich was most recently a vice president of
Muzinich & Co., an international investment firm in New York. He's also
been with Morgan Stanley and EMS Capital. Close with Glenn Hubbard, another
occasional Bush adviser, Muzinich has advocated for revamping the U.S.
Federal Reserve and U.S. foreign aid and has advocated for a new trade deal
with Europe.

Scott Jennings: A Kentucky-based consultant who helped reelect Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last year. He will advise the
campaign on political matters. He ran Romney’s 2012 operations in Ohio.

Heather Larrison: Finance director. It’s her job to woo donors, keep them
happy and raise as much money as possible for Bush’s campaign. Her team has
an ambitious goal of raising at least $5 million by June 30, in order to
show a strong start when campaign finance filings are released July 15.
She's been a finance aide for some of the most successful fundraisers in
the GOP, including George W. Bush and Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio). She also had
stints at the Republican Governors Association and National Republican
Senatorial Committee.

Ann Herberger: A Miami-based GOP fundraiser, she runs the Woods Herberger
Group, which has focused mostly on raising political money for the Bush
family. Herberger has also served as a consultant for the RNC, RGA, NRSC
and NRCC.

Jon Downs: Head of media and advertising. He’s Diaz's business partner and
worked on George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign, helped run several other state
races and worked as a congressional liaison in the Bush Justice Department.

Megan Sowards: General counsel. She held a similar post with the NRSC and
was deputy general counsel for Romney's 2012 campaign.

Brenda Gianiny and David Hill: Head of research and polling teams. She
served as pollster for George W. Bush’s White House and on his 2004
reelection campaign. He has worked for several top GOP candidates and on
behalf of more than 100 state ballot measures, including work that led to
six amendments to Florida’s constitution.

Alex Lundry: He’ll be in charge of data analytics. He’s a corporate and
political consultant who worked on Romney’s 2012 campaign.

Karen Unger: Head of voter engagement. A seasoned Florida political hand,
she served as one of Bush’s deputy chiefs of staff and director of external
affairs and appointments. She also ran his 2002 reelection campaign and has
managed other Florida political campaigns. Among Unger's early tasks is
keeping in touch with Bush’s 650-member alumni network of former staffers.

Annie Kelly: Iowa state director. She's most recently a former FP1
employee. During the 2014 cycle, she was a regional political director for
NRCC, helping the GOP win five of the seven most competitive House races.
In 2012, she managed the super competitive reelection of campaign of
now-former Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa) in the Des Moines area.

Rich Killion: New Hampshire state director. He's a longtime Granite State
political operative who's managed two statewide campaigns in the state and
helped all incumbent GOP state senators win reelection last year.

Brett Doster and Jim Dyke: They're running Bush's operations. Doster is a
Tallahassee-based consultant who has known and worked with Bush since his
failed 1994 gubernatorial campaign. Dyke has longer ties to George W. Bush
-- he was RNC communications director during the former president's 2004
reelection and a press secretary to former commerce secretary Donald Evans,
one of the former president's closest friends.

Scott Schied and Ryan Erwin: Bush's Nevada state director and a senior
adviser for Nevada. Schied most recently helped Rep. Crescent Hardy
(R-Nev.) score a surprise win last year. Erwin worked for Romney's 2008 and
2012 campaigns, once led the Nevada GOP and had stints with Republican
Party operations in California and Ohio.

Tim Miller: Campaign communications director. He most recently served as
co-founder and executive director of America Rising, a super PAC that has
spent millions of dollars digging into the histories of Democrats,
especially Hillary Rodham Clinton. As if an encyclopedic knowledge of
Clinton wasn't enough, Miller also worked last year on Wisconsin Republican
Gov. Scott Walker's reelection campaign, giving him a unique understanding
of one of Bush's biggest GOP rivals. He previously worked for McCain's 2008
campaign and Jon Huntsman's 2012 GOP presidential campaign.

Kristy Campbell: National press secretary. One of Bush's longest-serving
aides and most frequent traveling companions, she served in his
gubernatorial press office and later for his nonprofit education
foundation. She was also a member of Romney's 2012 communications team.
When reporters have questions about Bush's personal or professional past,
Campbell usually gets the first call.

Michael Steel: Adviser for policy and communications. Most recently served
as a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and previously as
on-the-plane press secretary for Paul Ryan's 2012 vice presidential
campaign. A North Carolina native, he worked for the state GOP during Thom
Tillis's successful Senate against Democrat Kay Hagan last year.

Emily Benavides: Hispanic communications director – a unique role among
top-tier GOP presidential campaigns. It’s her job to keep in touch with
reporters for Spanish-language newspapers and television reporters working
for Univision, Telemundo and their affiliates. She previously worked for
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder.

Allie Brandenburger: A deputy press secretary, who previously worked for
Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), Romney's 2012 campaign and the RNC.

Matt Gorman: Head of rapid response. He was deputy rapid response director
for Romney's 2012 campaign.

Jose Mallea: Head of Latino engagement. A notable hire for Bush, because
Mallea was manager of Sen. Marco Rubio's 2010 campaign. But he first made a
name as an aide in George W. Bush's administration, holding several jobs,
including special assistant to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

Jordan Sekulow: Liaison to the evangelical community. An evangelical
Christian attorney, he was executive director of American Center for Law &
Justice, a conservative organization founded by televangelist Pat
Robertson. Bush is Roman Catholic and eager to build support among
conservative Christian Republicans, especially in Iowa and South Carolina.

James A. Baker III, George P. Shultz, Paul D. Wolfowitz, Michael Hayden,
Stephen J. Hadley et al: They're part of a 21-member foreign policy
advisory team Bush dramatically unveiled in February. The team includes a
mix of moderates and neoconservatives who served during the presidencies of
George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. The group mostly consults Jeb Bush
from afar.

Josh Venable: A policy aide, he’s been part of Bush’s traveling team,
briefing him on the road and keeping tabs on what needs to be followed up
on after events. Previously, he's the RNC's former deputy finance director
and worked for Bush’s nonprofit education foundation.

See that guy standing to the left of Jeb Bush in a red tie? That's Raul
Henriquez, one of his body guys. They're photographped here on June 2 at
Florida Gov. Rick Scott's

Coleman LaPointe: Bush’s first “body guy,” or traveling aide who’s
responsible for holding his coat, his phone, snapping “selfies” with
supporters, etc. He came with a gold-plated recommendation, having worked
as a summer aide to the Bush family at their compound in Kennebunkport,
Maine.

Raul Henriquez: Hired recently as another Bush “body guy,” he’ll alternate
with LaPointe on the road. He’s a Miami native and former aide to House
Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

TOP OFFICIALS AT BUSH-ALIGNED SUPER PAC “RIGHT TO RISE USA:”

Mike Murphy: Head of the PAC. A top adviser to Bush's 1998 and 2002
gubernatorial campaigns, he most famously worked on McCain’s 2000
presidential campaign. Murphy also was an adviser to the gubernatorial
campaigns of California's Arnold Schwarzenegger and many others. He lives
in Los Angeles, is a partner of the media firm Revolution Agency and has
been an adviser to corporate and political clients.

Liesl Hickey: Senior adviser. She's the former executive director of the
NRCC, who once served as chief of staff too Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and
held a fundraising job with the NRSC.

Paul Lindsay: Lead spokesman. He recently worked for Crossroads GPS, a
Republican super PAC founded by Karl Rove. Previously was the NRCC's lead
spokesman.

Charlie Spies: Counsel. He's a well-known GOP lawyer who co-founded Restore
Our Future, which brought in more than $150 million in the 2012 cycle.
Spies previously served as chief financial officer and counsel for Romney's
2008 presidential campaign and has provided counsel to the RNC and RGA.

Neil Newhouse and Jan van Lohuizen: Pollsters. Newhouse has a long
association with Bush, serving as his pollster during his Florida
gubernatorial campaigns. A partner and co-founder of Public Opinion
Strategies, he was the lead pollster for Romney's 2012 presidential
campaign and was involved in six winning Senate races in 2014. He'll be
joined by Nicole McCleskey and Robert Blizzard, who work for Public Opinion
Strategies. Van Lohuizen is chairman and a founding member of Voter
Consumer Research and has polled on behalf of hundreds of political
campaigns, as well as corporate clients and think tanks.

Larry McCarthy: Ad maker. He's been a leading Republican media strategist
for decades and has considerable experience navigating the super PAC world.
In 2012, he made ads for Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney super PAC, as
well as American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity. Last year, he
made ads for McConnell's successful reelection campaign.

Matt Leonardo: A partner with Murphy's Revolution Media, he'll also work on
ads for the super PAC. He's advised the RNC, RGA, NRSC and NRCC, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and several super PACs and political groups, including
the Republican State Leadership Committee, American Action Network, and the
Center for Individual Freedom.

TOP DONORS:

Howard Leach: former ambassador to France during George W. Bush's first
term.

Mel Sembler: A Missouri-based developer who was ambassador to Australia
during George H.W. Bush's administration and Italy during George W. Bush's
administration.

Mike Fernandez: A billionaire health-care industry executive from Coral
Gables.

Woody Johnson: The owner of the New York Jets, his financial support
signaled early "establishment" support for Bush and was a big blow to New
Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's ambitions.

Henry Kravis: The co-founder of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., a private
equity firm in New York.

Richard Breeden: He served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission during George H.W. Bush's presidency. In the years since, he's
been a hedge fund manager and corporate executive.

*Stressing his experience as governor of Fla., Jeb Bush enters 2016 race
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jeb-bush-launches-presidential-campaign/2015/06/15/7cf70128-137c-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html>
// WaPo // Ed O’Keefe & Philip Rucker – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush, son and brother of former presidents, formally launched his
campaign for the White House on Monday with a sweeping call to reform
Washington and expand economic opportunity.

Against a diverse tableau at a boisterous rally here in the state he
governed for eight years, Bush offered himself as a compassionate and
tested chief executive who would fix a broken federal government and
disrupt the country’s political brinksmanship.

“We will take Washington — the static capital of this dynamic country — out
of the business of causing problems,” he said. “We will get back on the
side of free enterprise and free people. I know we can fix this. Because
I’ve done it.”

With his mother, former first lady Barbara Bush, sitting in the front row,
Jeb Bush directly confronted the family history that is both an asset and a
liability. His father and brother, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush,
were not present, but he invoked them by saying that he met his first
president the day he was born and his second when he was taken home from
the hospital.

Still, he said that he did not believe his lineage should grant him the
Republican nomination.

“Not a one of us deserves the job by right of résumé, party, seniority,
family or family narrative,” he said. “It’s nobody’s turn. It’s everybody’s
test, and it’s wide open — exactly as a contest for president should be.”

Addressing hundreds of supporters inside a Miami college gynasium, Bush
spoke in aspirational terms about what he called a “nation filled with
charitable hearts.” He seemed determined to present a new, welcoming face
for the Republican Party, looking as much to the general election as to the
primaries.

He did not mention any GOP opponent by name, but he directly attacked
Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying that the Democratic presidential
front-runner sits atop “a no-suspense primary, for a no-change election” to
succeed President Obama and would “slog on with the same agenda under
another name.”

“The presidency should not be passed on from one liberal to the next,” he
said.

Bush focused heavily on his record as Florida’s governor, the office he
held between 1999 and 2007. Under his leadership, he said, the state led
the nation in job creation, income growth, balanced budgets and tax cuts.

“We don’t need another president who merely holds the top spot among the
pampered elites of Washington,” he said. Later, he said, “I was a reforming
governor, not just another member of the club.”

As president, he said, he would “think big” about overhauling the tax code,
undo Obama-era federal regulations and “get serious about limited
government.”

Bush laid out an ambitious goal of 4 percent economic growth, which he said
would bring 19 million new jobs. “It’s possible,” he said. “It can be done.”

But he had nothing in his prepared remarks about immigration reform, an
issue he has championed for years but that is particularly divisive for
die-hard Republican base voters. Only when two dozen protesters stood in
the rafters to interrupt him — they stripped off a layer of clothing to
reveal neon T-shirts spelling out “Legal status is not enough” — did Bush
weigh in on the subject.

“The next president of the United States will pass meaningful immigration
reform,” he said, departing from the text in his teleprompters.

Monday’s event was strikingly different from most Republican campaign
rallies this year, which have drawn overwhelmingly white crowds. Bush spoke
at a campus of Miami Dade College, a system that boasts the largest
Hispanic student body in the nation, and packed the gymnasium with cheering
Asian, black and Latino supporters, young and old, who held up campaign
signs in Spanish and English.

Before Bush took the stage, a family of Cuban singers performed regional
classics. A black Baptist minister called Bush “a man of deep conviction.”
The Colombian mother of a disabled daughter defended his record, in
Spanish. Bush’s former lieutenant governor looked across the big crowd and
said: “It looks like family. The Bush family — the big Bush family.”

Florida State Sen. Don Gaetz told the crowd that Bush is “the new Florida.
He is the new America. He is the new Republican Party.”

The message Bush hoped to convey was clear: In a crowded field of
candidates, he is the seasoned Republican who can broaden the GOP’s appeal
among minority voters who long have voted for Democrats.

Bush, who returned over the weekend from a five-day visit to Europe, earned
some of his loudest applause by assailing the Obama administration’s
foreign policy record.

“With their phone-it-in foreign policy, the Obama-Clinton-Kerry team is
leaving a legacy of crises uncontained, violence unopposed, enemies
unnamed, friends undefended and alliances unraveling,” he said.

The announcement capped six months of aggressive travel and fundraising for
Bush, 62, a regimen that suggested a presidential bid was never in doubt.
Testing the boundaries of modern campaign finance law and tapping a donor
network first cultivated by his extended family more than 30 years ago,
Bush has stockpiled tens of millions of dollars for an allied super PAC
that will operate independently of his campaign operation and attack his
opponents as he seeks to build support in early primary states.

Bush enters a fluid race for the Republican nomination, where an array of
younger rivals, including his one-time protege, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.),
are posing strong challenges. Bush signaled that he would use his executive
experience to draw a contrast between him and Rubio and other first-term
senators.

“There’s no passing off responsibility when you’re a governor, no blending
into the legislative crowd or filing an amendment and calling that
success,” Bush said. “As our whole nation has learned since 2008, executive
experience is another term for preparation, and there is no substitute for
that.”

Gaetz used sharper language in introducing Bush. “The presidency of the
United States does not come with training wheels,” he said, adding: “Jeb
Bush is the Florida Republican who can win.”

From Miami, Bush planned to fly Monday night to launch a whirlwind four-day
tour in New Hampshire, a state that will be critical to his early chances.
On Wednesday, he is scheduled to visit Iowa, where conservatives remain
deeply skeptical of his bid. In South Carolina on Thursday, he is expected
to detail more of his military and foreign policy agenda. He plans to be in
Washington on Friday for his first official campaign fundraiser, then
return to Florida to headline a GOP fundraiser in Tampa.

Monday’s Miami rally took on the feel of a Bush family reunion. In addition
to his mother, John Ellis Bush — nicknamed “Jeb” by his mother, for his
initials — was joined by his wife, Columba, their three children and their
own young families, plus his younger siblings, Neil Bush and Doro Bush
Koch. The candidate’s extended political family was also present: Nearly
400 former staffers and supporters from campaigns past cheered in the arena.

“I’ve been waiting 30 years for Monday,” said Jorge Arrizurieta, a Miami
businessman and longtime friend who has known Bush since the 1980s.

Since leaving office in 2007, Bush has launched a lucrative business
career, including work with his youngest son, Jeb Jr., on investment and
real estate ventures. Until last year, he also served as a special adviser
to the British bank Barclays.

Politically, Bush remained an active proponent of an immigration overhaul
and education standards commonly known as Common Core. His support for both
issues is considered a disqualifying factor by conservatives opposed to
easing of immigration laws or possible federal intervention in local
education policy.

But on Monday, Bush’s intended audience was far broader than the
conservative base. He pledged to take his campaign “everywhere, speaking to
everyone.”

Near the end of his remarks he broke into fluent Spanish and directly
appealed for the support of Latino voters. In English, he explained, “In
any language, my message will be an optimistic one.”

“I will take nothing and no one for granted,” he said. “I will run with
heart. I will run to win.”

*Jeb Bush’s K Street connections
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/15/jeb-bushs-k-street-connections/>
// WaPo // Catherine Ho – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush on Monday officially kicked off his presidential campaign in
Miami, taking aim at Washington while promising to get “the static capital
of this dynamic country – out of the business of causing problems.”

To do so, however, he will partly rely on the help of lobbyists who engage
in the type of Washington work that Bush criticized as he launched his bid
for the White House.

“Leaders have to think big, and we’ve got a tax code filled with small-time
thinking and self-interested politics,” Bush said in his Miami speech
touting the need for tax reform. “What swarms of lobbyists have done, we
can undo with a vastly simpler system – clearing out special favors for the
few reducing rates for all.”

Several of Bush’s financial backers and supporters are Washington veterans
and his deep ties to K Street will likely boost the former Florida
governor’s ability to raise big money and allow him to tap into a well of
veteran policy advisers for his campaign.

Read more PowerPost, the Washington Post’s new destination for
decision-makers

His list of allies in the influence world include the heads of big lobby
shops, Republican lawmakers-turned-lobbyists and longtime advisers to the
Bush family.

Here’s a sampling, but not a complete list, of Bush’s K Street backers:

Kimberley Fritts, chief executive of lobby shop Podesta Group, worked for
Jeb Bush during his first gubernatorial campaign in 1994, and is continuing
her support this time around through fundraising and recruiting members of
Congress to support the former Florida governor’s efforts in their states.

“Last week we rolled out a number of endorsements with the Florida
delegation,” she said. “We think it’s been going well.” Fritts flew to
Miami this morning to meet with members of Bush’s team, and will head back
to D.C. later today.

Tom Loeffler, the retired Texas congressman who now works at lobby giant
Akin Gump, has been fundraising for Bush’s super PAC, Right to Rise, for
several months. Loeffler goes way back with the Bush family: he was the
Texas political co-chairman for George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign and a
national adviser for the 1992 campaign. He later served as George W. Bush’s
Texas finance co-chairman for his 1994 gubernatorial campaign, Texas
regional finance chairman for his 1998 campaign, national finance
co-chairman for his 2000 presidential campaign and South Texas co-chairman
for his 2004 campaign.

Bill Paxon, the retired New York congressman who now works at Akin Gump, is
also fundraising on Bush’s behalf.

Vin Weber, the retired Minnesota congressman who now works at lobby and
public affairs shop Mercury, exchanged emails with Bush at least six months
ago to express his commitment to the candidate. Weber said he is primarily
interested in advising on policy — he spoke last month at an event for
Bush’s super PAC about economic mobility, one of the core parts of Bush’s
domestic agenda.

“I want to be helpful on the policy side of the campaign,” Weber said. “I’m
willing to raise money and give money but that’s not what I’m best at. I
want to coordinate policy to the extent that I can.”

Denny Rehberg, the retired Montana congressman who now works at Mercury, is
gathering support for Bush in Montana and Washington. He said he
anticipates Bush will be drawing significant financial support from K
Street. “When I think of K Street, I think of business, not necessarily
lobbyists or government relations, but business,” he said. “I think that he
has a strong background of support for and from business.”

Rob Collins, the former executive director of the National Republican
Senatorial Committee who now works at GOP lobby shop S-3 Group, is working
to recruit members of Congress to endorse Bush, and facilitating the
exchange of ideas and information between the campaign and think tanks and
other policy experts.

Lanny Griffth, chief executive of lobby shop BGR Group, has raised money
for the candidate. Griffith served several roles in the George H.W. Bush
administration, and was later a “Ranger” — the designation for those who
raised at least $200,000 — for George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign.

*Jeb Bush Says He Will Run as a Political Outsider
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/jeb-bush-formally-announces-hell-seek-gop-presidential-nomination-1434388382>
// WSJ // Beth Reinhard – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush, heir to one of American’s most successful political dynasties,
sought to jump-start his presidential campaign Monday as a scrappy
political outsider after failing in recent months to emerge as the
undisputed front-runner for the 2016 Republican nomination.

“Not a one of us deserves the job by right of resume, party, seniority,
family or family narrative,” said Mr. Bush, kin to two American presidents
and a former two-term Florida governor. “It’s nobody’s turn. It’s
everybody’s test, and it’s wide open.”

In the six months he has been building his campaign, Mr. Bush has dropped
in the national polls and finds himself unable so far to break from a
crowded pack of GOP candidates, even though he is expected to raise the
most money and has nabbed name-brand political talent.

Mr. Bush is reviving the logo he used for three gubernatorial
campaigns—Jeb!—to emphasize that he is running not as a political scion but
as his own man. Casting himself as a can-do chief executive, Mr. Bush drew
his strongest contrasts to date with GOP rivals serving on Capitol Hill,
including his former protégé, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

“Executive experience is another term for preparation, and there is no
substitute for that,” Mr. Bush, who appeared without jacket or tie, told a
cheering crowd his staff estimated at 3,000 people. “We are not going to
clean up the mess in Washington by electing the people who either helped
create it or have proven incapable of fixing it.”

Mr. Bush also tried to repudiate the argument made by some of his rivals
that as a member of the Bush family he would be less capable of prosecuting
the case against Democratic front-runner and former first lady Hillary
Clinton, who he said represented a “no-suspense primary” and “no-change
election.”

But presenting himself as the enemy of the “pampered elites” and the “rule
makers” is a challenging argument for Mr. Bush, whose last name was on the
national ticket in six of the last nine presidential elections.

Without providing specifics, Mr. Bush repeated his call for 4% annual
economic growth and added that would translate into 19 million new jobs.
The last time yearly inflation-adjusted growth in the nation’s gross
domestic product topped that percentage was in 2000, the year before his
brother, President George W. Bush took office.

Mr. Bush said his two terms as governor showed he could boost growth, add
jobs and cut taxes. In response, Florida’s Democratic Party called Mr.
Bush’s tenure a “disaster’’ and said it would remind voters of what it
called a racially motivated purge of voter files in the state and of Mr.
Bush’s effort to prolong the life of Terry Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman
whose husband wanted to remove life support despite her parents’ objections.

“His record as governor certainly showed his preference for giving tax
breaks to his wealthy friends and deep-pocketed donors over the middle
class,’’ said a statement from the Democratic National Committee.

Mr. Bush’s father, former President George H.W. Bush, and brother didn’t
join the rally, but his mother, Barbara Bush, attended.

The group that vouched for Mr. Bush on stage defied the image of a party
that fared poorly among minorities and women voters in the last two
elections: an African-American pastor; the Hispanic mother of a disabled
child; and the female lieutenant governor during Mr. Bush’s second
gubernatorial term.

Mr. Bush, who is fluent in Spanish, has vowed to campaign outside of GOP
comfort zones: in black churches, Hispanic neighborhoods and college
campuses. He is expected to begin campaigning in earnest in states hosting
the earliest nominating contests.

Jeb Bush is not that far off politically from brother George W., but the two
have very different personalities and backgrounds. Photo: AP

After spending the last six months seeking donations of unlimited size for
a super PAC, he must now follow federal rules requiring him to campaign
independently of the PAC and raise money for his campaign in increments
capped at $2,700.

The pursuit of donors began six hours before the rally, with dozens
attending a “national call day” at a nearby hotel. Among those in
attendance was New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, who joined Mr. Bush on a
trip last week to three European countries.

One fundraiser and lobbyist, Slater Bayliss, shrugged off some of the
pre-campaign hiccups. “It’s like when Michael Jordan came out of
retirement. Sure, there’s a little bit of rust…that’s part of getting back
into it,” Mr. Bayliss.

*Jeb Bush’s Chance for Takeoff
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/jeb-bushs-chance-for-takeoff-1434379575> //
WSJ // Gerald Seib – June 15, 2015 *

Many are the presidential candidates who hit their high water mark on the
carefree day they announce their candidacy, then begin a slide downward as
reality sets in.

Jeb Bush may be the other kind of candidate.

It’s just possible that Mr. Bush, who formally announces his candidacy on
Monday, has endured the toughest stretch of his campaign in the seemingly
interminable stretch between the day in December when he launched a
committee to collect money for a presidential run and the birth of his
actual campaign.

In that six-month stretch, Mr. Bush has borne the brunt of his two biggest
problems—the fact that his famous name has become as much burden as asset,
and the antipathy of many conservatives toward his immigration and
education positions—without the ability to fully counter them. Convincing
voters he isn’t just another guy named Bush requires offering the kind of
fully formed rationale for a candidacy that only a real campaign can
provide; easing conservative concerns requires the kind of extended
conversation in the party’s trenches that a primary debate requires.

It’s also possible, of course, that Mr. Bush simply can’t overcome those
two obstacles—that the time isn’t right, or has passed him by. Yet it seems
likely that he is a better marathon runner than a sprinter, somebody who
benefits from more exposure rather than less, and who has the money to
endure a race that figures to be stretched out simply because of the time
needed to winnow an extraordinarily large field.

“Jeb’s announcement is a new beginning,” says Scott Reed, a longtime
Republican activist who ran Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign. “He has
developed a strong platform on issues, will be well funded and has the
ability to go the distance, for this nomination fight may go to June and
California to put someone over the top and secure a majority of the
delegates.”

In any case, the Bush candidacy is tough to analyze, if only because its
birth has been so unusual. In some ways it’s the campaign being run in
reverse order:

Usually a candidate announces, then tries to take advantage of the surge of
interest to raise money. The Bush forces, taking advantage of new
fund-raising rules, decided to raise the money first, then formally
announce.

Usually high name identification is a significant plus because it means the
candidate has no need to spend millions of dollars to introduce himself or
herself to voters. In this case, the big name appears to be a net
disadvantage because of his brother’s complicated legacy and unease over
political dynasties, and it will take millions of dollars to get beyond it.

Usually, the “campaign in disarray” stories come months into the effort. In
this case, they came last week, before the formal campaign had even begun,
when Mr. Bush made a surprise choice in picking a campaign manager.

So, given that unusual start, what is the path to the nomination for Mr.
Bush?

In a campaign in which there may be 16 Republican candidates, the three who
seem to have the most plausible chance to win the nomination appear to be
Mr. Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

In the early going, Iowa appears to be strong ground for Mr. Walker, whose
Midwestern roots are an advantage there. That makes New Hampshire’s primary
especially important—Mr. Reed calls it “the money state”—for many of the
others, including Mr. Bush.

For him, though, the key may be surviving the early states in February and
getting on to the rush of bigger primary states that come in March. They
will bring into play a more diverse universe of Republican primary voters,
and allow Mr. Bush to take advantage of his money and what remains of a
Bush family national political network.

In the middle of March comes what may be the most important event of all
for Mr. Bush, which is the primary in his home state of Florida. He will
collide head-on there with Mr. Rubio, his fellow Floridian and onetime
protégé, and odds are that only one will survive that kind of home-field
test.

Along the way, his advantage over Mr. Walker should be his ability to
handle the national-security conversation that now figures to be a dominant
element of the campaign as the security situation worsens in the Middle
East and Ukraine. His advantage over Mr. Rubio should be a greater sense of
stature and experience.

On immigration, he needs to reach that majority of Republican voters who,
polls suggest, actually agree with his formula granting a path to legal
status for undocumented aliens. On Common Core educational standards, he
needs to convince skeptics that, yes, he’s for standards, but ones set by
states rather than the feds.

Overhanging all, though, is the task of getting past today’s jaundiced
views of the political establishment with which, for better or worse, he is
well identified.

*Jeb Bush vows to stay true to beliefs in opening '16 race that will test
his conservatism
<http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/06/15/after-6-months-of-consideration-jeb-bush-ready-for-16-race>
// AP // Steve Peoples & Brendan Farrington – June 15, 2015 *

Vowing to win the Republican presidential nomination on his own merits, Jeb
Bush launched a White House bid months in the making Monday with a promise
to stay true to his beliefs — easier said than done in a bristling primary
contest where his conservative credentials will be sharply challenged.

"Not a one of us deserves the job by right of resume, party, seniority,
family, or family narrative. It's nobody's turn," Bush said, confronting
critics who suggest he simply seeks to inherit the office already held by
his father and brother. "It's everybody's test, and it's wide open —
exactly as a contest for president should be."

Bush sought to turn the prime argument against his candidacy on its head,
casting himself as the true Washington outsider while lashing out at
competitors in both parties as being part of the problem. He opened his
campaign at a rally near his south Florida home at Miami Dade College, an
institution with a large and diverse student body that symbolizes the
nation he seeks to lead.

"The presidency should not be passed on from one liberal to the next," he
declared in a jab at Democratic favorite Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And he said: "We are not going to clean up the mess in Washington by
electing the people who either helped create it or have proven incapable of
fixing it."

That was an indirect but unmistakable swipe at Republican presidential
rivals in the Senate. Among them is his political protege, Florida Sen.
Marco Rubio, who welcomed Bush into the 2016 contest earlier in the day.

Bush enters a 2016 Republican contest that will test both his vision of
conservatism and his ability to distance himself from family.

Neither his father, former President George H.W. Bush, nor his brother,
former President George W. Bush, attended Monday's announcement. The family
was represented instead by Jeb Bush's mother and former first lady, Barbara
Bush, who once said that the country didn't need yet another Bush as
president, and by his son George P. Bush, recently elected Texas land
commissioner.

Before the event, the Bush campaign came out with a logo — Jeb! — that
conspicuously leaves out the Bush surname.

Bush, whose wife is Mexican-born, addressed the packed college arena in
English and Spanish, an unusual twist for a political speech aimed at a
national audience.

"In any language, my message will be an optimistic one because I am certain
that we can make the decades just ahead the greatest time ever to be alive
in this world," he said. "I will campaign as I would serve, going
everywhere, speaking to everyone, keeping my word, facing the issues
without flinching,"

In the past six months, Bush has made clear he will remain committed to his
core beliefs in the campaign to come — even if his positions on immigration
and education standards are deeply unpopular among the conservative base of
the party that plays an outsized role in the GOP primaries.

Tea party leader Mark Meckler on Monday said Bush's positions on education
and immigration are "a nonstarter with many conservatives."

"There are two political dynasties eyeing 2016," said Meckler, a co-founder
of the Tea Party Patriots, one of the movement's largest organizations, and
now leader of Citizens for Self-Governance. "And before conservatives try
to beat Hillary, they first need to beat Bush."

Yet a defiant Bush has showed little willingness to placate his party's
right wing.

Instead, he aimed his message on Monday at the broader swath of the
electorate that will ultimately decide the November 2016 general election.
Minority voters, in particular, have fueled Democratic victories in the
last two presidential elections.

Of the five people on the speaking program before Bush, just one was a
white male.

*Jeb Bush makes it official: 'I will run to win'
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/jeb-bush-2016-presidential-race-announcing-119018.html#ixzz3dBWddZqV>
// Politico // Eli Stokols – June 15, 2015 *

Declaring that it’s nobody’s turn and everybody’s test, Jeb Bush joined the
Republican race for president on Monday, as he sought to move beyond his
family’s history even as he seeks to become the third Bush in the White
House.

“Not a one of us [candidates] deserves the job by right of resume, party,
seniority, family, or family narrative,” Bush declared. “It’s nobody’s
turn. It’s everybody’s test, and it’s wide open — exactly as a contest for
president should be.”

In his adopted hometown before a multicultural crowd of long-time friends,
Bush sought to re-introduce himself to the country as a relentless reformer
who has gotten results, who eschews the politics of grievance and offers a
more hopeful and compassionate brand of conservatism.

Berthy De La Rosa-Aponte, a Florida advocate for individuals and children
with disabilities and one of several friends who vouched for Bush’s
character and compassion before he took the podium, told the crowd the
former governor “understands our lives, our needs, our struggles and our
fears.”

His empathy — and cool under pressure — was tested toward the end of his
speech when shouts echoed from the rafters inside the gymnasium at Miami
Dade College as a group of DREAMers removed their jackets to reveal neon
yellow t-shirts that spelled out “LEGAL STATUS IS NOT ENOUGH,” challenging
Bush’s position on immigration reform.

“I agree,” Bush said. As the group was escorted out amidst rising cheers of
“Jeb!”, Bush promised that “the next president of the United States will
pass meaningful immigration reform.”

The momentary disruption highlighted one of Bush’s biggest challenges:
reconciling his own support for immigration reform and a path to legal
status, which doesn’t go far enough for the protesters, with a Republican
base that wants a more strident stance against illegal immigration.

In officially announcing on Monday, Bush, 62, is ending a six-month
exploration phase that allowed him to raise unlimited sums of money for the
super PAC that will undergird his campaign but left little doubt along the
way that this day was coming.

As he became the eleventh declared candidate in the crowded Republican
field, Bush vowed to run hard in every state, and to maintain the same
message throughout the long nomination process, rather than tacking to the
right just to win the primary and then reversing course come the general
election.

“I will campaign as I would serve, going everywhere, speaking to everyone,
keeping my word, facing the issues without flinching, and staying true to
what I believe,” Bush said. “I will take nothing and no one for granted. I
will run with heart. I will run to win.”

He also set some bold goals — 4 percent annual economic growth under a Jeb
Bush presidency (which he said would create 19 million jobs), and energy
security for the United States within five years.

And he wasn’t shy about taking on his Democratic and Republican rivals,
some by name. He dinged Hillary Clinton for speaking about conflicts, at
times, between the progressive agenda and religious charities. And he took
on both former Secretary of State Clinton and Obama for a “phone-it-in
foreign policy.”

Sen. Marco Rubio was also not spared, with Florida State Sen. Don Gaetz, an
introduction speaker, calling Bush “the Florida Republican who can win.”

In his own remarks, Bush avoided mentioning any of his Republican rivals by
name, stating only that his experience as a governor is superior to those
of senators who can shrug off responsibility and blend into a crowd.

“As our whole nation has learned since 2008, executive experience is
another term for preparation, and there is no substitute for that,” Bush
said.

Speaking at the largest and most diverse college in the country, Bush
highlighted his strong connections to the Latino community. He reminded the
audience of the sweeping conservative reforms he enacted as Florida
governor and his commitment to governing based on free-market principles
that will create economic and educational opportunities for people to “rise
up.”

“We will take command of our future once again in this country,” Bush said.
“We will lift our sights again, make opportunity common again, get events
in the world moving our way again.”

He also took a hawkish foreign policy stance, blasting the Obama
administration for leaving behind “a legacy of crises uncontained, violence
unopposed, enemies unnamed, friends undefended, and alliances unraveling.”
Despite the imperative of not reminding the country of his bellicose
brother’s presidency, Bush promised to restore Pentagon budget cuts and
ensure that America is more engaged in the world.

Unlike some politicians known for more electrifying, soaring rhetoric, Bush
argued that he’s a proven leader who’s shown an ability to put ideas and
tough talk into practice, pointing to Florida’s economic growth during his
two terms, the education reforms he enacted and his penchant for vetoing
spending bills.

“We will take Washington – the static capital of this dynamic country – out
of the business of causing problems. We will get back on the side of free
enterprise and free people. I know we can fix this. Because I’ve done it.”

Despite his presidential pedigree, Bush signaled that he will run a
reform-minded campaign against Washington and its power class.

“We don’t need another president who merely holds the top spot among the
pampered elites of Washington,” Bush said. “We need a president willing to
challenge and disrupt the whole culture in our nation’s capital.”

Bush’s mother Barbara Bush attended the announcement, but his brother and
father were not scheduled to be there — a decision that underscores Bush’s
desire to present himself as his own man and candidate. The Jeb! logo that
Bush revived over the weekend from his past campaigns also makes the point.

In his remarks, Bush only passingly referred to his parents; and even his
words of gratitude for his wife, Columba, who usually serves as the
overture to his stump speech, were condensed.

The announcement came as Bush tries to regain momentum. Despite raising an
anticipated $100 million for his super PAC, Bush’s “shock and awe” strategy
has failed to play out the way he told donors it would. His team now
foresees a long, hard fight for the nomination that will require the former
Florida governor, eight years removed from holding elected office, to win
the hearts and minds of a primary electorate that seems more enthralled
with younger, more fiery candidates.

“My message will be an optimistic one because I am certain that we can make
the decades just ahead in America the greatest time ever to be alive in
this world.”

From here, Bush heads off on an announcement tour that will take him
through the first three states on the 2016 calendar. He’ll hold events
Tuesday in Derry, New Hampshire, Wednesday in Pella, Iowa, and Thursday in
Charleston, South Carolina.

*Jeb Bush says he doesn’t need dynasty to win
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/jeb-bush-says-he-doesnt-need-dynasty-to-win-119028.html#ixzz3dBZifedQ>
// Politico // Roger Simon – June 15, 2015 *

What Jeb Bush’s presidential announcement speech lacked in grandeur Monday,
it made up for in down home simplicity.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who made her (second) announcement speech Saturday
amid the grassy splendor of Roosevelt Island in New York, Bush went to a
college gym in Miami.

Jeb did not need to “re-introduce” himself to America as Hillary did. While
most people recognize his name, few have any idea of what he is about.

He has not helped that very much over the past few months. He has been
raising large amounts of money, instead.

He has also made a few videos that range from the simplistic to the
embarrassing.

“America’s best days are in front of us,” he said, concluding one video.
“And we are going to lead the world.”

Wow.

But on Monday, Jeb Bush had found a new voice.

“It’s nobody’s turn,” he said, disarming his critics who say he is running
on his family’s name. “It’s wide open — exactly as a contest for president
should be.”

He spoke mostly in English, but also in Spanish. The student body at Miami
Dade College (Kendall Campus), where Jeb spoke, is 66 percent Hispanic. And
the Republican Party needs no reminding how much it needs Hispanic votes to
win in 2016.

“I will campaign as I will serve” Bush said, “by going everywhere.

“I will take nothing and no one for granted. I will run with heart and I
will run to win.”

Bush knew how high the stakes were for this speech. The past few weeks have
been a series of bobbles for him, including four different answers about
the war in Iraq in four days.

But he was extremely relaxed throughout his speech, resting his folded
hands on the lectern, and peering out from his rimless glasses. He wore no
jacket, just a button-down blue shirt and gray dress slacks.

His mother, wife, children, grandchildren and sister Doro were there, but
George H.W. and George W. Bush stayed away, not wishing to overshadow Jeb.

They needn’t have worried. The most popular Bush owned the crowd without
speaking.

The crowd erupted in numerous ovations, but none so loud as when Jeb’s
mother, Barbara, was introduced and she spread her arms out to embrace the
audience.

They did not seem like a dynasty. They seemed like a family.

And that is the image his campaign has been working hard on.

Unlike Hillary’s (re)announcement in which she ticked off an entire,
multi-item agenda, Bush stuck to generalities, but they were sometimes
partisan and some stung.

“The presidency should not be passed down from one liberal to the next,”
Bush said in what turned out to be a huge applause line. “We need a
president who will challenge and disrupt the whole culture in our nation’s
capital. And I will be that president.”

Disrupt is a word the Bush campaign likes. They use it in the modern sense:
overwhelming progress, like Amazon disrupting the book business and Uber
disrupting the taxi business.

Bush lightly touched on foreign affairs, vowing support for the “brave,
democratic state of Israel,” but especially emphasized Cuba and whacked
President Barack Obama for any plans to visit there.

“We don’t need a glorified tourist to go to Havana in support of a failed
Cuba,” Bush said. “We need an American president to go to Havana in
solidarity with a brave Cuban people and I am ready to be that president.”

If he used the word “president” a lot, it’s because he grew up around an
unusual number of them.

“I met a president on the day I was born, and a second when I was brought
home from the hospital,” he said to the crowd’s laughter.

It was an easygoing, almost lighthearted day.

Jeb may have what the Hillary campaign fears most about him: the ability to
reach out and bond with an audience.

Hillary’s husband had it, she doesn’t yet, and if she faces Jeb in a
general election, she is going to need it very badly.

*Jeb Bush’s Campaign Launch to be Featured on Snapchat
<http://time.com/3921116/jeb-bush-2016-presidential-race-snapchat/> // TIME
// Sam Frizell – June 15, 2015 *

Soon after Jeb Bush makes his long-awaited announcement on Monday that he
is running for president, he’ll be on Snapchat.

Representatives from the popular photo messaging app will be on the scene
at Miami Dade College, taking photos and video of the stage preparation for
the the launch, Yahoo reports. The material from Jeb’s announcement will be
sent to a live feed on the app and broadcast to Snapchat’s 100 million
daily active users.

Bush’s move onto Snapchat’s live story feed will target a key constituency
of young voters aged 18 to 34, who make up a majority of Snapchat users.

This is not the first time a presidential candidate has dipped his toes
into the cutting-edge social media world. Rand Paul participated in the
first-ever Snapchat senatorial interview in January, and Marco Rubio has a
Pinterest page.

On the Democratic side, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley has a
Snapchat, and Hillary Clinton made the playlist from her campaign launch
available on Spotify.

*Jeb Bush Starts 2016 Campaign Trying to Calm Skittish Conservatives
<http://time.com/3921439/jeb-bush-2016-campaign-launch/> // TIME // Philip
Elliott – June 15, 2015*

The swipe is an acknowledgement that Bush faces challenges from Sens. Rand
Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida. Sen.
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is trailing his Senate colleagues in
fundraising and polling but he has been making solid appearances before
activists—and cable news—that could leave him in a solid understudy
position should one of the marquee names stumble.

In national polling, Bush remains in the tight cluster of contenders atop
opinion surveys but he faces serious challengers nipping at his heels,
including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.
In fundraising, he remains a formidable candidate although his advisers
have signaled that he is expected to fall short of the $100 million goal
some in his circle thought was possible to collect before officially
launching his campaign. Bush put together a raft of highly regarded
consultants and operatives, yet last week he shuffled his team and brought
aboard a sharp-elbowed operative to take over as campaign manager.

The campaign launched at a community college that Bush’s critics were quick
to point out that he, as Governor, signed a budget that cut funding from
the school and resulted in fewer students finding desks. On the stage that
Bush was set to begin a presidential bid that has been obvious for the last
six months, a banner was ready announced him simply as “Jeb!” in bright red
letters. Nowhere was his famous last name visible.

There was, however, no forgetting his family. Former first lady Barbara
Bush was traveling from Maine to Florida for the launch. The family’s
patriarch, George H.W. Bush, was not, but he remains a revered figure among
establishment-minded Republicans with an unrivaled resume in U.S. politics:
former President, Vice President, CIA Director, Ambassador and Republican
National Committee Chairman. Jeb Bush’s brother, George W. Bush, has a
trickier relationship with the party. He ended won the Presidency promising
to govern as a “compassionate conservative” yet ended his two terms deeply
unpopular as the public soured on the war in Iraq that he launched and
frustrated about the 2008 economic crisis that consumed his final months in
office. A Wall Street bailout may have averted a global financial meltdown
but the use of taxpayer dollars prompted conservative outrage and planted
the seeds of the anti-establishment tea party movement that now threatens
Jeb Bush’s candidacy.

For others inside the party, Jeb Bush’s policy positions on education and
immigration fall squarely outside GOP orthodoxy. Ahead of his announcement,
conservative activist Brent Bozell told his 7 million online supporters
that Bush “is unelectable” and would sacrifice conservatives’ values.
“Nominating him will be an exercise in futility—just as it was with Mitt
Romney, John McCain and Bob Dole. All three were moderates who wound up
losers, and Jeb Bush will be a loser, too, if he’s nominated.”

To them, Bush planned to signal he would not compromise on his support for
higher education standards and an overhaul of the nation’s immigration
system: “I will campaign as I would serve, going everywhere, speaking to
everyone, keeping my word, facing the issues without flinching, and staying
true to what I believe.“

*Jeb Bush Seeks a Bigger Tent at Campaign Launch
<http://time.com/3922142/jeb-bush-2016-diversity/> // TIME // Philip
Elliott – June 15, 2015 *

Guests arrived at the community college to a soundtrack that included
rapper Pitbull. The pre-game show included the national anthem sung by
salsa legend Willy Chirino and, before that, songs in Spanish from his
daughters. Those who spoke ahead of the candidate lauded his work to combat
domestic violence and to help those who rely on social safety programs. The
greying former Governor slipped passages of perfect Spanish into his speech
and promised a comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s broken immigration
system. His Mexican-born wife watched him with a cautious smile.

Welcome to Jeb Bush’s version of the Grand Old Party, one that he hopes can
woo female and minority voters away from their historic home in the
Democratic fold—all while defending domestic programs. As the 62-year-old
Bush launched his White House campaign on Monday near Miami, it was clear
his campaign was taking seriously its goal of expanding the appeal of a
party that has shifted further and further rightward.

“I will campaign as I would serve, going everywhere, speaking to everyone,
keeping my word, facing the issues without flinching and staying true to
what I believe,” Bush said at a kickoff event that was stage-managed with a
finesse typically reserved for incumbent Presidents. It perhaps came
naturally to a candidate who is the son of one President and brother to
another.

“I will take nothing and no one for granted,” Bush continued, anticipating
questions over whether the country needs a third Bush as President. “I will
run with heart. I will run to win.”

Left largely unsaid: the last Republican to win the White House was his
brother, George W. Bush. The year was 2004.

Since then, the party has seen itself overlooked by groups that are gaining
their political clout as the nation’s demographics shift. Things were so
dire after Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012 that the Republican National
Committee—a body chaired four decades ago by another member of the Bush
clan, George H.W. Bush—commissioned a report casually referred to as “the
autopsy.” Five leading operatives dug into political trends and, among
other recommendations, prescribed aggressive outreach to minority and
female voters, as well as softened rhetoric on immigration.

One of that landmark report’s five authors was Sally Bradshaw, a longtime
Jeb Bush counselor who assembled his presidential-campaign-in-waiting.
Watching Bush’s rollout, it was as though he was building it from
Bradshaw’s blueprint. And, if Bush secures the GOP nomination, these early
efforts at outreach could help him run against Democratic frontrunner
Hillary Clinton.

MORE Full Text of Former Gov. Jeb Bush’s Campaign Launch

Of course, candidates matter. And while Bush comes from prime presidential
pedigree, nothing is pre-ordained and there are still seven long and
competitive months before Iowa holds its leadoff Caucuses. Circling Bush is
a stable for candidates looking to argue to very vocal conservative
activists that Bush’s support for immigration reform is unacceptable and
his backing of higher education standards is disqualifying. “There are two
political dynasties eyeing 2016, and before conservatives try to beat
Hillary, they first need to beat Bush,” said Mark Meckler, a co-founder of
Tea Party Patriots.

The dynastic nature of the race is a challenge that Bush has struggled to
address. During an early foreign policy speech, he flatly declared that he
was his own man, not a clone of former President George W. Bush. His
brother left the White House after two terms with high disapproval ratings
in opinion surveys and many conservatives’ scorn. The increasingly
unpopular war in Iraq cratered his poll numbers while the economic crisis
that crippled the economy in 2008 sent him home to Texas with few
defenders. A Wall Street bailout may have averted a global financial
meltdown but the use of taxpayer dollars prompted conservative outrage and
planted the seeds of the anti-establishment tea party movement that now
threatens Jeb Bush’s candidacy.

Their father, former President George H.W. Bush, is another story in the
GOP. He remains a revered figure among establishment-minded Republicans
with an unrivaled resume in U.S. politics: former President, Vice
President, CIA Director, Ambassador and RNC Chairman.

Neither former President was in the crowd. Former First Lady Barbara Bush
sat in the front row, however, and drew wild applause from the crowd when
her son introduced her.

“In this country of ours, the most improbable things can happen. Take that
from a guy who met his first president on the day he was born, and his
second on the day he was brought home from the hospital,” Bush said of his
father and brother.

In his bid to join upper reaches of the family business, Jeb Bush first
faces a raft of serious rivals from Washington-based challengers Sens. Rand
Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida. (Sen.
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is trailing his Senate colleagues in
fundraising and polling but he has been making solid appearances before
activists—and cable news—that could leave him in a solid understudy
position should one of the marquee names stumble.)

In national polling, Bush remains in the tight cluster of contenders atop
opinion surveys but he faces serious challengers nipping at his heels,
including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.
In fundraising, he remains a formidable candidate although his advisers
have signaled that he is expected to fall short of the $100 million goal
some in his circle thought was possible to collect before officially
launching his campaign. Bush put together a raft of highly regarded
consultants and operatives, yet last week he shuffled his team and brought
aboard a sharp-elbowed operative to take over as campaign manager.

Bush is running hard to steady his internal operations and to win over
conservatives who still view him skeptically. “Not a one of us deserves the
job by right of resume, party, seniority, family or family narrative,” Bush
said in a clear jab at his rivals. “It’s nobody’s turn. … It is entirely up
to me to earn the nomination of my party and then to take our case all
across this great and diverse nation.”

In that diversity, Bush hopes his outreach gives him an advantage. After
all, he already has the soundtrack for the inauguration ready.

*Jeb Bush Invokes Baltimore Protests In Presidential Campaign Kickoff
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/15/jeb-bush-baltimore_n_7588974.html>
// HuffPo // Amanda Terkel – June 15, 2015 *

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) brought up the recent protests in
Baltimore during his presidential campaign kickoff speech Monday, using
them as a call for education reform around the country.

“In government, if we get a few big things right, we can make life better
for millions of people, especially for kids in public schools," said Bush
during his rally at Miami-Dade College. "Think of what we all watched not
long ago in Baltimore, where so many young adults are walking around with
no vision of a life beyond the life they know. It’s a tragedy played out
over and over and over again."

Bush then touted his own record in Florida, saying "low-income student
achievement improved here more than any other state" after his reforms.

“We stopped processing kids along as if we didn’t care -- because we do
care, and you don’t show that by counting out anyone’s child. You give them
all a chance," he added.

Baltimore was shaken by riots and protests after the death of Freddie Gray,
a 25-year-old African-American man who died after sustaining injuries in
police custody in April.

"Here's what I believe," Bush said Monday. "When a school is just another
dead end, every parent should have the right to send their child to a
better school -- public, private or charter. Every school should have high
standards, and the federal government should have nothing to do with
setting them. Nationwide, if I'm president, we will take the power of
choice away from the unions and bureaucrats and give it back to parents."

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton did not mention Baltimore
in her kickoff rally on Saturday in New York City, although she has done so
in the past in the context of criminal justice reform -- a topic that
didn't come up in Bush's speech.

"From Ferguson, to Staten Island, to Baltimore, the patterns have become
unmistakable and undeniable," Clinton said in April, referring to incidents
where African-American men -- and a child -- have died at the hands of
police. "Walter Scott shot in the back in Charleston, South Carolina --
unarmed, in debt, terrified of spending more time in jail for child support
payments he couldn't afford. Tamir Rice shot in a park in Cleveland, Ohio,
unarmed and just 12 years old. Eric Garner, choked to death after being
stopped for selling cigarettes on the streets of our city. And now Freddie
Gray, his spine nearly severed while in police custody."

Bush has been less vocal on the issue of criminal justice reform than many
other presidential candidates, although he has signed on to a conservative
group's campaign for cost-effective alternatives to prisons.

*Jeb Bush Once Cut Funding to His Campaign Launch Site
<http://time.com/3921206/jeb-bush-miami-dade-college/> // TIME // Zeke
Miller – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush is expected to trumpet his conservative credentials as the former
governor of Florida Monday when he announces his presidential bid. But one
casualty of his cost-conscious ways was the very school he selected to use
as his announcement site.

A 2002 state constitutional amendment to limit class sizes in K-12
education, which Bush opposed, created a budget shortfall. The governor,
who opposed new tax hikes, begrudgingly turned to colleges to fill the gap.
Bush proposed cutting $111 million from the budgets of universities and
community colleges, of which $10.3 million would have affected Miami Dade
College, where Bush will launch his presidential bid.

College President Eduardo Padron emailed Bush when his budget was proposed,
saying he was “disturbed and disappointed” by the proposed cuts. “We all
understand the need for reductions in times of fiscal crisis; what’s beyond
logical comprehension, however, are the huge inequities that are inherent
in this budget proposal,” he wrote, arguing the college was bearing a
disproportionate burden of cuts. “Our students are among the most needy in
the state and cannot continue to bear the burden of the costs of education.”

Bush replied that he was working on a solution. “I know you are upset,” he
said by email. “We are doing our best under difficult circumstances and
will work with the legislature to identify ways that we can improve the
situation.”

Bush ultimately signed a budget that cut $11 million from community
colleges’ budgets, forcing them to turn away about 35,000 students looking
to enroll, including 9,500 would-be Miami Dade College students.

By 2004, Bush was able to fully fund community colleges, earning plaudits
from state educators.

*Bush takes on immigration -- but at hecklers' request
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/jeb-bush-immigration-protestors-miami/>
// CNN // Thedore Schleifer – June 15, 2015*

Jeb Bush didn't plan to talk about immigration at all when announcing his
presidential run -- until protestors made him.

Bush took his only departure from his prepared remarks Monday to respond to
a group of people heckling him on immigration reform. As Bush introduced
his mother to the Miami crowd, Bush shot back.

"The next president will pass meaningful immigration reform so that will be
resolved -- not by executive order," the former Florida governor said.

Bush, like most of the Republican field, has criticized President Barack
Obama's reliance on executive orders to shield some undocumented immigrants
from deportation. Bush himself has been one of the few GOP hopefuls to
embrace a pathway to legal status for those immigrants, though his
Republican rivals will almost certainly look to tarnish him with supporting
what they deem "amnesty."

The now-official presidential candidate is asked routinely on the stump
about his immigration position, which is expected to be a serious liability
among the Republican base. But it wasn't a topic he approached Monday in
his remarks.

As he frequently does do, Bush detailed the story of how he met his Latina
wife, Columba, while studying abroad in Mexico, and spoke for about 20
seconds in Spanish.

"As a candidate, I intend to let everyone hear my message, including the
many who can express their love of country in a different language," Bush
said.

*Jeb Bush strikes softer tone at start of White House run
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/15/us-usa-election-bush-idUSKBN0OV0CW20150615>
// Reuters // Steve Holland – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush cast himself as a more moderate type of Republican while still
holding on to his conservative principles as he began his U.S. presidential
bid with an eye on the Hispanic vote which has eluded the party for years.

The former Florida governor announced his campaign for the Republican
nomination to run in the November 2016 election at a multicultural college
in Miami where he promised to pass meaningful immigration reform, spoke
fluent Spanish and reminded voters he married a Mexican.

It was part of an effort by Bush, 62, to strike a different tone in a
crowded field of 10 other Republicans and at the same time also showing he
was keen to move out of the shadow of his father and brother and their
White House legacies.

Even though the Bush family has a long history at the pinnacle of
Washington government and politics, Bush portrayed himself as an outsider.
He vowed to reform Washington, but Bush is only the latest candidate in the
field to do so.

“We don’t need another president who merely holds the top spot among the
pampered elites of Washington. We need a president willing to challenge and
disrupt the whole culture in our nation’s capital," Bush, who was governor
of Florida from 1999 to 2007, told supporters at Miami Dade College.

His speech was mostly the standard Republican fare of attacks on big
government, and promises to protect free enterprise and strengthen
America's role in the world.

But the tone of the campaign launch showed he seeks to use his links to
Latino culture to give himself a lift over his Republican rivals, even if
two of them - senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz - have stronger Hispanic
credentials than Bush does.

Bush was preceded on stage by the Chirino Sisters, a Miami singing trio who
sang a classic Cuban song, and an African-American preacher.

"As a candidate, I intend to let everyone hear my message, including the
many who can express their love of country in a different language," Bush
said, before switching to Spanish and calling on Latinos to "help us have a
campaign that welcomes you."

Latinos will make up more than 10 percent of the electorate in 2016 and are
important in swing states such as Nevada, Florida and Colorado.

Senator John McCain of Arizona won 31 percent among Hispanics in 2008, down
from a stronger performance by Bush's brother President George W. Bush who
was backed by 44 percent of Latino voters in 2004.

LATINO VOTERS

"I think Republicans have got to try something. It’s pretty hard for them
to win the White House if current Hispanic voting trends continue. (Bush)
has some unique abilities to appeal to those voters and he’s going to
maximize them,” said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy
Institute at Southern Illinois University.

Bush's speech on Monday was briefly interrupted by pro-immigration reform
protesters.

He quickly responded: "By the way. Just so that our friends know. The next
president will pass meaningful immigration reform so that that will be
solved not by executive order," Bush said, in reference to President Barack
Obama's use of presidential powers to ease immigration restrictions.

Bush held an early lead in opinion polls of Republican voters when he first
began talking about a White House run six months ago, but that has now
dissipated. He is essentially tied for the lead with a host of challengers.

He was joined on Monday by his mother Barbara Bush, 90, at the event.
Former presidents George H.W. Bush, his father, and George W. Bush, his
brother, did not attend.

Bush reminded voters that his wife Columba was a Mexican he met on a visit
south of the Rio Grande more than 40 years ago.

"In 1971, 8 years before then-candidate Ronald Reagan said that we should
stop thinking of our neighbors as foreigners, I was ahead of my time in
cross-border outreach," Bush said.

Both previous Bush presidents left office with low approval ratings. The
legacy of Jeb's brother is particularly difficult because he ordered the
2003 invasion of Iraq and the financial crisis that erupted toward the end
of his time in office.

Distancing himself from the pair, without being disloyal to his family,
will be tricky for the younger Bush. His campaign logo "Jeb!" avoids using
the family surname.

“I think the biggest hurdle is he is going to have to sell himself as his
own person, not his brother and not his father,”

said Fran Hancock, 64, a supporter who was at Monday's event.

Bush criticized former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the front-runner
for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

“With their phone-it-in foreign policy, the Obama-Clinton-Kerry team is
leaving a legacy of crises uncontained, violence unopposed, enemies
unnamed, friends undefended, and alliances unraveling," he said.

Democrats made sure to remind voters of the George W. Bush's record.

"We already know what to expect from a Bush presidency, because we’ve seen
it before. Jeb Bush supported his brother’s disastrous economic and foreign
policies that made us weaker at home and abroad," said Rep. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, head of the Democratic National Committee.

*Jeb Bush’s announcement speech made me bullish on Marco Rubio
<http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8786245/jeb-bush-marco-rubio> // VOX // Ezra
Klein – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush's campaign announcement speech was pretty good, I thought. The
biggest problem was that it was delivered by a candidate named Bush.

The core of Bush's message was simple: Democrats haven't delivered. "They
have offered a progressive agenda that includes everything but progress,"
Bush raged. "They are responsible for the slowest economic recovery ever,
the biggest debt increases ever, a massive tax increase on the middle
class, the relentless buildup of the regulatory state, and the swift,
mindless drawdown of a military that was generations in the making."

The problem? Bushes haven't delivered either. That slow economic recovery
Bush mentions was the product of one of the deepest economic crashes in
American history — a crash presided over by Jeb's brother, George W. Bush.
That runup in debt? It also began under his brother. The red tape Bush
loathes? According to OMB Watch, the Bush administration published new
regulations at about the same clip as the Obama administration:

Bush's kicker is meant to be brutal. "I, for one, am not eager to see what
another four years would look like under that kind of leadership," he says.
But it is trivially easy to reverse the line. Is the country really so
eager to see another four years under the kind of leadership that preceded
the Obama administration?

Of course, Bush would say, correctly, that he isn't his brother. He isn't
responsible for his brother's administration. He's his own man. And in this
speech, Bush tried to subtly distance himself from his brother's record,
lamenting "all the families who haven't gotten a raise in 15 years." But as
Ramesh Ponnuru writes, that begs a follow-up question: why didn't people
get raises during the last Republican administration?

So far, Bush hasn't delivered much of an answer for that one. He's gently
criticized government spending under his brother's administration — "I
think he let the Republican Congress get a little out of control in terms
of the spending," he said on CBS — but that's not even a remotely plausible
explanation for the economic failures of the Bush years. And more
tellingly, many of Jeb Bush's economic advisers were also key voices in his
brother's administration.

An easy way for Bush to distance himself from his brother would be to
propose a sharply different policy agenda. But there was no sign of it in
his speech. Bush's platform, like his brother's, will focus heavily on
budget-busting tax cuts and promises of deregulation and deficit reduction.
It is easy to imagine the ads splicing the two Bush campaigns together, and
reminding Americans they have heard these promises before.

The prospect has Republicans worried, too. In Slate, conservative columnist
Reihan Salam greeted Bush's announcement with a column begging him to drop
out of the race.

Bush can't attack the past without attacking himself...but Marco Rubio can

Bush's line of attack on Clinton is natural: he wants to connect her to the
failures of the previous administration. But it's a line of attack that
damns Bush as surely as it damns Clinton.

Indeed, it might damn Bush more surely than it damns Clinton. The 4 percent
economic growth Bush promised can't be found during Obama's presidency, but
it also can't be found under either of the presidencies run by a man named
Bush. Instead, the last time America saw 4 percent growth was under Bill
Clinton — and as my colleague Matt Yglesias writes, "his services as an
adviser are already spoken for."

Perhaps Bush could try to argue that the Clinton boom was partially the
result of President George H. W. Bush's deficit reduction. There's a good
case to be made that that's true — but H. W. Bush was only able to reduce
the deficit so sharply by raising taxes, and there's little chance Jeb Bush
will endorse that stratagem.

Bush wants to force Hillary Clinton to defend Barack Obama's record, but
she has the advantage — particularly on domestic policy — of being more
closely connected to Bill Clinton's. Meanwhile, Bush's demands that Clinton
answer for past presidencies will ensure that he is held to the same
standard — and at the moment, he doesn't have good answers.

I don't mean to be too hard on Bush. His speech was well-written and
well-delivered. It was particularly affecting when, toward the end, Bush
said, "I intend to let everyone hear my message, including the many who can
express their love of country in a different language," and then
transitioned into fluent Spanish. And when Bush was interrupted by an
immigration protestor, he said what the Republican Party needs Hispanic
voters to believe: that he would pass immigration reform.

But for that reason, Bush's speech had the unintended effect of making me
more bullish on Marco Rubio, who brings many of Bush's political strengths
but is free of his most serious weakness.

*Jeb Bush’s path more like dad than brother
<http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/elections-2016/jeb-bush/article24515335.html#storylink=cpy>
// The Miami Herald – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush’s biggest challenge may be setting himself apart from his brother.
Yet Bush has managed to do that in one way he didn’t want: the path to the
Republican presidential nomination.

Unlike his brother’s aggressive launch for the presidency in 2000, when
George W. Bush bulldozed most GOP competitors out of the field, Jeb Bush is
looking at more than a dozen challengers, some with significant resources
and staying power.

Indeed, the route may bear more resemblance to his father’s 1988 grueling
chase to the nomination. Despite being vice president, George H.W. Bush
faced considerable competition from Sen. Bob Dole and evangelical leader
Pat Robertson before winning the nomination and then the White House.

Jeb Bush has raised gobs of money. That – and backing from much of the
Republican establishment – helped keep 2012 Republican presidential nominee
Mitt Romney from jumping in again.

But since then, Bush’s muddled efforts at distinguishing himself and
sustained antipathy from conservatives who oppose his positions on
immigration and education have done little to convince anyone else to stay
out – a factor aided by the rise of political action committees and
deep-pocket donors that make it easier for more candidates to stay in the
running.

“He really finds himself smack dab in the middle of the pack in a huge
field of Republican candidates,” said Iowa Republican analyst Craig
Robinson. “They thought it was going to be Romney 2012, where it’s the
front-runner and then everybody else. But he is part of the everybody else.”

Bush has said he didn’t expect a coronation, but Robinson says the slow
walk out created a stall. Bush trails in Iowa, the state that kicks off the
nominating season next winter, in a pack well behind Gov. Scott Walker of
Wisconsin.

“I think they overestimated Jeb Bush,” Robinson said. “Yes, his last name
is Bush and yes he’s going to raise all kinds of money, but people don’t
know him.”

That lack of certitude could aid Bush in independent-minded New Hampshire,
where voters pride themselves in taking their own measure of the
candidates. Bush has a very narrow edge over Walker there.

“He’s not a front-runner in the normal sense and I don’t think anyone wants
a front-runner,” said Tom Rath, a veteran New Hampshire Republican activist
and former state attorney general who is not affiliated with any of the
campaigns. “Voters in New Hampshire enjoy the opportunity to choose without
anyone telling them what they’re going to do.”

The contrast with his brother – who came into New Hampshire as the
undisputed front-runner only to lose to John McCain – also could help the
former Florida governor stake his own claim running from inside the pack
rather than from on high.His father in 1988 had lost Iowa, then fought back
to win New Hampshire, prompting a bitter Dole to complain that Bush should
“stop lying about my record.”

“He’s going to have to fight,” Rath said of the current race. “I think Jeb
Bush understands that, and I think he probably welcomes the opportunity to
fight because it’s an opportunity to prove who he is.”

Bush’s slow walk to official candidacy produced a rocky start: Even some of
his supporters were aghast when it took him a week to articulate an answer
to a question about the Iraq war his brother initiated. He’s sputtered in
polls and his fledgling campaign became headline news for a staffing
shakeup.

But it also may have allowed Bush, who hadn’t been on a campaign trail
since 2002, to get in some practice in the punishing pace of campaigning in
the era of Twitter and Periscope. He’s grown more comfortable delivering a
stump speech, though he still fares better in one-on-one exchanges. He
wrapped up a trip to Germany, Poland and Estonia with solid reviews – and
avoided the gaffes that have overshadowed trips by other candidates.

“I never got the impression that anyone in that campaign thought the waters
were going to part for Jeb Bush,” said Chip Felkel, an unaffiliated
Republican strategist in South Carolina who worked for George W. Bush and
George H.W. Bush. “It’s a different ballgame, a different year. The party
has become a lot more fractious and they know that.”

Bush and Walker are neck and neck in South Carolina. That may mirror
increased pragmatism after South Carolina Republicans in 2012 boosted
former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the primary, only to see him lose the
nomination.

“Republicans want to win this election and I think people are going to
gravitate to the most conservative who in turn can win a general election,”
Felkel said.

Bush’s first challenge will be emerging from the family shadow with an
identity of his own. Rivals such as Walker and Bush’s one-time Florida
ally, Sen. Marco Rubio, are fresher faces. Rubio, especially, has sought to
create a sharper generational contrast with Democrat Hillary Clinton.

“There’s only one candidate that had a backpack with weight to overcome,
the Bush identity both helps and hurts,” said Al Cardenas, a longtime Bush
adviser and former chairman of the Florida Republican Party. “His greatest
access to improvement is leaving the Bush identity and gaining the Jeb ID
with as many as voters as possible.”

*Jeb Bush Borrows Hillary Clinton Strategy, Uses Snapchat to Launch
Presidential Campaign
<http://www.thewrap.com/jeb-bush-borrows-hillary-clinton-strategy-uses-snapchat-to-launch-presidential-campaign/>
// The Wrap // Kathy Zerbib – June 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush is following Hillary Clinton’s lead and taking his presidential
campaign to Snapchat. The former Florida governor will declare his
intentions for the Republican presidential nomination at Miami Dade College
on Monday afternoon, streaming the appearance live on the app.

Before the much-anticipated announcement, Snapchat will post
behind-the-scenes photos and videos as the college prepares for Bush’s
arrival. These exclusive sneak peeks will be featured on the app’s Our
Story feed for all users to see.

According Bush’s communications director, Tim Miller, this is an
opportunity to reach a “broad, younger audience.” By incorporating Snapchat
into his presidential campaign, he hopes to give users a “more authentic
view” of what happens at an announcement.

Each of the 2016 presidential candidates can be found on a number of social
networking sites and apps, such as Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, LinkedIn,
Periscope and Snapchat. Bush, however, is the first to partner directly
with Snapchat to launch a presidential campaign.

Snapchat is a Los Angeles-based company with 100 million daily active
users, the majority of whom are 18-34 years old.

*Jeb Bush Goes Off Script To Promise Immigration Reform
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/15/jeb-bush-immigration_n_7589310.html>
// HuffPo // Elise Foley – June 15, 2015 *

Newly announced GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush went off script on
Monday to pledge to pass immigration reform, in one of the most surprising
moments of his announcement speech.

He wasn't initially planning to mention immigration, which underscores how
difficult an issue it is for him in the primary, as he tries to avoid
charges of supporting "amnesty" without backing away from his record and
being seen as a flip-flopper. The 2,000-word prepared remarks don't include
"immigration" at all.

A group of immigration advocates attended the speech in Miami wearing
yellow shirts that spelled out "legal status is not enough."

As Bush was talking about his family, he broke away from his prepared
speech to address them.

"By the way, just so that our friends know, the next president of the
United States will pass meaningful immigration reform so that that will be
solved -- not by executive order," Bush said, to applause.

Bush's statement was a reference to President Barack Obama's deportation
relief policies that came in lieu of action from Congress. The president's
first deportation relief program, the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals program, or DACA, was announced exactly three years ago. The
program has allowed more than 660,000 undocumented young people who came to
the U.S. as children to stay and work legally on a temporary basis.

Obama announced plans last November to expand DACA to some older
undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, and to create a
new program to grant similar benefits to parents of U.S. citizens and legal
permanent residents. Both the expanded DACA and the new deferred action
program have been temporarily blocked in the courts.

Bush has said he opposes Obama's actions, but said he wanted to replace
them with immigration reform legislation. He has also backed away somewhat
from his past support for a path to citizenship for undocumented
immigrants, instead saying he supports "a path to legalized status," which
could allow them to eventually obtain citizenship.

According to a statement, the immigration advocates who interrupted Bush's
speech were from the groups Homestead ERA, United We Dream, GetEQUAL
Florida, Dreamers Mom’s, Alliance for Citizenship, United Families,
Farm-Workers Association, the American Friends Service Committee and
WeCount.

Mariana Martinez, a member of the group Homestead ERA, said they protested
because Bush "has been all over the map on immigration."

“He’s also stated his support of reform with legalization for the
undocumented community, but of any immigration reform we demand full and
equal citizenship that doesn’t leave millions of our loved ones in a
permanent second class status," she said.

Other GOP presidential candidates have not devoted much time to immigration
in their early speeches. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who helped draft a
comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate in 2013,
didn't discuss it. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) gave it only a cursory mention.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asked his supporters to "imagine a president that
finally, finally, finally secures the borders," criticizing Obama's
"lawlessness and the president’s unconstitutional executive amnesty."

*Laura Ingraham: 'Welcome to the race, Jeb --- now drop out'
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/laura-ingraham-welcome-to-the-race-jeb-now-drop-out/article/2566271#.VX8DyqaqZws.twitter>
// The Washington Examiner // Paul Bedard – June 15, 2015 *

Conservatives are not waiting to hear Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's presidential
announcement speech to slam him as unelectable.

"Welcome to the race, Jeb — now drop out," tweeted conservative radio
talker Laura Ingraham.

"Jeb Bush will be a loser," added Brent Bozell, who runs both the Media
Research Center and the conservative group ForAmerica. The group has been
opposing Bush and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton on their website.

Ingraham is one of talk radio's loudest voices against Bush, and she is
joined by others, notably Mark Levin. Levin on Monday wrote a simple
reaction to Bush on his Facebook page: "No to Jeb."

Critics do not believe that Bush is conservative enough and they charge
that he has moved to the left on immigration and education, charges Bush
rejects.

Bozell issued a long statement sizing up the Right's complaints. "We've
said it before and we say it again: Jeb Bush is unelectable," said Bozell.
"Nominating him will be an exercise in futility — just as it was with Mitt
Romney, John McCain and Bob Dole. All three were moderates who wound up
losers, and Jeb Bush will be a loser, too — if he's nominated."

*If Jeb wants 4 percent growth, he'll have to ask Bill Clinton how to do it
<http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8785915/jeb-bush-4-percent> // VOX // Matthew
Iglesias – June 15, 2015 *

"So many challenges could be overcome if we just get this economy growing
at full strength," Jeb Bush observed in his presidential campaign kickoff
speech, "there is not a reason in the world why we cannot grow at a rate of
four percent a year."

Most economists would say that there are actually some fairly profound
reasons why achieving such a rapid growth rate on a sustained basis is
difficult. But if Jeb's not interested in dreary academic controversies, he
might want to ask his brother George about this. The economy, you see, grew
slower than 4 percent in 2001. It also did so in 2002. And in 2003. And in
2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.

He also might want to phone up his dad, who served four years in the White
House and never achieved 4 percent growth. You can also talk about this in
job-creation terms, where Jeb's dad is the second-worst president to take
office in the past fifty years, surpassed in unimpressiveness only by Jeb's
brother.

There is, of course, one living president who achieved 4 percent growth in
five out of his eight years in office — Bill Clinton. He'd probably be a
good guy to speak to if you're interested in some ideas about how to
achieve 4 percent growth. But I think his services as an advisor are
already spoken for.

*Snappy start: Jeb goes tech with launch
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/jeb-bush-snapchat-campaign-launch/>
// CNN // Ashley Codiani – June 15, 2015 *

In just a few hours, Jeb Bush will be among the many 2016 presidential
hopefuls experimenting with the disappearing messaging app, Snapchat.

Yahoo reports that representatives from the popular application will be on
the ground snapping photos and videos for curation on Snapchat's live story
feed, which can be viewed by as many as 100 million of Snapchat's daily
users.

To be clear, this is not Jeb Bush joining Snapchat, like his snapchatting
GOP opponents Sen. Rand Paul (SenatorRandPaul), Sen. Marco Rubio
(marcorubio2016) and Gov. Rick Perry (GovernorPerry). Rather, it's Snapchat
using Bush's campaign launch to showcase the app's storytelling abilities.

Perry, on the other hand, snapchatted this just prior to his announcement
and only got a reach equal to his followers.

On the Democratic side, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley
(governoromalley) used Snapchat to tease the location of his May 30th
presidential announcement, and later live -snapped his 2016 announcement
from the sidelines:

Hillary Clinton, like Jeb, is also not officially on Snapchat. But while
delivering her first major speech of her campaign on Saturday, she was
featured as part of Snapchat's "Our Story." Here, users at the event could
contribute their own Snaps to a curated story:

While they didn't snap, her campaign experimented in other ways with the
popular annotation site Genius (formerly 'Rap Genius) by annotating her
full speech:

They also live streamed the entire rally on Periscope just after launching
her campaign playlist on Spotify:

But what makes Bush's Snapchat experiment unique (other than the fact he's
not officially on the platform) is it's direct partnership with the social
media company. Monday's campaign event will mark the first time a candidate
has leveraged a relationship with Snapchat to gain full access to the
platforms active users -- namely, the coveted 18-34 demographic. So far,
others in the 2016 have been building their audience as an individual user
without the force of Snapchat's influence.

*5 Policy Issues that Show Why Jeb Bush Will Lose the Latino Vote
<http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/06/15/5-policy-issues-that-show-why-jeb-bush-will-lose-the-latino-vote/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>
// Latino Decisions // Matt Barreto & Gary Segura – June 15, 2015 *

After Mitt Romney’s disastrous performance with Latino voters in 2012, some
election observers have suggested Jeb Bush is the obvious candidate to help
Republicans win over Latino voters.

Bush’s supposed advantages are based on three specific observations—that
the Bush family has historically had a more positive relationship with this
community than other candidates in the GOP, that the Spanish-speaking Jeb
personally benefits from having a Mexican-born wife and Mexican-American
children, and that Bush has a history of more moderate positions on issues
of importance to the Latino community.

None of these is likely to withstand deeper examination.  The first two—the
broader family history and the personal characteristics of Bush’s immediate
family—are based on a form of identity politics that Latinos seldom if ever
practice.  Latino voters have proven more than willing to reject even
actual Latinos as candidates when their policy positions are in contrast to
the community preferences.  Bush’s marriage and linguistic skills, while
symbolically important, would founder if his issue positions are in
contrast to the average Latino voter.

So what about those issue positions?  Bush’s misplaced reputation for
moderation is belied by his actual policy record.  And few if any analysts
have stopped to consider how Bush’s specific policy issues line up with
Latino support for key policy issues.  If Bush is to ultimately be the
Republican nominee, Latino voters will no-doubt review and assess his
policy commitments.  In a review of recent statements by Jeb Bush, we find
five significant policy areas where Latino public opinion stands in direct
contrast to policy advocated by Jeb Bush.  Additionally, Jeb Bush is not
currently campaigning for the average Latino voter but, rather, is
campaigning for the average GOP primary voter, his path over the next
months is far more likely to push him further away from the average Latino
voter on a wide range of important policy issues.

Here are five policy areas where Jeb Bush is at odds with Latino voter
public opinion:

1. Obama’s Executive Orders on Immigration

Jeb Bush has said that he is against the Obama executive orders on
immigration reform which would protect from deportation young immigrants
who came to the country as children (DACA), and immigrants who are the
parents of U.S. citizens (DAPA). When asked if he would undo the most
recent Obama executive orders Bush told radio host Michael Medved, “The
DACA and the DAPA? Yes I would” and called the Obama immigration orders
“ill-advised.” When it comes to comprehensive immigration reform, Bush has
said “He would greatly strengthen border security, linking any legalized
status for illegal immigrants to tangible progress on objective border
security metrics.” And wrote in his 2013 book that “Permanent residency in
this context, however, should not lead to citizenship.”

In a November 2014 poll of Latino registered voters nationwide 89% said
they supported the Obama executive actions known as DACA and DAPA, and 80%
said they would oppose any efforts to block or repeal these executive
actions protecting immigrants. In another poll conducted in November of
2014, 67% of Latinos voters said immigration issues were either the most
important, or one of the most important issues in evaluating candidates and
their decision to vote.

Further, Latino voters strongly reject a “border security first” approach –
only 13% support Bush on that in a 2013 national survey, while 81% said
they want to see a focus on a path to citizenship implemented at the same
time any border security measures are implemented, not making a path to
citizenship contingent on border security litmus tests as Bush has proposed.

Finally, when asked in 2013 what they thought about giving immigrants legal
status, but not citizenship, 78% of Latino voters said they would oppose
such a plan. In every survey we have seen on this point, Latino voters
reject any notion of second-class status for immigrants.

2. Medicaid Expansion and Obamacare

Latinos continue to have the highest rates of being uninsured.  According
to one estimate, 200,000 Latinos in Jeb Bush’s home state of Florida alone
would gain health insurance through Medicaid expansion, which Florida has
blocked.  On the issue of Medicaid expansion Bush has said he does not
support expanding Medicaid under Obamacare because “expanding Medicaid
without reforming it is not going to solve our problems over the long run”
and called Obamacare a “monstrosity” and “flawed to its core”

In a Nov 2014 poll of Latino voters 77% nationwide and 74% of Latinos in
Florida said they thought states should take federal money to expand
Medicaid programs. When it comes to Obamacare, only 25% of Latino voters in
2012 said they wanted to see it repealed, while fully 66% said they think
the federal government should help ensure access to health insurance.  In a
national poll in 2013, fully 89% of Latinos said they wanted to learn more
about the benefits available under the Affordable Care Act and 75% said “in
the long run” the ACA will be good for Latinos in the U.S.

3. Raising the Minimum Wage

On minimum wage, Jeb Bush has said he is against raising the minimum wage
and wants to let the private sector decide what the minimum pay should be,
“We need to leave it to the private sector. I think state minimum wages are
fine. The federal government shouldn’t be doing this”

Latino workers are heavily represented in lower income categories and
disproportionately find themselves as minimum wage workers. In a Nov 2014
poll of Latino voters, 78% said they want to see the federal minimum wage
raised to $10.10 per hour, including 80% of Latino voters in Florida.
While Jeb Bush stated that “minimum wages are fine” a national poll in July
2014 found that 67% of Latino were somewhat or very concerned they were
currently not earning enough to pay their basic expenses.

4. The Importance of Addressing Climate Change

On environmental issues and climate change Jeb Bush has that it’s not clear
that climate change is a man-made phenomenon and that the EPA is doing too
much and that “We have to begin to rein in this top-down driven regulatory
system.” Bush says he wants the federal government to provide more
incentives for hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling.

In contrast to Jeb Bush, 82% of Latinos in a 2013 national poll said they
were somewhat or very concerned that human activity is causing the earth to
get warmer. In contrast to a weaker EPA, 77% of Latinos said they would
support the President taking executive action through the EPA to flight
climate change. On the issue of fracking, polling data from Colorado, a
state where hydraulic fracking for oil shale was being debated, found that
70% of Latinos opposed increased fracking and oil shale development.
Overall, 84% of Latino voters in 2014 said it was important for the federal
government to take measures to reduce carbon pollution.

5. Taxes on the Super Wealthy

When it comes to the federal budget deficit, Jeb Bush created a bit of a
stir three years ago when he said he was open to small revenue increases,
however a senior spokesperson, Kristy Campbell, made clear in 2014 that
Gov. Bush does not support any new tax increases. Rather, a headline in
Forbes Magazine outlining the Bush tax plan said “Jeb Bush Catered Tax Cuts
to the Wealthy” pointing out that he favored providing tax cuts for the
wealthy and “tax relief for rich investors.”  Coupled with tax cuts for the
wealthy, Bush has called for more spending cuts and touted his record as
Florida Governor in vetoing state budgets for schools, job training and
parks, regularly bragging about his extensive use of the line-item veto to
cut state spending.

Polling data from Latino Decisions has repeatedly found Latinos oppose
additional cuts to government services and instead support new tax
increases on the most wealthy as a way to generate more revenue to address
the deficit.  In a 2012 poll of Latino voters 87% wanted to see tax
increases on the super wealthy as part of the budget deficit solution,
including 82% of Latino voters in Florida. When given a direct choice
between lowering taxes or increasing government investment, only 25% of
Latinos thought lowering taxes was the best approach to help the economy
grow while 67% thought increased investment in new infrastructure projects
was more important.

*RUBIO*

*Marco Rubio sent praising note to Jeb Bush ahead of his announcement
<http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/06/15/marco-rubio-sends-praising-note-to-his-soon-to-be-rival-jeb-bush/>
// Fox News // Serafin Gomez – June 15, 2015 *

As former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush formally launches his White House bid
Monday in Miami, his one-time mentee, Marco Rubio, now a Republican primary
threat, issued a statement of good will on Bush's entry into the race—a
rarity in presidential campaign politics.

"In politics, people throw around the word 'friend' so much it often has
little real meaning. This is not one of those times. When I call Jeb Bush
my friend, I mean he is someone I like, care for and respect" Rubio said.

"He and I have worked closely together for many years, on issues big and
small. He is a passionate advocate for what he believes, and I welcome him
to the race, "Rubio added.

By Rubio's own admission, Bush was a significant influence on the U.S.
senator, ever since he first became a rising GOP star after being elevated
to speaker of the Florida House, and Bush was finishing his 2nd term as a
popular governor of the Sunshine state.

Bush even gave him a sabre as gift when he became speaker in 2005.

''I'm going to bestow to you the sword of a great conservative warrior,"
Bush told Rubio then, according to a local report. Rubio took the sword,
dubbed the "Sword of Chang" by Bush, and waved it like a torch.

In his 2012 book, “American Son,” Rubio described his admiration for Bush.

"I was most influenced by the creativity and daring of Governor Jeb Bush,"
Rubio wrote. "A one-man idea factory."

Rubio described him as "the man he admired most in Florida politics."

In April, Rubio launched his presidential campaign in The Magic City,
across a placid Biscayne Bay.

"Before us now is the opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the
amazing story of America. We can’t do that by going back to the leaders and
ideas of the past," Rubio said to the cheering crowd of thousands, many
Latino, at the iconic Freedom Tower in downtown Miami. His words, an
implied jab at not only the Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, also
seemed at directed at Bush.

Bush allies have indicated privately to Fox News that the Bush campaign
will have to go after Rubio, in an effort to deflate some of the growth
Rubio has gained in the last few weeks as the Cuban-American solidifies
himself with Bush, Walker and a couple of other rivals near the top of most
recent GOP polls.

And the competition for supporters and donors is on, especially in Florida,
where the March 15th primary will be a significant battle ground for each
campaign. The Bush campaign released a statement last week that they had
picked up three key supporters from Rubio's home turf.

Three Republican, Cuban-American  members of Congress in South Florida,
including U.S. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a close ally of Rubio
(Rubio had even interned for her at one point) – have all endorsed Bush.

But on Monday morning, after the Bush campaign released a well-produced
video with a theme of optimism and positivity, the good will was returned
on Twitter by Rubio's former mentor.

"Thanks Marco," Jeb Bush tweeted. "Glad I can do it in our hometown. See
you out there!”

*Sen. Marco Rubio: Under Obama the World Has Become a More Dangerous Place
<http://time.com/3921604/marco-rubio-foreign-policy/> // TIME // Marco
Rubio – June 15, 2015 *

A major challenge for the next president will be to fix our weakened
intelligence system

In February 2011, I stepped into my first classified briefing as a member
of the Senate’s intelligence committee. The focus that day was on the Arab
Spring that had begun to unfold in North Africa, and part of the Monday
morning quarterbacking that day was about what more our intelligence
community could have done—or what resources they needed—to better
anticipate such a consequential turn of events. Those would be the first of
hundreds of hours I would spend over the next four and a half years
overseeing our nation’s intelligence services and programs, and regularly
considering what more we can be doing to equip our intelligence services
with the tools they need to keep us safe.

During this period, I’ve seen the consequences that President Barack
Obama’s foreign policy has had on the world and our interests abroad. Under
his leadership, the world has become a more dangerous place, our allies
doubt whether America is still a nation of its word when it comes to our
security commitments, and we’ve embarked on a dangerous unilateral
disarmament of intelligence-gathering tools through policy reversals from
the White House and mindless budget cuts due to sequestration.

This month, the Obama administration will begin the process of dismantling
one such program that has helped to keep our people safe since the 9/11
terrorist attacks. This so-called “Section 215 metadata program” authorized
by the Patriot Act, which was closely overseen by Congress and the courts
for more than a decade, has allowed us to thwart terrorist plots.

Contrary to the popularly accepted lie that this program allowed the U.S.
government to spy on Americans and listen in on their phone calls, it
simply enabled business records to be collected by phone companies and
stored by the National Security Agency in a database that could be checked
only when there was a known or suspected terrorist nexus. This program
received rigorous oversight from Congress and the judiciary.

Unfortunately, misinformation, fear-mongering and the allure of campaign
fundraising all contributed to its expiration, its explicit prohibition in
the future, and its replacement with a weaker and untested system that
fails to require phone companies to maintain records that we may one day
need to track terrorists. Rather than use what power remains in his bully
pulpit, President Obama opted to be a bystander and let this program be
killed, even though he had previously championed it. Even worse, the White
House clearly sent the message to the heads of the intelligence agencies
that they needed to stand down from advocating for the program. As a
result, the American people are now less safe.

Treating terrorism like a purely law enforcement function and returning our
intelligence community to a pre-9/11 footing needlessly exposes the
American people to the dangers of a radically changed and more dangerous
world. A major challenge for the next president will be to fix the weakened
intelligence system that the current one is leaving behind.

This will entail re-equipping our intelligence community with the
authorities to quickly connect the dots between terrorist conspirators and
ensure the intelligence community has the ability and tools to efficiently
narrow the focus of an investigation to uncover plots and save valuable
time and resources in the course of terrorist investigations in which time
is absolutely of the essence.

With the right tools and a dedicated workforce, we can protect our people
and our homeland from another terrorist attack while remaining true to our
identity as the freest nation on earth. This belief is not based on a
theory, on a campaign briefing, or on something I read in a book or
newspaper. It’s based on four and a half years of seeing the results with
my own eyes.

We need clear leadership from the commander-in-chief to confront the myriad
of national security challenges facing the nation. It is increasingly clear
that the task of ensuring that those we entrust to protect us have every
tool they need for the job will fall to the next president. It is also
apparent that through their demagoguery on this issue, through their
support for abandoning these crucial programs or through their outright
silence that some who aspire to that office are not up to the challenge any
more than President Obama is. There is no duty more important than rising
to this challenge because Americans lives are on the line.

*PAUL*

*Rand Paul: Obamatrade Tax Hikes on Small Businesses Mean Republicans
Should Oppose Revival Efforts
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/exclusive-rand-paul-obamatrade-tax-hikes-on-small-businesses-mean-republicans-should-oppose-revival-efforts/>
// Breitbart // Matthew Boyle – June 15, 2015*

Paul said when asked to react to an article from Breitbart News from late
Sunday evening exposing the tax increase in the deal:

You know typically to pass these kinds of things, the establishment will
try to buy off Democrats by sprinkling money so they have some money in
there. To get the money, under our budget rules, we have to pay for it—so
they want to pay for it with a fine on small businesses. But I thought a
point that was made in the article which was pretty good is this is similar
to the fines they wanted to do in Obamacare with 1099s and there was such
an outcry it’s the only part of Obamacare we ever repealed. So I think when
people discover they’re sticking a tax increase in there I think people
will be even more unhappy.

Paul said he recommends all Republicans vote against TAA when Ryan and
House GOP leadership bring it back up on Tuesday for an attempt to revive
it after it embarrassingly failed 302-126 when they tried to pass TAA last
week in the House. To send Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to President
Obama’s desk, TPA and TAA have to pass as a package. A bipartisan coalition
formed to take down TAA last week, therefore temporarily killing Obamatrade
as a whole—but House GOP leadership, at Ryan’s insistence, is going to try
to change the game and pass TAA again on Tuesday despite the fact it raises
taxes on small business.

Leadership didn’t tell any of the members—including the 86 Republicans who
voted for TAA last week—that they put the tax increase in the deal, so most
of them who voted for it had no idea they were voting to violate a pledge
they all made to Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform. That’s largely
because leadership was so dead-set on trying to convince rank-and-file
Republicans to grant Obama fast-track authority under TPA—so that Obama can
speed through at least three highly secretive trade deals, the Trans
Pacific Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(T-TIP), and Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)—because the donor class
wants open borders trade so badly. Most members who support TPA didn’t even
read the TPP text because it’s kept in a secretive room in the Capitol
basement and only members can go in to read it—and they’re only allowed to,
in certain instances, bring staffers with high enough security clearances
with them. TiSA and T-TIP text is not even available for members to read,
so there’s actually no way any member of Congress who supported TPA can
know what it was they were actually voting for.

Paul told Breitbart News:

We borrow a million dollars a minute, so the first question I’d ask is
where is the money coming from? They have a pay-for in there, but is it
really a real pay-for? A lot of these pay-fors are basically set, they
stick them on there as accounting gimmicks to say they’re going to pay for
the money somehow. But the bottom line is they want to raise some kind of
fees or fines through the IRS to get money from certain industries, so I’d
say that and that this trade deal is secret, and I don’t want to give
President Obama any more power.

Paul said he expects the issue of Obamatrade to be a big deal on the 2016
campaign trail. It’s already separated the field as Paul, former Arkansas
Gov. Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, former Pennsylvania Sen.
Rick Santorum, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry
and more oppose it. Sens. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)93%, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
80% and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) 47%

(R-FL)–and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush—among others support it.

“Everywhere I go, people come up to me and say ‘thank you for not giving
the president more power’ ‘thank you for voting against TPA,’” Paul said.
“So I think it does resonate with people, and we’ll see how these things
shake out, but it fits my message, because I’ve been saying we gave the
president too much power, and he’s tried to grab too much power on
immigration, healthcare, war power and now really with trade. Part of the
checks and balances is having equal amounts of power with each branch of
government can jealously guard their power and I think it’s a mistake to
give too much power to the president. That’s why their decision to make the
treaty classified makes me suspicious—when people are not allowed to read
it.”

*WALKER*

*UK’s David Cameron fact-checks Scott Walker
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/uks-david-cameron-fact-checks-scott-walker>
// MSNBC // Steve Benen – June 15, 2015 *

At major gatherings of world leaders, President Obama tends to be one of
the more popular, sought-after figures on the global stage. This has been
common throughout Obama’s presidency – he may be seen as a divisive leader
domestically, but internationally, Obama is generally a towering figure.

Republicans are heavily invested in believing the opposite. Indeed, one of
the more common GOP criticisms of the president is that Obama simply isn’t
respected abroad. Republicans routinely insist that, behind the scenes,
international officials voice their deep disappointment with the U.S.
president, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) actually got specific on this point on
Friday, saying that British Prime Minister David Cameron told the far-right
governor directly that he’s unsatisfied with American leadership. Time
reported:

Walker, who has taken several trips overseas in recent months to study up
on foreign policy in preparation for an all-but-certain presidential bid,
told a roomful of Republican donors Friday that world leaders, including
Cameron, are worried about the U.S. stepping back in the world. […]

“I heard that from David Cameron back in February earlier when we were over
at 10 Downing,” Walker said. “I heard it from other leaders around the
world. They’re looking around realizing this lead from behind mentality
just doesn’t work. It’s just not working.”

If true, this would be a break with diplomatic protocol and a legitimately
big deal. It’s unpersuasive when GOP leaders run around telling voters,
“Lots of foreign leaders don’t like Obama; we just can’t actually name
any.” But here’s Walker saying the British prime minister personally told
him that he’s unsatisfied with Obama’s leadership.

The problem, not surprisingly, is that Cameron quickly pushed back,
suggesting the Wisconsinite, who’s repeatedly struggled with foreign
policy, has no idea what he’s talking about.

“The Prime Minister did not say that and does not think that,” a Cameron
spokesperson told Time.

Congratulations, governor, on your latest foreign-policy triumph.

Incidentally, this isn’t the first time Cameron has felt the need to
fact-check the right from across the pond. In January, Fox News’ Steven
Emerson told a national television audience that the population of
Birmingham, England, is now “totally Muslim,” and has become a city where
“non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”

Emerson added, “[P]arts of London, there are actually Muslim religious
police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn’t
dress according to religious Muslim attire.”

Cameron, asked for a comment, said, “[T]his guy is clearly a complete
idiot.”

The prime minister didn’t go nearly as far when correcting Walker.

*Supreme Court shuts down Scott Walker: Today’s ultrasound decision is a
big defeat for anti-choice warriors
<http://www.salon.com/2015/06/15/supreme_court_shuts_down_scott_walker_todays_ultrasound_decision_is_a_big_defeat_for_anti_choice_warriors/>
// Salon // Katie McDonough – June 15, 2015 *

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review North Carolina’s forced
ultrasound law, rendering it unenforceable and marking a rare bit of good
news about reproductive freedom to come out of the high court. (This time
last year, I was in the midst of a prolonged Charlie Brown sad walk over
Hobby Lobby and buffer zones.)

This is the end of the road for the state’s condescendingly-titled A
Woman’s Right to Know Act, which was challenged by a coalition of groups on
First Amendment grounds. The law required doctors to give patients seeking
abortion care detailed descriptions of their ultrasounds and follow a
script that, according to a lower court ruling striking down the law, had
an “ideological message in favor of carrying a pregnancy to term.”

A woman could avert her eyes from the ultrasound screen or plug up her ears
to avoid hearing the script, but doctors were legally required to keep
going or risk losing their license.

It was a particularly draconian bit of compelled speech forced on patients
in a particularly vulnerable position (half naked on an exam table, hours
before a medical procedure), which is why it was blocked last year by a
panel of judges on the Fourth Circuit. That court’s ruling gives some
useful context for the severity of the law as it compares to other informed
consent laws, so it’s worth including here:

Informed consent frequently consists of a fully-clothed conversation
between the patient and physician, often in the physician’s office. It is
driven by the “patient’s particular needs and circumstances” … so that the
patient receives the information he or she wants in a setting that promotes
an informed and thoughtful choice. This provision, however, finds the
patient half-naked or disrobed on her back on an examination table, with an
ultrasound probe either on her belly or inserted into her vagina… Informed
consent has not generally been thought to require a patient to view images
from his or her own body much less in a setting in which personal judgment
may be altered or impaired. Yet this provision requires that she do so or
“avert her eyes.”

Rather than engaging in a conversation calculated to inform, the physician
must continue talking regardless of whether the patient is listening… The
information is provided irrespective of the needs or wants of the patient,
in direct contravention of medical ethics and the principle of patient
autonomy. Forcing this experience on a patient over her objections in this
manner interferes with the decision of a patient not to receive information
that could make an indescribably difficult decision even more traumatic and
could “actually cause harm to the patient.” … And it is intended to convey
not the risks and benefits of the medical procedure to the patient’s own
health, but rather the full weight of the state’s moral condemnation.

There are currently 10 states with mandatory ultrasound laws. One of them
is Wisconsin. Here’s how rumored Republican presidential hopeful Scott
Walker described his own state’s forced ultrasound law:

I’ll give you an example. I’m pro-life, I’ve passed pro-life legislation.
We defunded Planned Parenthood, we signed a law that requires an
ultrasound. Which, the thing about that, the media tried to make that sound
like that was a crazy idea. Most people I talk to, whether they’re pro-life
or not, I find people all the time who’ll get out their iPhone and show me
a picture of their grandkids’ ultrasound and how excited they are, so
that’s a lovely thing. I think about my sons are 19 and 20, you know we
still have their first ultrasound picture. It’s just a cool thing out there.

We just knew if we signed that law, if we provided the information, that
more people if they saw that unborn child would, would make a decision to
protect and keep the life of that unborn child.

Walker may think forced ultrasounds are “cool,” but he’s wrong about the
impact of such laws. As I’ve written before, forced ultrasound laws don’t
change women’s minds about abortion, they just make the procedure more
expensive — and potentially more traumatizing as women feel judged and
condemned by a script the state forced into their doctors’ mouths.

*Scott Walker Already Failing At Diplomacy
<http://bluenationreview.com/scott-walker-already-failing-at-diplomacy/> //
Blue Nation Review // Jesse Berney – June 15, 2015 *

One of the most entertaining parts of presidential campaigns is watching
governors take trips overseas to boost their foreign policy cred. Sooner or
later, they always get into trouble, like when Mitt Romney insulted
London’s preparations for the Olympics during a 2012 trip.

Wisconsin Governor and imminent presidential candidate Scott Walker
traveled to Britain in February and met with Prime Minister David Cameron,
and has been using the experience to bolster his claim that President Obama
is not so great with the foreign policy.

The only problem? According to Cameron, Walker is lying.

Walker has claimed world leaders, including Cameron, have told him
President Obama’s “lead from behind” polices are “just not working.”

But a spokesman for Cameron told TIME, “The Prime Minister did not say that
and does not think that.”

Oops.

There are two possibilities here. Walker is telling the truth, and Cameron
(reportedly one of Obama’s closest allies among world leaders) is trashing
Obama in private discussions with other American politicians. If that
unlikely scenario is true, then Walker embarrassed himself by publicly
revealing a private conversation with Cameron.

Or Walker is simply lying about what the prime minister of Great Britain
told him.

Either way, it’s clear Walker has a lot to learn before he engages in
actual diplomacy with actual consequences for the United States. Or maybe
it’s best he just stays away from offices with responsibility over our
foreign policies — like the presidency.

*CRUZ*

*Ted Cruz courts Houston business elite at private luncheon
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/ted-cruz-houston-business-community/index.html>
// CNN // Theodore Schleifer – June 15, 2015 *

Ted Cruz wooed his hometown's business elite Monday at a closed-door
luncheon in Houston, the latest outreach by Cruz to a local community still
somewhat uneasy with the Tea Party firebrand.

Cruz met with the guests and members of Houston's C Club, a conservative
group that brings together 100 of the city's movers and shakers, including
several prominent presidential donors. As Cruz prepared to run for
president in 2013 and 2014, he looked to smooth over relations with the
potential contributors in Houston who were squarely behind David Dewhurst,
the Texas lieutenant governor who lost in an upset to Cruz in 2012.

As he frequently does in interviews and more intimate settings, the Texas
senator gave a detailed explanation of how he could win the Republican
nomination. Chief among his selling points, attendees said, was his early
fundraising success: Cruz raised more than $4 million during the first 9
days of the campaign, and the cluster of super PACs independently
supporting his bid claim to have raised more than $37 million.

Cruz at times sounded like a political operative as he walked through the
numbers he needed to win, said George Strake Jr., a prominent Houston
businessman supporting Cruz.

"I told him after the speech that would be better than you being the
candidate would be you being the campaign manager for another candidate,"
Strake joked.

The C Club did endorse Cruz during that 2012 primary, and the Texas senator
remains popular on the whole with Texas Republicans. But some in the
business community soured on him after a Cruz-led group triggered a partial
government shutdown in fall 2013.

Cruz spoke for about 45 minutes to the group on a day when much of the
attention may have been placed on the city's other favorite son: Jeb Bush,
the former Florida governor who grew up in Houston and announced his
presidential bid later that afternoon in Miami.

*Jeb Bush’s Son Once Called Ted Cruz The “Future Of The Republican Party”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/jeb-bushs-son-once-called-ted-cruz-the-future-of-the-republi#.ukEEZ3Dg0>
// Buzzfeed // Megan Apper – June 15, 2015 *

George P. Bush, the Texas Land Commissioner and son of former Florida Gov.
Jeb Bush, once called Senator Ted Cruz “the future of the Republican Party”
and compared Cruz’s effect on the party to the “Great Reformation.”

“Ted is the future of the Republican Party,” Bush said in a statement in
support for Cruz during the 2012 Texas Republican Senate primary. Cruz, an
upstart conservative and grassroots candidate, ultimately came from behind
in that race to upset Texas lieutenant governor David Dewhurst, the
establishment favorite.

“He is a proven conservative, and his personal story embodies the American
Dream. Like Marco Rubio in Florida, I am confident that Ted will inspire a
new generation of leaders to stand up and defend American Exceptionalism.”

Speaking with the Texas Tribune about his 2013 campaign for land
commissioner, Bush said his goal was to follow Cruz’s playbook.

“Our idea is to take a page out of Ted Cruz’s playbook and engage the
grassroots and the activists within the party throughout the state,” Bush
said.

In that interview, Bush compared the effect candidates like Ted Cruz had on
the party to the Great Reformation.

“I analogize it to the Great Reformation, where you have outside forces
that reform a body or an institution,” Bush said. “I think there are
definitely some positive effects that are taking place within the party
because of the Tea Party, increased grassroots activism, increased
attention and concerns with respect to what’s happening in Washington,D.C”

The young Bush told the Texas Tribune in September 2014 that Cruz was a
“force of nature” and “fearless.”

“I think he has been a forceful advocate for the issues that we talked
about today on Obamacare and now increasingly on the international stage,”
said Bush. “But you know he is a force of nature on the conservative side
and he’s fearless. And honestly there are a lot of folks who are hungry for
that type of challenge in Washington DC. And so we still exchange texts
here and there you know, obviously we will help him with whatever he needs.

”

Asked about his past statements on Cruz by the Tribune, Bush said “I’m not
going to endorse.”

Asked about his dad, he said, “I think folks know that I love him.”

*CHRISTIE*

*New Jersey Lawmakers’ Plan To Circumvent Chris Christie, Start Automatic
Voter Registration
<http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/06/15/3669765/democracy-act-new-jersey/>
// Think Progress // Kira Lerner – June 15, 2015 *

After Hillary Clinton delivered a speech earlier this month calling for the
restoration and expansion of voting rights across the country, likely
Republican presidential candidate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was
quick to respond. “I don’t want to expand [early voting] and increase the
opportunities for fraud,” he said, adding that “maybe that’s what Mrs.
Clinton wants to do.”

While Christie has made it clear he would not support legislation to expand
voting opportunities, his Democrat-controlled legislature is moving forward
with it anyway. Democratic leaders plan to introduce and fast-track the
“Democracy Act” this week which would make it the second state to adopt
automatic voter registration and would expand early voting opportunities,
among other changes.

“We’re not reinventing the wheel” said Analilia Mejia, the director of New
Jersey Working Families, which spearheaded the initiative to have lawmakers
introduce the legislation. “Most of these things have been moved and
adopted in other states successfully… It’s just mind-bending that a
governor of a state would be against every single one of his citizens
having full ease and access to participate in the voting process.”

Christie asserted last week that Clinton “doesn’t know what she was talking
about” when it comes to voting in New Jersey, but Mejia said “she totally
does, otherwise New Jersey wouldn’t be 39th in the country in participation
and registration. We wouldn’t be behind Mississippi.”

New Jersey currently ranks 39th in the country in both percentage of
eligible voters who are registered and percentage of voters who actually
case a ballot, according to NJWF. The state does not allow in-person early
voting, but requires citizens who want to cast an absentee ballot early to
apply for one at an election official’s office. New Jersey also does not
permit online voter registration, something that is allowed in 33 other
states.

The package of legislation will also include a bill that would ban
governors from calling costly special elections, like the Senate race
Christie ordered in 2013 which cost the state roughly $24 million. Around
the same time Christie decided to spend millions of valuable taxpayer
dollars on the special election, a move critics said he made in order to
preserve his own seat, he vetoed a bill that would have let citizens vote
14 days before an election, calling the $25 million measure “hasty” and
“counterproductive.” Meanwhile, Clinton has called for a minimum 20 days of
early voting in each state.

The Democracy Act would also solve another problem plaguing New Jersey
elections — the need to accommodate non-English speakers. Currently
materials only have to be printed in Spanish if 10 percent of the county or
voting districts speaks it as their primary language, but the bill would
require election materials to be made available to voters in multiple
languages without other stipulations, according to NJ Advance Media.

“It’s no wonder that our 21st century electorate is disengaged when our
voting practices are stuck in the 17th century,” Frank Argote-Freyre,
president of the Latino Action Network, said in a statement. “By
modernizing voter registration practices and ensuring ballot materials are
translated into languages that reflect our communities, we can dramatically
improve voter accessibility and engagement.”

Mejia said that if Christie vetoes the bill, as NJWF expects him to do, the
group plans to bring the issue directly to the voters on the next ballot.
The move wouldn’t be unique for New Jersey voters — most notably, they
previously acted without the governor’s support to raise the minimum wage
through a constitutional amendment.

*Chris Christie Used a Phrase to Describe the Fight Against ISIS That
Brings George W. Bush to Mind
<http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/345095-chris-christie-used-a-phrase-to-describe-the-fight-against-isis-that-brings-george-w-bush-to-mind/>
// IJ Review // Mallory Shelbourne – June 15, 2015 *

During the lead up to the Iraq war, President George W. Bush used the
phrase “coalition of the willing” to describe what the U.S. would assemble
to defeat Iraq’s Saddam Hussein if he would not surrender his weapons of
mass destruction.

Now Governor Chris Christie is echoing the former president’s phrase to
describe the fight against ISIS.

According to Reuters, on “This Week” Sunday morning the New Jersey
Republican said:

“‘Well, listen, you know, we’ve got to put together a coalition of the
willing, which has been used before … and used successfully in that
region,’ he said on ABC’s ‘This Week.’”

In May, Christie told CNN’s Jake Tapper that knowing what we know now,
invading Iraq was not the right choice. Politico reported:

“‘I think President Bush made the best decision he could at the time, given
that his intelligence community was telling him that there was WMD and that
there were other threats right there in Iraq,’ Christie continued. ‘But I
don’t think you could honestly say that if we knew then that there was no
WMD that the country should have gone to war.’”

Bush’s own brother, presidential hopeful and former Governor Jeb Bush,
struggled with the same question in May. The Florida Republican also had a
heated exchange with a college student during a town-hall discussion in May
over whether or not his brother’s administration created ISIS.

*PERRY*

*Perry inexplicably blasts Obama’s ‘lack of executive experience’
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/perry-inexplicably-blasts-obamas-lack-executive-experience>
// MSNBC // Steve Benen – June 15, 2015 *

We can apparently add former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) to the list of
Republicans who don’t fully understand the military offensive President
Obama has launched against ISIS targets in the Middle East. Right Wing
Watch reported the other day:

Former Texas governor and GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry told
conservative talk radio host Dana Loesch on Wednesday that President Obama
hasn’t shown any “engagement to stop ISIS,” which he attributed to the
president’s “lack of being able to really connect the dots” and “lack of
executive experience.” […]

“I think that’s the reason ISIS has gone forward, I think that’s the reason
Putin is standing there basically laughing at us as we have one lack of
impact after another in the global world that we’re living in,” he said.

The Republican presidential candidate, currently under criminal indictment,
added that Syria paid no price for crossing the “red line” established by
the Obama administration.

I’ll admit, criticizing Obama’s “lack of executive experience” continues to
be an unintentionally funny line of attack. In 2008, it was a legitimate
area of interest (though Obama’s general-election rival had exactly as much
executive experience as he did), but in 2015, it’s pretty silly.

After all, the first word in the phrase “President Obama” is “president.”
Obama doesn’t “lack of executive experience”; he’s led the executive branch
during a time of war and economic crisis. He has the kind of executive
experience few can even try to relate to.

As for whether or not Vladimir Putin is “laughing at” the United States,
he’s really not. Worse yet, when Perry says Syria paid no price, that’s
plainly false, too.

But perhaps most striking of all is Perry’s belief that Obama hasn’t shown
any “engagement to stop ISIS.” The former governor may have missed the
news, but the U.S. president has launched thousands of airstrikes against
ISIS targets and helped assemble an international coalition to confront the
militants.

Perry’s Republican allies on Capitol Hill haven’t been willing to do any
actual work on the issue – GOP lawmakers just haven’t shown any “engagement
to stop ISIS” – but Obama’s been quite engaged, indeed.

Of course, if it were just Perry who made odd comments like these, it’d be
easier to dismiss. It wouldn’t be the first time the far-right Texan seemed
confused by current events.

But as we’ve discussed before, there’s actually an astounding number of
Republican lawmakers and politicians, from state legislatures to the
congressional leadership to the presidential trail, who’ve argued
repeatedly in recent months that President Obama hasn’t “done anything
about ISIS.”

Given the scope of the military offensive launched by the Obama
administration, the rhetoric seems oddly delusional.

*Perry, Rubio mock Hillary Clinton in new campaign ads
<https://www.yahoo.com/politics/perry-rubio-mock-hillary-clinton-in-new-campaign-121600290281.html>
// Yahoo News // Caitlin Dickson – June 15, 2015 *

The 2016 presidential election is still 17 months away, but some primary
candidates are already getting a jumpstart on their general election attack
ads.

Over the weekend, former Texas governor Rick Perry and Sen. Marco Rubio
(R-Fla.) both released campaign ads targeting Hillary Clinton, the
front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

The video from Perry’s camp, titled “Hillary Goes to the Movies,” shows
silhouetted cartoon Clinton pulling up to a movie theater in a van —
presumably a reference to Clinton’s heavily-hyped ride, which was spotted
occupying a handicapped spot, on her road trip from New York to Iowa at the
start of her campaign back in April. A film called “Stop Hillary Clinton”
is playing, and a recording of Clinton’s actual laughter plays on loop as
the cartoon version watches the “previews of upcoming attractions,” a
compilation of controversies involving the former secretary of state.

The Hillary in Rubio’s ad, on the other hand, is straight out real life —
and almost real time.

The video, released on Saturday, shows Clinton speaking at her New York
City campaign rally just hours earlier. Playing through an old-fashioned
TV, however, the fresh clip of Clinton deriding the current Republican
primary field looks like archival footage.

The video switches from a grainy Clinton, reciting the lyrics to the
Beatles’ “Yesterday,” which she called the Republican theme song, to Rubio
in high-definition.

“Yesterday is over,” Rubio says to a cheering crowd, many of them recording
videos on their iPhones. “And we’re never going back.”

The ad contrasts Rubio as a fresh face against political dynasties like the
Clintons and — though fellow Republican candidate Jeb Bush is not mentioned
— the Bushes.

“We Americans are proud of our history, but our country has always been
about the future,” Rubio says in the video. “Before us now is the
opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the amazing story of
America. But we can’t do that by going back to the leaders and the ideas of
the past.”

Clinton has hardly refrained from taking shots against the GOP field as a
whole. But she’s also become the target of many Republican primary
candidates months before Democrats are ready to focus on any one of her
opponents. Rand Paul’s campaign store even has a whole section dedicated to
anti-Hillary merchandise. Perry’s and Rubio’s videos are a taste of what’s
to come from both sides as the primary season progresses.

*Rick Perry rates himself against Bush, Cruz
<http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20150615-rick-perry-rates-himself-against-bush-cruz.ece>
// Dallas Daily News – June 15, 2015 *

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s officially kicked off his second bid for the
White House two weeks ago at an airplane hangar in Addison. On Monday, as
fellow Republican Jeb Bush joined the dozen-plus candidates in the field,
Perry appeared on The Mark Davis Show on KSKY-AM (660) to talk about the
campaign and the ever-growing chorus of contenders.

Here are some excerpts from that interview, as conducted and condensed by
Mark Davis:

So what’s been happening since the Addison rollout?

It was an extremely well-put-together rollout. It’s always fun to stand in
front of an old C-130 Hercules, so we were able to round one up, and remind
people that freedom’s not free. On the stage were a lot of people who paid
an extraordinary price — Taya Kyle, and Marcus and Morgan Luttrell and
others ... just a great backdrop to talk about this country we live in.
It’s wonderful, it’s extraordinary, but it costs a great deal to keep those
freedoms. We went from there to Iowa, on Saturday we did a motorcycle rally
... ended up in New Hampshire, then into South Carolina, then back into
Texas for Wednesday and Thursday of this last week. So, headed off to do a
big round in Texas the next four or five days. A lot of great crowds, a lot
of excitement out there. I’m blessed, happy, healthy and prepared.

Every Republican will be out there suggesting he will be a better leader
for the military. You focus a lot on your actual service.

Obviously, the people who are in office now or who are running for office
on the other side, you have to look at this as a third term for Barack
Obama. With Hillary Clinton, there’s no way around that. She owns the
foreign policy debacle that came out of Libya and Syria, so that is not a
high hurdle for any of the men and women on our side. But I think it is
very important to not only have worn the uniform of our country, but to
have been in a position like I’ve been in for the last 14 years, as the
commander in chief of the Texas military forces — that’s executive
experience, and that’s military experience that is priceless, and there’s
only one way you can get it.

You had an interesting line in your announcement speech, saying leadership
is not a speech delivered on the Senate floor. Seems like that’s aimed
toward four or five guys.

Listen, we have some extraordinarily brilliant, capable United States
Senators running in this race. I mean Ted Cruz, I like him a lot. Ted is a
smart, capable — but I mean, after eight years of this young, inexperienced
United States senator, this President, and that lack of experience, ...
it’s going to be a hard, hard thing for Republican primary voters to say,
“We’re going to take a chance on that.”

Jeb Bush was a Governor. How do you view his entry?

Good man, good family. But again, let’s look at the records. Look at [my]
14 years of an environment of creating jobs — no one can touch Texas …
We’re now the No. 1 total exporting state and have been for the last 13
years. We’re the No. 1 high-tech exporting state. The job creation climate
— during the worst recession the country has had since the Great
Depression. Listen, if you weren’t creating jobs back in the late ‘90s,
early 2000s, then you weren’t paying attention.

What’s the President Perry answer to Obamacare?

You push the bulk of it back to the states. We’ve said that from the
get-go. I’m a true believer in the 10th Amendment. I don’t just give it lip
service, I believe in it. When they tried to force No Child Left Behind on
us in Texas, when they tried to force Race to the Top, Common Core … being
able to push these issues back to the states, I trust Governors,
legislators, working with their citizens to come up with better ways to
deliver health care. … “If you want to keep your doctor, you can keep him.”
Well, no. “We’re going to drive down the cost of health care.” Well, no.
All of those things they said about Obamacare did not come true, and now
we’re finding that not only does it most likely have a constitutional error
in it that’s going to be fatal — I hope states are looking at different
ways, whether it’s health savings accounts, whether it’s a host of menus
that people can pick and choose from. States will deliver health care more
efficiently and, I know, at a cheaper rate than what you’ll see Washington,
D.C. do.

*GRAHAM*

*Lindsey Graham telling it like it is
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/06/15/lindsey-graham-telling-it-like-it-is/>
// WaPo // Jennifer Rubin – June 15, 2015*

Jeb Bush has said he wants to run with joy in his heart. Right now the most
joyous candidate may be a long shot — or perhaps he can be joyous because
he is a long shot. Either way, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), already known
as a wit, is becoming the truthteller in the race. With bluntness and
humor, he is holding nothing back and in the process doing a fine job of
debunking foolish people and foolish ideas.

It’s no secret that the Pentagon can be risk-averse. Under George W. Bush,
inspiration and support for the Iraq surge had to come from outside the
military brass. More recently, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen.
Martin E. Dempsey drove informed senators and outside experts to
distraction by raising a host of objections and a parade of horribles for
not acting years ago in Syria — when the risks actually were low and the
chance for success was high. So it surprised none of Dempsey’s critics when
word came that he didn’t favor a more robust strategy for fighting the
Islamic State. That provoked the following reaction from Graham, appearing
on “Face the Nation“: “So, now would be a good time to call Ash Carter and
our military leaders to the Capitol Hill and say, if you have got a problem
with what we’re doing, let me know, but tell me how this is working,
because if our military leadership thinks that we’re on a path to degrading
and destroying ISIL, they need to be fired.” Exactly.

Graham also made plenty of sense explaining how we got into the mess we are
in:

[JOHN] DICKERSON: The secretary of defense, in some blunt remarks, said
Iraqi army is not really up to the task.

This has been a repeated story, so why, if you add 10,000 advisers, are you
not just sending good after bad here?

GRAHAM: Well, the surge did work.

In 2011, we had security in Iraq, political progress. If you don’t believe
me, listen to President Obama in 2012. General Keane is the guy I have been
listening to, who was the architect of the surge. If you have 10,000
Americans train and advise and assist at the battalion level, it would help
Iraqi army be tougher.

It you had a couple of aviation battalions of American attack helicopters,
you would have a distinct advantage over ISIL in Syria, in Iraq. But you
have to look at Syria and Iraq as one battle space. We’re not doing the. We
have no strategy to deal with the Iraqi safe havens in Syria. You cannot
win this war from the air.

Obama will go before Assad will go. So, this whole policy toward degrading
and destroying ISIL is miserable failure. And when Secretary Clinton said
that this country was well-positioned to deal with the threats from ISIL,
Iran, Russia, and China, she is absolutely delusional.

We’re in a bad position against all the threats we face, because Barack
Obama has been a weak and indecisive commander in chief. And she would be
the third term of a failed presidency. We better do something different.

And he might have added that senators on the right and left who cheered
total withdrawal from Iraq and refused to recognize a national security
interest in Syria share the responsibility for our current predicament. In
the campaign, if New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie insists as he did on ABC
News on Sunday that he doesn’t “believe now the idea of putting 10,000
troops on the ground is what we need to do,” or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)
insists contrary to all evidence we can win the war by dropping more bombs
(Targeted where? And when did airpower alone win a war against an
asymmetric, fundamentalist foe?) or Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) proclaims that
the problem is too much U.S. engagement, I certainly expect Graham to be
ready with a zinger. And speaking of Rand Paul, Graham had the nerve to say
what virtually all foreign policy conservatives believe (albeit quietly),
namely that Hillary Clinton would be a worse commander in chief than any
GOP candidate “except for Rand Paul.”

Graham is also a truthteller on immigration reform. “Mitt Romney and Ann
Romney did our party a great service by admitting that embracing
self-deportation in 2012 was their biggest mistake. . . .You’re not going
to self-deport 11 million people. You’re not going to be able to do that.
I’m not going to be a Republican nominee wanting to try to do that. If you
pass a criminal background check, I will allow to you stay here legally and
earn your way to citizenship. It will be hard-earned pathway. But I hope
every candidate on the Republican side will follow Mitt Romney’s lead and
admit it was a mistake to embrace self-deportation. And I hope
self-deportation is in our rear-view mirror as a party, because if it is
not, we will lose in 2016.” As for those peddling in fears about legal
immigrants, Graham was equally cutting: “To me, they’re just looking in a
different world than I am. We will be down to two workers for every retiree
in the next 20 years. We’re going to need more legal immigration. And I
hope we will embrace a comprehensive approach that is realistic and humane.”

And finally, in his lighthearted dismissal of the infatuation with first
ladies, he makes no bones about the fact that the republic will do fine
without an unelected White House fixture, a sort of royal consort (an
expensive one at that) more appropriate for a monarchy than the United
States. He joked: “The last time I checked, there was nothing in the
Constitution or at the White House [that] said single people need not
apply. I’m going to be a ready-to-go commander in chief, protect everybody,
single people included.” Good for him.

Both Graham and Ohio Gov. John Kasich benefit from candor and lack of
concern for the ire they stir in the GOP. While Graham refuses to give way
to those peddling snake oil on the Islamic State or immigration or feigning
horror about the absence of a hostess-in-chief, Kasich pesters Republicans
to embrace the poor, disabled, drug-addicted and other overlooked
Americans. Neither especially cares what his right-wing critics say. So
while they both can infuriate some on the right (especially in conservative
media), their irreverence and intolerance of cant make them two of the most
interesting and essential participants in the 2016 presidential race.

*The power players behind Lindsey Graham's campaign
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/lindsey-graham-2016-campaign-staff-power-players-119015.html>
// Politico // Katie Glueck – June 15, 2015 *

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who so far has hardly registered in the
polls, entered the presidential race in early June on a platform of strong
national security, entitlement reform and bipartisan cooperation at home.
His close ally, fellow foreign policy hawk Sen. John McCain, has been a
major Graham booster, and several McCain alums are helping Graham’s effort,
along with operatives who are longtime Graham loyalists. Graham is in his
third term as a U.S. senator, winning reelection last year over the
objections of tea party activists in his state, who disagreed with his
collaboration with Democrats on immigration reform, among other issues.

The senator is considered a long-shot to win the GOP nomination, but he is
popular among his fellow senators, and several presidential candidates and
their allies have gone out of their way to praise him. Graham could also
play an important role in pushing fellow 2016ers further to the right on
national security issues. Here’s a look at the key players in Graham’s
orbit, with more to come as he staffs up:

• Christian Ferry is campaign manager. Ferry, a GOP operative, served as
deputy campaign manager of McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, and also
worked on his unsuccessful 2000 primary bid. He has worked on political and
business campaigns abroad as well.

• Jon Seaton is a senior adviser. He’s a veteran Republican operative who
served as former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s national political director
during the last presidential primary, and also held a number of positions
on McCain’s 2008 presidential bid, including national field director and
regional campaign manager for Ohio and Pennsylvania.

• Brittany Bramell is the Graham campaign’s spokeswoman, who also serves in
a senior communications role. She’s a former spokeswoman for House Speaker
John Boehner.

• Scott Farmer is a senior adviser to Graham. He served as Graham’s
campaign manager in 2014 and 2008 and is a veteran of the senator’s
political shop.

• Rachael Leman is policy director. She spent 10 years in Congress working
on the House Rules Committtee.

• David Wilkins is national finance chairman. Wilkins was nominated to
serve as U.S. ambassador to Canada under President George W. Bush,
something he did from 2005-2009. He’s also a prominent South Carolina
lawyer. He is head of a national finance committee that includes prominent
donors such as businessman and cosmetics mogul Ronald Perelman and General
Electric head Jeff Immelt.

• Paul Young is advising Graham in New Hampshire. He is a longtime Granite
State operative who has advised several presidential campaigns, including
McCain’s, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s and former Sen. Bob Dole’s, among
others.

• Tracie Gibler is Graham’s Iowa state director. She is well-connected in
conservative circles as a former chief of staff to Rep. Steve King
(R-Iowa). She was Pawlenty’s political director during the last
presidential election.

• Shell Suber is running political efforts in South Carolina. He is a
longtime Palmetto State operative and served as political director for
Graham’s 2008 campaign.

SUPER PAC

The group “Security is Strength” is backing Graham from the outside. Scott
T. Ford, a prominent businessman, is co-chairman, along with former Sen.
Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). Andrew King, Graham’s former deputy chief of staff,
is executive director, and Caroline Wren is finance director, a position
she held on his Senate race as well. Bill Bethea, a well-known South
Carolina attorney, is treasurer.

*Are Rumors About Lindsey Graham’s Sexuality Hurting His Presidential
Chances?
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/15/lindsey_graham_gay_rumors_are_they_hurting_his_presidential_chances.html>
// Slate // Mark Joseph Stern – June 15, 2015 *

Lindsey Graham is a formidable figure in Congress: A third-term Republican
senator who also served eight years in the House, Graham is a national
security hawk and a foreign policy expert beloved in his home state of
South Carolina, despite his occasionally moderate leanings.

Yet ever since Graham formally announced
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/politics/lindsey-graham-presidential-campaign.html>
his
bid for the Republican presidential nomination, his candidacy has been
treated as something of a joke. Thus far, Graham’s bachelor status has
attracted the most attention. Hispromise
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/lindsey-graham-rotating-first-lady-bachelor-president-118783.html>
to
have “a rotating first lady” drew giggles and jokes—including a quip
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/mark-kirk-lindsey-graham-bro-118882.html?ml=po>
by
Sen. Mark Kirk that Graham was a “bro with no ho.” Graham then gave a
somewhat melancholy interview
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/graham-on-bachelorhood-im-not-defective-118896.html#ixzz3cnDnvHYJ>
insisting
that being single did not make him a “defective person.”at CF

R

Lurking behind the media’s fascination with Graham’s singlehood is an
assumption about his sexuality. Gay rumors
<http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/05/18/great-ambiguity-president-lindsey-graham>
 have long plagued
<http://gawker.com/5715809/is-lindsey-graham-about-to-get-outed> the senator
<http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/is-lindsey-graham-gay/Content?oid=1111370>,
and other South Carolina politicians have even implied
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/14/ambiguously-gay-senator.html>
 that Graham is closeted
<http://goqnotes.com/2710/former-candidate-linda-ketner-outs-sc-republicans/>.
(Graham has declared
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/magazine/04graham-t.html?_r=0> that he
“ain’t gay.”) These whispers become shouts on the late-night circuit, where
comedians like Jon Stewart
<http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/243250-why-is-it-ok-for-jon-stewart-to-make-lindsey-graham-gay-jokes>
 and John Oliver
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/jon-stewart-john-oliver-lindsey-graham_n_4004811.html?>
earn
laughs by ridiculing Graham’s ostensibly effeminate mannerisms. Recently,
Larry Wilmorefelt compelled to push back
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/12/comedy_central_nightly_show_commentator_gina_yashere_lindsey_graham_is_gay.html>
against
one of his guests, who laughingly stated she thinks Graham is gay. “Here’s
the thing,” Wilmore said:

Wilmore is on to something here. The mainstream media’s coverage of
Graham’s bachelor status may not blatantly hint that the senator is gay—but
it doesn’t need to. Even in 2015, many Americans still assume that anybody
who isn’t partnered at a certain age must be homosexual. The fact that
Graham talks in a somewhat stereotypically gay voice
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/05/14/ask_a_homo_the_gay_lisp_origins_and_meanings_considered_video.html>
only
makes the assumption more irresistible.

But when Stewart performs his effeminate Graham impression, he isn’t just
suggesting the senator is gay—he’s *mocking* him for it. That’s a problem.
Were Graham openly gay, no progressive comedian would dare ridicule him for
his manner of speech. Graham is only fair game because he’s perceived to be
closeted. The implication that he’s gay *and lying about it* is what makes
the joke amusing. (That is, if you think it’s funny at all.)

It’s difficult to draw a direct line between these jeering late-night
jibes, the mainstream media’s winking coverage of Graham, and the senator’s
striking unpopularity among GOP voters. (He is currently pollingaround 1
percent
<http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary>,
lagging behind train wrecks like Bobby Jindal
<http://gawker.com/bobby-jindal-is-less-popular-than-even-barack-obama-in-1705265838>
 andRick Santorum
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/09/rick_santorum_hamlin_iowa_2012_caucus_winner_draws_only_four_people_to_a.html>.)
But it’s hard to believe the media’s refusal to take Graham seriously isn’t
having some effect on his terrible numbers. Rather than pressing Graham to
explain his apparent support for drone strikes without due process
<http://wonkette.com/585882/lindsey-graham-running-for-president-will-kill-you-for-your-thoughts-if-elected>,
anchors are forcing him to justify his lack of a wife. Nobody looks
presidential when they’re anxiously explaining why they’re single in their
50s.

If Graham were more traditionally masculine, I seriously doubt he’d be
dogged by so many questions about his bachelorhood. The fun of poking
Graham about his personal life lies in the ambiguous presentation of his
sexuality. Most Republican voters may not currently think Graham is gay.
But they’ll be all but required to consider that question if Graham’s media
coverage continues to dwell on his romantic and sexual choices. Graham may
well be an awful presidential candidate for the Republican Party. But an
analysis of his qualifications shouldn’t rest on the giggling assumption
that he’s stuck in the closet.

*SANTORUM*

*Rick Santorum vs Marriage
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-baume/rick-santorum-vs-marriage_b_7583130.html>
// HuffPo // Matt Baume – June 15, 2015 *

With the Supreme Court due to rule on marriage any day now, Presidential
"candidate" Rick Santorum says he would fight back against a pro-equality
ruling. He says that states allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is a
violation of his religious freedom, which is an argument a lot people made
about interracial marriage in the 60s. So do couples need to worry about
the possibility that Rick Santorum could stop them from marrying? No. For
one thing, the president doesn't get to veto Supreme Court rulings. And for
another, Rick Santorum will never be president.

But statements like those give cover to organizations that oppose marriage
equality. Last week a group of religious leaders took out an ad in some
newspapers saying that they would defy any order from the Supreme Court to
recognize marriage equality. Can they do that? No, not really. At most,
they can use this as an excuse to gather email addresses on a petition,
which is exactly what they're doing. This is the work of Rick Scarborough,
who has in the past suggested that someone should file a class action
lawsuit against homosexuality, so clearly not one of the country's great
legal minds.

Meanwhile, back in reality, a judge in Arkansas ruled this week that the
state must recognize marriages performed during a brief window last year
when clerks were issuing licenses. And Lambda Legal has filed a new lawsuit
in Texas to stop the state from denying spousal benefits to LGBT government
employees. Texas is shaping up to be a battleground state when we get a
marriage ruling, with some officials doing what they can to resist
equality, and others, like the clerk in Dallas, eagerly awaiting the
opportunity to marry queer couples.

Also last week, the North Carolina legislature passed a law that allows
government officials to opt out of issuing licenses on the basis of their
religion. If they opt out, they have to do so for everyone -- gay or
straight, they'd have to reject all couples. It's worth pointing out that
North Carolina has had marriage equality for over half a year at this
point, with no problems. And a new survey shows public support for equality
reaching a new high in the state.

That goes along with a new survey from Pew this week, showing support for
marriage continuing to do what it's done for the last decade and a half.
Nationally, support is averaging somewhere around 57%, with opposition well
under 40. And that's the big reason why any attempt to disobey the Supreme
Court will be unsuccessful. There just aren't enough people left who oppose
the freedom to marry.

*HUCKABEE*

*GOP hopeful Huckabee: My beliefs won't trip me up
<http://www.cnbc.com/id/102758753> // CNBC // Matthew Belvedere – June 15,
2015 *

Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee—an ex-Arkansas governor and
former Southern Baptist pastor—said Monday he has a proven track record of
bringing together diverse people of different backgrounds.

He also disputed the notion that a candidate, like himself, who believes in
what he calls "traditional marriage" and opposes abortion cannot win the
White House—pointing to the two terms of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush
who shared similar views.

"I think people vote not so much horizontally—whether you're left or right,
liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican ... [but] vertically. Do
they believe you'll take the country up or down," Huckabee told CNBC's
"Squawk Box" in an interview.

Making his case for being someone who can unite the electorate, he said,
"Look at how I got 49 percent of the African-American vote in my state ...
which historically had only elected three Republicans statewide before I
got elected."

On the issue of free trade, Huckabee said he loves the idea of a free
market, but he's wary about giving President Barack Obama the fast-track
negotiating authority favored by GOP lawmakers and opposed by Democrats.

"I'm a capitalist with a capital 'C,'" he said, but he opposes the evolving
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement in part because of the secrecy
surrounding the deal.

The former Arkansas governor said he doesn't know why Republicans want "to
give this president who ... sort of defied his ability to make a deal on a
secondhand Subaru much less major trade agreements."

On Friday, House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan appeared on "Squawk Box"
ahead of key votes on Capitol Hill to advance the process for crafting the
TPP. The effort, backed by the Wisconsin Republican and others in his
party, failed.

Huckabee said Monday he's concerned about the impact on jobs. "A lot of
American workers have taken a gut punch because [past] trade agreements
have not been enforced on both sides of the deal. And we've allowed our
partners to cheat."

*CARSON*

*Ben Carson leads crowded GOP field in latest poll
<http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/06/15/ben-carson-gop-poll/28782625/>
// The Detroit Free Press // Alicia Secord – June 15, 2015 *

In it's latest poll, Monmouth University in West Long Branch, N.J., found
that "undecided" has a nine-percentage-point lead among Republican voters
when asked who they support for their party's nomination, but native
Detroiter Ben Carson rose to the forefront of the crowded field of GOP
candidates.

Carson leads the pack with the support of 11% of voters, followed closely
by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (10%), former Florida Gov. Bush (9%),
Florida Sen. Rubio (9%), and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (8%). Other
potential picks include Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (6%), Texas Sen. Ted
Cruz (5%), New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (4%), former Texas Gov. Rick
Perry (4%) and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (3%). The other
candidates in the poll -- businesswoman Carly Fiorina (2%), South Carolina
Sen Lindsey Graham (2%), businessman Donald Trump (2%), Louisiana Gov.
Bobby Jindal (1%), Ohio Gov. John Kasich (1%), and former New York Gov.
George Pataki (0%) -- fall below the top-10 cut-off that will be used by
Fox News and CNN to determine who gets an invitation to their debates in
August.

The poll was conducted before Bush formally announced his candidacy today.

Carson's standing has increased by 4 points since the last Monmouth poll in
April, and "undecided" has gone up by 6 points. Meanwhile, his favorability
rating is up to 45% favorable and 12% unfavorable today, up from 39%
favorable and 16% unfavorable in the previous poll. But this early in the
game, it's hard to say what voters will do when they head to the polls in
2016.

"You would be hard pressed to look at these results and identify an
emerging top tier in the Republican field, let alone a so-called front
runner," said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling
Institute.

View the full results at monmouth.edu.

*TRUMP*

*EXCLUSIVE: Trump will declare $9 billion net worth as he reveals 2016
plans
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/exclusive-trump-will-declare-9-billion-net-worth-as-he-reveals-2016-plans/2015/06/15/a00e74c0-137c-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html>
// WaPo // Robert Costa & Matea Gold – June 15, 2015 *

Donald J. Trump, the billionaire real-estate mogul, on Tuesday will release
a summary of assets that total about $9 billion as part of his likely entry
into the race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to
people familiar with his plans.

The two-page document — which will be published after he holds a political
rally at Trump Tower in New York — will provide a valuation of his hotels
and other properties. It will also show hundreds of millions in cash on
hand and an outline of his debt, the people said.

The details he will reveal Tuesday will provide one of the first looks at
the worth of the real estate and television empire that the colorful
impresario has amassed — one whose value has been avidly debated.

Trump’s declared assets are more than double the estimate of his net worth
by Forbes, which currently pegs his net holdings at $4.1 billion. And it
would make him the wealthiest Republican contender.

Trump’s longtime financial advisers and Donald F. McGahn, a partner at
Jones Day, have finalized the report about his finances in recent weeks as
Trump has moved closer to jumping into the 2016 contest. Three people
briefed on those discussions Monday requested anonymity in order to talk
about the process.

Trump’s speech announcing his decision is likely to center on his career
and fortune. He is expected to cast himself as an entrepreneur and outsider
eager to tangle with the party establishment and U.S. economic rivals
abroad, such as China.

The financial statement drafted by his office is aimed at demonstrating his
success as a businessman, as well as proving to skeptical GOP leaders that
he is serious about running.

One goal of Trump’s camp is to make the cut for the Republican primary
debates this summer and fall, which will require him to rank within the top
10 in national polls, among other factors. By divulging details about his
finances, Trump believes he will be going above and beyond what will be
necessary to win a place on stage, according to people familiar with his
thinking.

Fox News, which is producing and airing the first debate on Aug. 6 in
Cleveland, requires all candidates to have filed “all necessary paperwork
with the Federal Election Commission.”

The network has not specifically called for contenders to file their
financial information before the debate is held. But under a 1978 federal
ethics law, presidential candidates must file a personal financial
disclosure with the FEC within 30 days after announcing their candidacies.
(They can request two 45-day extensions.) The filing must detail their
financial interests and income, as well as those of their spouses and
dependent children.

Trump plans to file the disclosure within the allotted time, according to
people familiar with this plan. He will not be releasing his income tax
returns Tuesday, the people said, but he has not ruled out doing so at some
point in the coming months.

Earlier this month, Trump told Fox Business Network that he is ready for
reporters to scrutinize his holdings. “I’ve had great success. My
statements are phenomenal,” he said. “I get my financial statements very
early, actually. I put tremendous amounts of people to work, I’ve
negotiated against the best in the world, including countries, and I’ve
come out on top.”

Trump also recently made headlines when he told the Des Moines Register
that he would be the “most successful person ever to run for president.”

“Ross Perot isn’t successful like me. Romney was — I have a Gucci store
that’s worth more money than Romney,” Trump said, referencing the fashion
mecca on his property on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.

Trump, now 69, briefly and flamboyantly considered a bid in 2011 before
deciding against a run. In New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina — all
early voting states —Trump has hired staffers.

Still, Trump’s path to the nomination will be rocky and uphill. Many
Republicans, especially in the upper ranks of the GOP, see him as a
celebrity bomb-thrower and provocateur who has flirted with “birtherism”
and made other remarks casting doubt on President Obama’s credentials and
love of country.

Trump runs at the lower end of the pack of a very large potential set of
Republican candidates, ranging from 3 to 5 percent support in national
public polls. He is polling at 4 percent among Republicans and
Republican-leaning independent voters in a late May Washington Post-ABC
News poll.

That puts him behind seasoned Republican politicians like Jeb Bush, Scott
Walker, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio (with 10 or 11 percent support each) but
also in the same breath as Govs. Chris Christie and John Kasich (6 and 3
percent support).

Trump has insisted that he has sincere intentions. “Everybody feels I’m
doing this just to have fun or because it’s good for the brand,” he said in
an interview in February with The Washington Post. “Well, it’s not fun. I’m
not doing this for enjoyment. I’m doing this because the country is in
serious trouble.”

In revealing details about his finances, Trump is going further than he has
in previous years when he has contemplated White House bids.

His estimated net worth has fluctuated dramatically over the years. In
August 2013, Trump said he was worth “probably over $10 billion.”

But even the most aggressive auditors have found it challenging to assess
Trump’s balance sheet, in part because his assets and liabilities are
intricately complex, entwined with public subsidies and opaque private
partnerships.

Trump has bristled at those who have raised questions about those high
estimates of financial standing. He filed a libel suit against a New York
Times reporter who wrote in 2005 that the real estate mogul was likely
worth between $150 million and $250 million. The case was dismissed.

*Donald Trump plans an announcement, and GOP wonders: Presidency or reality
TV? <http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gop-trump-20150615-story.html> //
LA Times // Kathleen Hennessey - June 16, 2015*

As Donald Trump prepares to announce his plans, the reality TV aspect of
the GOP presidential field could grow

In the huge GOP presidential field, several candidates seem to be running
more for personal benefit

The Republican presidential field has a CEO, a doctor, three senators and
one senator-doctor. On Tuesday, when Donald Trump will announce whether he
plans to join the bunch, it could get its first reality TV star.

Already, however, the logic of reality TV has had an effect on all their
campaigns.

The cast of candidates vying to be president includes some who have joined
the race for the same reasons aging sitcom stars put on their dancing shoes
and learn to tango. They know they have little chance of winning, but even
losing could be good for their careers.

The rise of long-shot, nontraditional candidates is a growing trend,
particularly in the recent open Republican contests. None will publicly
admit it, but as was true four years ago, several candidates appear to be
using the presidential race more as a springboard to television or radio
punditry or the speaking circuit than as a contest to actually win office.

Some need to expand their donor base. Others may walk away with a book
deal. All that's required is a healthy ego and few donors.

"You have a category of people who exist in that fuzzy space where
celebrity and politics meet in our culture. You’ve seen, increasingly, a
number of those candidates running,” said Steve Schmidt, a GOP strategist.

The trend gives some traditionalists pause and some party operatives
heartburn as they try to manage a freewheeling and growing field.

To be sure, the party's front-runners – former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida,
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker or Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, for example –
don’t fall into this new group. Some of the second tier – Carly Fiorina or
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina – are viewed as angling for positions
in the next GOP administration. And compared with the 2012 field – which
included the pizza tycoon Herman Cain and the firebrand conservative Rep.
Michele Bachmann – 2016 looks almost staid.

But it’s the sheer number of candidates this year that has created problems
for Republican officials. Four years ago, the largest candidate debates had
eight participants. This year, the party has struggled to find a way to
limit the cast to 10 – with the knowledge that some, like Trump, who come
with high name recognition, could push aside lesser-known but more
substantive hopefuls like Graham.

As Mitt Romney did four years ago, this year’s straight-laced candidates
will have to learn to run alongside less predictable counterparts.

The Republican National Committee emphasizes the upside to the candidate
surge. The field is full of quality candidates, spokeswoman Allison Moore
said.

“We have a neurosurgeon, major CEOs, accomplished governors and senators –
all are highly talented people and capable of defeating Hillary Clinton,”
Moore said.

What’s more, several of the candidates have agreed to share the data they
collect from voters for use during the general election. The more
candidates out there making contact, the better for the eventual nominee,
party strategists say.

The reason Republicans seem to have attracted more nontraditional
candidates than Democrats may be a function of timing. The rise of social
media and digital fundraising has coincided with three consecutive open
races for the GOP nomination.

“More people are running now frankly because social media allows you to
launch a campaign without the funds in the bank or the organization on the
ground,” said Lee Edwards, an expert on the conservative movement at the
Heritage Foundation, who bemoaned the rise of candidates who seem more
concerned about their bank accounts than ideology or party politics.

“Some of these candidates are banking on exposure through things like the
debate. But also, just because they are candidates, this will, frankly,
advance their own careers. We know that if so-and-so is a presidential
candidate he can charge a higher fee for speaking, for an article or for a
book contract.”

The power of conservative media may also play a role. Conservative radio
and Fox News have welcomed some media-savvy also-rans with open arms and
big paychecks. The model here is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, whose
failed bid in 2008 made him a household name, at least in Republican parts
of the country, and landed him a show on Fox News. (Huckabee’s show ended
in January, when he announced he was exploring another run for president.)

Trump fits into a different category, noted Schmidt, one perhaps only he
occupies.

“Politics has always had its showmen, and Donald Trump is a showman,” he
said, but he’s one who taps into a very real sentiment even if he is
accused of making a mockery of the process.

“There are substantial parts of the American population who think it’s
already a joke – that it’s fundamentally not on the level,” said Schmidt,
who in the 2012 campaign referred to that season's GOP candidate debates as
"the best reality show on TV."

“A candidate like that has a potential to tap into that in a pretty
powerful way. No doubt about it.”

*OTHER*

*2016 elections: GOP looks to train now, campaign later
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/republican-gop-rnc-boot-camp/> //
CNN // Mark Preston - June 16, 2015*

Washington - Republicans will convene the first of several political boot
camps next month designed to train staffers and volunteers ahead of 2016 --
an election featuring so many races that it will put a strain on the most
precious campaign commodity: human capital.

The Republican National Committee's "Republican Leadership Initiative" is a
six-week program where activists and fledgling operatives will learn the
nuts and bolts of political campaigning from developing strategy to
registering voters and community organizing.

The first session of the quarterly program begins in July with the goal of
training a "few thousand" people for the 2016 elections, according to an
RNC official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details
not yet been publicly unveiled.

The drive by Republicans to bolster its roster of experienced state-based
operatives comes as the GOP is preparing for what may be an epic battle
with Hillary Clinton for the White House, while at the same time trying to
defend its majority in the U.S. Senate. Also on the ballot in 2016: U.S.
House seats, state legislative seats and a handful of competitive
governor's races.

Of the 11 "battleground" states the RNC official said the program will
focus on this summer -- Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, North
Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin --
eight may feature competitive Senate races. The RNC expects to expand the
program to more states in the fall.

The six-week program follows on the 2013 recommendations detailed in the
Growth and Opportunity Project -- an RNC commissioned report that advised
the GOP to modernize its campaign strategy, soften its rhetoric and put
greater emphasis on engaging minority communities.

Republicans accepted into this unpaid training program will be asked to
commit to between 15 to 30 hours each week for six weeks to learn campaign
strategy.

*Republicans start to throw some elbows at each other
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-start-throw-some-elbows-each-other>
// MSNBC // Steve Benen – June 15, 2015 *

We’re nearly through the initial phase of the presidential campaign – we
know who’s running, who’s well positioned to compete, and roughly what the
candidates’ platforms are going to look like. If this were a literal race,
the runners have all effectively taken their place in the starting blocks.
The next phrase tends to get a little … livelier.

On ABC yesterday morning, “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos said, in
reference to some of the shots across the candidates’ bows, “The gloves are
off, I can see that right now.” I think that’s probably a little premature,
but there appears to be one Republican presidential hopeful who’s more
eager than most to throw some jabs.

Here, for example, is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) going after Sen.
Ted Cruz (R-Texas):

…Christie took aim at 2016 Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz
(Texas) on Friday, accusing him and other lawmakers of “hypocrisy” over
federal disaster relief.  ”We have Sen. Cruz, who voted against Sandy
relief. Now he says he’s got floods in Texas. He says, ‘Hey, we need some
help down here in Texas.’ It’s great, right?” Christie said in the
early-voting state of Iowa, according to CNN.

And here’s Christie taking on Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

“The president’s first job has to be to protect the lives of American
citizens and yet you have folks, some of whom are running for president,
who stood on the floor of the United States Senate and weakened our
country, and then sent videos of it to raise money and brag about how much
money they raised from it,” he said. “To me, that’s a disgrace.”

And here’s Christie going after senators in general:

“Just don’t make the wrong vote on the markup in the subcommittee. Is that
really who you want to run the country? Someone who has become an expert in
not making the wrong vote on the mark-up on the subcommittee?”

How subtle.

To be sure, Christie’s not the only one throwing elbows. Wisconsin Gov.
Scott Walker (R) on Friday drew a contrast between “fighters” and
“winners,” with Republican senators in the former category. “They have yet
to win anything and accomplish anything,” Walker said.

As political pugilism goes, all of these jabs are pretty mild, and we’re
still months away from televised attack ads.

But let this be a reminder to campaign observers: one of the
under-appreciated byproducts of a crowded Republican field is the
inevitable crossfire. These GOP candidates have spent the last few months
complaining about President Obama and Hillary Clinton, but we’re slowly
reaching the point at which they start turning on one another – they have
primary rivals to dispatch before they can prepare in earnest for the
general election.

And when these folks do take the gloves off, it’s going to get ugly.

*TOP NEWS*

*DOMESTIC*

*Goldman to Move Into Online Consumer Lending
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/business/dealbook/goldman-to-move-into-online-consumer-lending.html?partner=rss&emc=rss>
// NYT // Michael Corkery & Nathaniel Popper – June 15, 2015 *

Goldman Sachs has spent 146 years largely as the bank of the powerful and
privileged.

Now the Wall Street powerhouse is working on a new business line: providing
loans that can help you consolidate your credit card debt or remodel your
kitchen.

While the new consumer lending unit is still in the early planning stages,
Goldman has ambitious plans to offer loans of a few thousand dollars to
ordinary Americans and compete with Main Street banks and other lenders.

The new unit will offer the loans through a website or an app — functioning
like a virtual bank in one of the oldest companies on Wall Street. Without
the costs of bank branches and tellers, Goldman can lend the money at lower
interest rates while still making a profit. The company hopes to be ready
to make its first loans next year, people briefed on its plans said.

In devising its new strategy, Goldman is putting itself in league with
start-ups that are similarly trying to use technology to disrupt the
traditional business of finance. Unlike the media and retail industries,
banking has been relatively slow to shed its bricks-and-mortar business
model – a trend Silicon Valley and now Goldman are seeking to exploit.

But the new venture carries considerable risks. After the financial crisis,
Goldman was vilified, accused of profiting while homeowners lost their
properties to foreclosure. If the bank is too hard on its borrowers — suing
a struggling family for unpaid debts, for example — it could revive a
popular image as a bank that earns profits at the expense of ordinary
people.

The lending will also involve Goldman in a relatively risky business in
which it has little previous experience, dealing with ordinary borrowers
with limited financial cushions.

“Everything Goldman has done in the last 30 to 40 years has all been
focused on the commercial side, or things that abut it very closely,” said
Chris Kotowski, a bank analyst with Oppenheimer & Company. “I refuse to
believe that hiring a couple of programmers and offering to make $15,000
loans online is a highly value-added banking strategy.”

Still, this new type of lending could help burnish the firm’s relevance to
mainstream Americans.

The $840 billion consumer loan business is facing a shake-up as online
upstarts like Lending Club, Prosper and even PayPal have begun offering
small loans.

These outsiders have captured only a tiny slice of the market so far. But
with their low overhead, they are persuading some analysts that they will
be able to eat away at the businesses of old-school banks with the legacy
costs of branches and bank tellers.

Jeffery Harte, a bank analyst at Sandler O’Neill and Partners, said,
“Online lending has the potential to be quite disruptive to the way credit
is extended.”

On Wall Street, Goldman has a reputation for spotting businesses that are
being transformed and finding a way to seize the opportunity.

To the degree that Goldman can “assess the risk and price things
electronically, it may be a low cost way of getting into the business,” Mr.
Harte said.

The bank’s push into lending is being led by Harit Talwar, a former top
executive at the credit card giant Discover, who joined Goldman last month.

In a sign of how seriously Goldman is treating the new venture, the company
approached several top consumer finance executives about the job, which
comes with the title of partner, a highly coveted position at Goldman,
people briefed on the matter said. The operation could have a staff of as
many as 100 by the end of the year, the people said.

In a memo to employees announcing Mr. Talwar’s hiring last month, Goldman’s
chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and its president, Gary D. Cohn, noted
that “the traditional means by which financial services are delivered to
consumers and small businesses is being fundamentally reshaped” by
technology and the use of data and analytics.

Some of Goldman’s traditional business lines are under pressure. Sluggish
markets and new regulations have diminished historically profitable areas
like trading, forcing Goldman and other Wall Street companies to hunt for
new sources of revenue.

Before the financial crisis, Wall Street firms were generally not permitted
to do traditional consumer lending because they were not set up as
federally insured banks. But as part of the government bailout in the 2008
crisis, Goldman and its archrival, Morgan Stanley, were required to become
bank holding companies.

Since 2011, the two banks have talked about increasing their lending and
have tripled the amount of outstanding loans — to $42 billion in the case
of Goldman. Until now, though, they have focused on providing mortgagesand
credit lines to existing, generally very wealthy, clients.

With its new business, Goldman will take a very different approach,
offering the types of loans that are traditionally pitched through mailing
blasts to American homes.

The firm is probably going to focus on lending to customers who most likely
would not come close to the $10 million minimum balance required to become
one of Goldman’s private wealth clients. The loans would not be backed by
collateral like a home or automobile, allowing Goldman to charge higher
rates.

“When you are looking around at the universe of asset classes, there is
still nothing better than unsecured American consumer debt,” said Nick
Clements, a former banking executive at Barclays and Citigroup, who
co-founded MagnifyMoney, a website that helps borrowers compare credit card
and loan offers.

Goldman may eventually lend to small businesses, which have typically
struggled to obtain bank loans.

The initial financing for the loans would come from certificates of
deposit, which Goldman has been amassing in recent years. As the business
grows, the bank may securitize the loans – bundle them and sell them to
investors – to reduce some of the risk that it holds on its own books.

Goldman is still considering the details of the loans it will offer. In
early discussions, the firm has been talking about making loans that would
be about $15,000 to $20,000, people briefed on the conversation said. In
terms of distributing the money, Goldman is considering issuing a sort of
prepaid card could be drawn down each time the borrower buys something with
it.

Goldman has not decided whether to attach its name to the loans or market
them under another brand.

Consumer loans can be a fundamentally risky business even for a company
with a reputation for deftly managing risk. Many people take out personal
loans as a last resort to deal with cash flow problems at home or in their
businesses.

“If you grow too fast in the personal loan business, you can get some bad
surprises,” said William N. Callender, a managing director in the financial
services practice of AlixPartners, an advisory firm.

Also, Goldman will have to overcome some powerful forces that favor the
incumbent Main Street banks. Even if Goldman can offer lower rates,
consumers may still favor credit cards over personal loans, simply out of
habit.

“The biggest thing the banks have in their favor is inertia,” said Mr.
Clements, the former consumer banking executive.

*In A.I.G. Case, Surprise Ruling That Could End All Bailouts
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/business/dealbook/surprise-ruling-finds-bailout-shorted-aig.html>
// NYT // Andrew Sorkin – June 15, 2015 *

For years, critics of the bailouts during the financial crisis argued that
the rescue efforts weren’t harsh enough. The chief executives of failing
institutions should have lost their jobs. Shareholders should have suffered
more pain. Taxpayers should have received substantial compensation for the
risk they took.

All that did come to pass in one case: the bailout of the American
International Group, the large insurer and symbol of the crisis. Yet on
Monday, a judge in Washington decided that the government’s actions were
too severe, and the rescue was illegal.

When the Federal Reserve propped up A.I.G. in September 2008, unlike its
approach with most of the big banks, it threw out the company’s chief
executive and took control of 79.9 percent of the company, nearly wiping
out many of its shareholders. Taxpayers got all of their money back, and
then some, receiving a profit of more than $20 billion.

Maurice R. Greenberg, the former chief of A.I.G., argued that the Fed
overstepped its bounds.Ex-A.I.G. Chief Wins Bailout Suit, but Gets No
DamagesJUNE 15, 2015

But in a stunning ruling, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler of the United States
Court of Federal Claims said on Monday that those terms were too
“draconian.” In other words, he suggested taxpayers should have offered
A.I.G. a more generous deal.

The judge’s decision could have far-reaching consequences should another
financial crisis occur — and if history is any guide, one will. Legal
experts say that the ruling, coupled with certain provisions of the
Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law enacted after the crisis, makes it
unlikely the government would ever rescue a failing institution, even if an
intervention was warranted.

Should that happen, and the government decides it is handcuffed by the law
from any intervention, taxpayers can thank Maurice Greenberg, the company’s
former chief executive and one of its largest shareholders. He sued the
government on behalf of shareholders, contending its takeover was illegal
and unfair to investors. The judge largely sided with Mr. Greenberg,
confounding many legal experts who considered the case a long shot. A
federal judge had previously thrown the case out of court, calling Mr.
Greenberg’s accusations “worthy of an Oliver Stone movie.”

However, Judge Wheeler had a more sympathetic ear than his peers. He
determined that the takeover of A.I.G. was orchestrated to “maximize the
benefits to the government and to the taxpaying public.” Contrary to the
conventional wisdom — and common sense — he said that goal was troubling.
“The government’s unduly harsh treatment of A.I.G. in comparison to other
institutions seemingly was misguided and had no legitimate purpose,” he
wrote.

Still, the judge did not award any monetary damages to Mr. Greenberg,
making it a moral victory, but not an economic one. Mr. Greenberg had
sought $40 billion and has spent millions bringing his case.

Judge Wheeler determined that Mr. Greenberg and the other shareholders did
not suffer any economic damage because “if the government had done nothing,
the shareholders would have been left with 100 percent of nothing.” The
judge cited John Studzinski, vice chairman of the Blackstone Group and an
adviser to A.I.G., who had instructed the board to accept the government’s
offer in 2008, telling the room of directors: “Twenty percent of something
[is] better than 100 percent of nothing.”

Inexplicably, that line of logic did not extend to the judge’s ruling that
the government had unfairly taken advantage of A.I.G. by requiring tough
loan terms, including the equity stake and a 12 percent interest rate.

“No matter how rationally A.I.G.’s board addressed its alternatives that
night, and notwithstanding that A.I.G. had a team of outstanding
professional advisers, the fact remains that A.I.G. was at the government’s
mercy,” the judge wrote.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of Federal District Court in Manhattan, who had
previously thrown out the case, had said that the claim that A.I.G.’s board
was under the control of the government was specious. By the logic of Mr.
Greenberg’s case, the judge had written, “a loan shark whose usurious
interest rate is agreed to by a small business so that it may stay afloat
could equally be said to have had actual control over that business so as
to compel its agreement to a loan.”

“The court bizarrely expressed repeated sympathy for A.I.G. while failing
to properly weigh the economic wreckage suffered by the American people,”
Mr. Kelleher said in an email. “It’s the U.S. taxpayers that have been
victimized here by A.I.G. when it acted recklessly, precipitated the crash
of the financial system, took a $185 billion bailout, and then gave bonuses
to some of the very same people who irresponsibly sold the derivatives that
blew up the company.”

Judge Wheeler’s analysis, in comparing how A.I.G.’s rescue was handled
relative to the big banks, appears to ignore the realities of the
regulatory oversight rules at the time. The judge criticized the government
for taking control of A.I.G. while not doing so for the banks. But the Fed
did not have regulatory oversight of A.I.G., which is an insurance company,
and therefore couldn’t maintain the same kind of control it did over the
banks. Similarly, the judge criticized the Fed for creating a trust to hold
the shares of A.I.G. because the Fed technically can’t own equity in
companies. “The creation of the trust in an attempt to circumvent the legal
restriction on holding corporate equity is a classic elevation of form over
substance.”

The government was sticking to its guns on Monday. “The court confirmed
today that A.I.G. shareholders were not harmed by those actions,” the
Treasury Department said in a statement.  “We disagree with the court’s
conclusion regarding the Federal Reserve’s legal authority and continue to
believe that the government acted well within legal bounds.”

While the ruling is likely to be appealed, possibly all the way to the
Supreme Court, the head-scratching decision will undoubtedly have an effect
on future bailouts, intended or unintended.

Hester Peirce, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George
Mason University, who is reportedly among the candidates for a Republican
seat on the Securities and Exchange Commission, wrote last year that if Mr.
Greenberg prevailed in his case, “it would strike a blow to too-big-to-fail
by adding to the bailout calculus the specter of subsequent courtroom
payouts to allegedly aggrieved shareholders.”

*Obama Administration Seeks to Reassure Allies After Trade Rebuke
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-seeks-to-reassure-allies-after-trade-rebuke-1434403144>
// WSJ // William Mauldin – June 15, 2015 *

President Barack Obama’s trade czar expressed cautious optimism that
Congress will overcome a deep divide over trade legislation, saying he
called foreign officials over the weekend to reassure them bipartisan
support for a trade package would pave the way for a sweeping trans-Pacific
deal.

Mike Froman, the U.S. trade representative, said he has been in touch with
a number of U.S. trading partners since a rebellion among Democrats on
Friday sank a workers-aid program that was a vital piece of a package that
would give Mr. Obama fast-track trade authority.

“Our trading partners are very much watching and assessing where we are,”
Mr. Froman said in an interview Monday. “They are looking for signs that we
will be able to close the negotiations successfully.”

The House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, led most of her party in
voting down the workers-aid program, known as trade adjustment assistance,
or TAA. House Democrats called the workers-aid program inadequate and
improperly funded and opposed it as a way of simultaneously halting the
fast-track measure paired with it under House procedural rules.

Mr. Obama is seeking fast-track power, also known as trade promotion
authority, so he and Mr. Froman can clinch a 12-nation agreement in the
Pacific and later give it to Congress for expedited consideration, without
the possibility of amendments. Officials from the other countries have said
they don’t want to make painful concessions to seal the Pacific deal
without proof the U.S. Congress is on board.

Mr. Froman declined to say what legislative techniques could be used to
rescue the trade package, but said he hoped lawmakers understand that
voting against the renewal of TAA could hurt workers who depend on the
program. “It’s beginning to sink in that that’s now at risk,” he said.

Derailing fast track could further call into question the ability of the
U.S. to lead on global economic policy as China is flexing its muscles in
the Pacific. The trade agreement under negotiation, known as the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, includes Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam,
but not China.

“This is about the role of the United States in the world,” Mr. Froman said.

After a surprise appearance at the Capitol on Friday, Mr. Obama remains
“personally engaged” in the fight for his trade policy, Mr. Froman said.

“We’re quite pleased to see that there are majorities” in both chambers
that support the underlying fast-track measure, Mr. Froman said. Even
though the fast-track portion got a majority in the House, the measure was
derailed anyway due to a procedural mechanism that bound it to the
workers-aid program. “There are a number of different options for dealing
with it,” he said.

*'No One Will Be Negotiating With Leader Pelosi On A Path Forward'
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/15/nancy-pelosi-taa_n_7590154.html?1434413924>
// HuffPo // Ryan Grim & Jennifer Bendery – June 15, 2015 *

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has no plans to negotiate with House
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) after her caucus torpedoed a
trade deal backed by President Barack Obama and Boehner, a GOP leadership
aide told The Huffington Post on Monday.

Without talks between Boehner and Pelosi, it's difficult to see how Obama's
trade agenda can be revived.

The Senate has already passed a trade measure that includes a provision to
put future trade deals on a fast track -- known as trade promotion
authority, or TPA -- through Congress, and also has set aside funds --
trade adjustment assistance, or TAA -- for workers dislocated by those same
deals.

The House needed to pass both provisions for the overall measure to make it
to the president's desk. Republicans were unwilling to vote to support the
money for workers, but Democrats realized if they, too, rejected the
support for workers, the entire package would go down.

On Thursday night, Pelosi and Boehner, who'd been hammering out details of
the two packages for days, met on the House floor to swap notes. Pelosi
asked Boehner how many votes he could deliver for the funding for
dislocated workers. He guessed roughly 100.

"How about 150?" she said, according to sources in both parties.

After the failed vote, Pelosi said a "robust" highway bill could perhaps
ease the path to finding the votes needed, but she and Boehner have not
been engaged in negotiations, and won't anytime soon.

"After negotiating in bad faith for 3 days and successfully getting the
process she demanded for consideration of TAA and TPA, Leader Pelosi turned
around and screwed the President and the Speaker. No one will be
negotiating with Leader Pelosi on a path forward," a House Republican
leadership aide said in a statement to HuffPost.

For now, House Republican leaders simply don't have the votes to pass the
trade package and need more time to find them. They plan to take a
procedural vote on Tuesday to give themselves until July 30 to come up with
a way forward.

“We remain committed to getting TPA done, and this will give the president
more time to communicate the consequences of not moving forward with his
party," said Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith.

As frustrated as they may be, proponents of the trade deal conceded they
may need Pelosi to get it over the finish line.

"You'll have to ask her," grumbled Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), when asked
Friday why he thinks his party leader voted against moving the trade
package, before adding: "Obviously it's going to be hard to get a TAA bill
done without her support."

Boehner's count of 100 was slightly optimistic. At one point during the TAA
roll call, Republicans had 93 members voting yes. Once it became clear it
was going down, seven switched and voted no. Theoretically, Republicans
could pass TAA on their own and assure passage of the TPA bill they
desperately want, but many aren't willing to swallow the TAA piece. That
means that to get to the 218 votes needed to pass, Democrats would need to
provide 125 votes. They only produced 40 votes Thursday.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest downplayed the seriousness of last
week's setback, calling it a "legislative snafu" in the House, in what The
Wall Street Journal described as "typically oblivious aplomb." He said that
the president and others in the White House have been in regular talks to
find a way forward.

One of those administration officials making calls was White House chief of
staff Denis McDonough, who spoke to Pelosi on Monday. Neither the White
House nor Pelosi's office gave details about their conversation.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, backed Pelosi's approach to the trade deal
during a Sunday speech in Iowa. Clinton said that if the president can't
come to terms with House Democratic leader, there should be no deal.

"Here's what I think should happen now," Clinton said. "The president
should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with Nancy
Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak
agreement would have on our workers, to make sure we get the best,
strongest deal possible and if we don't get it, there should be no deal."

Earnest dismissed the idea that Clinton was out of step with the White
House push on trade.

"I think what Secretary Clinton articulated over the weekend is a view that
she is neither reflexively in favor of trade agreements nor reflexively
against them," said the White House spokesman. "She indicated that her test
would be to examine an agreement and determine whether or not it was in the
best interest of our national security, and to determine whether or not it
was in the best interest of American workers."

A re-enactment of Earnest's statements over the last few days is below.

*INTERNATIONAL*

*Uncertainty over US strike against al-Qaida leader in Libya
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b80013646d354dadbef3907523bf5150/libyan-islamist-says-us-strike-missed-al-qaida-linked>
// AP // Sarah El Deeb And Maggie Michael – June 15, 2015 *

Pentagon officials say they believe they hit their target — the one-eyed,
al-Qaida-linked commander who led a deadly attack on an Algerian gas
facility in 2013. But uncertainty still surrounds the U.S. airstrike in
eastern Libya, and whether Mokhtar Belmokhtar was actually among the
militants said to have been killed in the bombing.

Libyan officials say Sunday's airstrike hit a gathering of militants on a
farm outside Ajdabiya, a coastal city about 850 kilometers (530 miles) east
of the capital, Tripoli, but there were conflicting reports on how many
died.

An initial assessment shows the bombing that targeted Belmokhtar was
successful, and "post-strike assessments" were still underway Monday to
determine whether the Algerian militant was killed, said Col. Steve Warren,
a Pentagon spokesman.

"But we're not prepared to confirm that because we haven't finalized our
assessment," he said, adding that the strike had hit a "hard structure."

Maj. Mohammed Hegazi, a military spokesman from Libya's internationally
recognized government based in the east, also said tests were needed to
identify the dead, which numbered at least 17, with their bodies badly
burned. Among those killed were three foreigners — a Tunisian and two
unidentified militants, he said.

Hegazi criticized his own government for rushing to confirm late Sunday
that Belmokhtar was among the dead.

"I don't confirm or deny. We are waiting confirmation," he told The
Associated Press by telephone. "It is not easy."

He said the raid was based on solid intelligence that indicated militants
forced out of the eastern city of Benghazi by fighting there had taken
refuge in Ajdabiya.

No civilians were killed, Hegazi said, adding that the militants took the
fatally wounded Tunisian to a hospital in Ajdabiya, clashes erupted with
local troops that left three soldiers dead.

In the airstrikes, two F-15 fighter jets had launched multiple 500-pound
bombs, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the
official was not authorized to discuss details of the attack. Authorities
say no U.S. personnel were on the ground for the assault.

A Libyan Islamist with ties to militants said the airstrikes missed
Belmokhtar, but killed four members of a Libyan extremist group linked to
al-Qaida, Ansar Shariah, in Ajdabiya. That group was tied to the Sept. 11,
2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris
Stevens and three other Americans.

The Islamist, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal in
Libya, told the AP that Belmokhtar wasn't at the site of the airstrike.

However, a news website that has previously carried statements from
Belmokhtar said he was in Ajdabiya, meeting with affiliates. The
Mauritanian website quoted informed sources in Libya as saying six people
were killed in the raid, and a Tunisian and Yemeni were wounded.

Abdel-Basit Haroun, a security adviser to the eastern government, said a
total of 29 people were killed in the airstrike, which hit a meeting of
al-Qaida affiliates as they tried to "rearrange their ranks."

If Belmokhtar's death is confirmed, it would be a major success for U.S.
counterterrorism efforts. He is one of the most-wanted militants in the
region, with a $5 million reward for information leading to his capture,
and it is not the first time authorities claimed to have killed him.

Believed to be 43 years old, Belmokhtar fought in Afghanistan and was
reported to have lost his eye in combat. He was one of a number of Islamist
fighters who have battled Algeria's government since the 1990s, later
joining al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, the group's North Africa branch.

He was also known as "Belaouer the One-Eyed," ''Abou al-Abbes" and "Mr.
Marlboro," because he was accused of smuggling cigarettes through the
Sahara and the Sahel region.

He formed his own group and led the January 2013 attack on Algeria's Ain
Amenas gas complex that killed at least 35 hostages, including three
Americans. He later emerged in Libya, and is believed to have been based in
the western and southern parts of the country.

The U.S. filed terrorism charges against Belmokhtar in connection with the
Algeria attack. Officials have said they believe he remained a threat to
U.S. and Western interests. Belmokhtar had just split off from al-Qaida in
the Islamic Maghreb to start his own franchise.

The charges filed against him by U.S. law enforcement officials included
conspiring to support al-Qaida, use of a weapon of mass destruction and
conspiring to take hostages.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara had said Belmokhtar "unleashed a reign of
terror years ago, in furtherance of his self-proclaimed goal of waging
bloody jihad against the West."

Intelligence officials said Belmokhtar had essentially built a bridge
between AQIM and the underworld, creating a system where various outlaws
support each other and enroll youths.

He's been linked to terrorist attacks and the lucrative kidnapping of
foreigners in the region.

Libya has been plagued by chaos since the civil war in 2011, which drew in
U.S. and European airstrikes that helped topple longtime dictator Moammar
Gadhafi. He was killed by armed groups, which have since grown to roil the
country in violence.

Recently, the internationally recognized government, backed by its own
militias, has been forced out of Tripoli by Islamist militias and their
affiliated politicians who set up their own government and parliament.

U.N.-sponsored talks have bogged down as the two sides exchange accusations.

The weekend U.S. bombing raid could cause more disarray among the rival
Libyan groups.

A Facebook page associated with Libya Dawn, the Islamist militia backing
the Tripoli-based government, denied that the airstrikes targeted al-Qaida
and instead said they targeted Islamists who are "Libya's revolutionaries
... considered the safety valve for the revolution." It said U.S. warplanes
were allied with the forces led by powerful Gen. Khalifa Hifter and backing
the internationally recognized government.

The east-based government hailed the U.S. raid as a "piece of the
international support that it has long requested to fight terrorism that
represents a dangerous threat to the regional and international situation."

It added that the government would like more help fighting terrorism,
including the Islamic State group, which controls Sirte, west of Ajdabiya,
and is spreading to the west and south.

Militants have taken advantage of Libya's chaos, with fighters flowing into
the country's vast ungoverned spaces.

Al-Qaida militants in eastern Libya are battling the Islamic State group
for power and resources. But as IS has grown in power, fueled by successes
in Iraq and Syria, some al-Qaida fighters have switched loyalties.

It was not the first time the U.S. has been involved in the fight against
Libyan extremists. U.S. special forces went into Tripoli in 2013 and took
Abu Anas al-Libi out of the country. Al-Libi, who was accused by the U.S.
of involvement in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa, died
in January in a U.S. hospital from a longstanding medical condition.

*Pope's climate change encyclical leaks
<http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/245002-popes-climate-change-encyclical-leaks>
// The Hill // Devin Henry – June 15, 2015 *

An Italian magazine on Monday posted an early draft version of Pope
Francis’ highly anticipated environment encyclical, a move that a Vatican
official denounced as a "heinous act."

L'Espresso posted the 192-page Italian language document on Monday, four
days before the Vatican is planning to release the public version.
According to the National Catholic Reporter, the text is an early draft of
the encyclical, which is expected to make a moral case for taking on
climate change.

A Vatican official told Bloomberg News that the leak is "heinous act," and
a spokesman said news organizations should not report on the document until
the final version comes out at noon in Rome on Thursday.

"You are invited to respect the journalistic honesty that requests you wait
for the official publication of the final text," Jesuit Fr. Federico
Lombardi said in a statement, per the National Catholic Reporter.

In the draft, the pope says that human activity is driving climate change,
according to a translationby Crux, a Boston Globe website focused on the
Catholic issues.

The encyclical calls for “changes in styles of life, of production and
consumption, to combat this warming, or, at least, the human causes that
produce and exacerbate it.”

Francis writes that the Earth “protests for the evil that we’ve caused due
to irresponsible use and abuse” of natural resources. He calls for a
greater focus on a “sustainable and integral form of development” to combat
climate change in the future.

“We grew up thinking we were the earth’s owners and dominators, authorized
to pillage it,” Francis writes. “Violence in the human heart wounded by sin
shows itself also in the symptoms of disease that we see in the soil, the
water, the air and living creatures.”

The document calls climate change “one of the principal challenges now
facing humanity," according to Crux, and it asks readers to accept that
it's actually happening.

“It’s enough to look at reality with sincerity to see that there’s a great
deterioration in our common home,” the encyclical says.

The encyclical, titled "Laudato Si, On the care of the common home,” comes
ahead of a major international climate conference later this year. It is
Francis’ second encyclical and will be his most thorough discussion of
environmental issues to date, though he’s long advocated for a more active
role in protecting the environment.

“This encyclical is addressed to all,” Francis said on Sunday. “Let us pray
that all receive its message and grow in responsibility towards the common
home that God has entrusted to us all."

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS*

*Hillary Clinton’s first ‘hard choice’ on trade
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clintons-first-hard-choice/2015/06/15/81e352c2-1395-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html>
//
WaPo // The Editorial Board – June 15, 2015 *

AFTER WORLD War II, the United States and its allies labored mightily to
construct a global freetrade regime. They did so for many reasons, not
least to avoid the trade wars that had fueled international tension and,
ultimately, global conflict. In other words, trade — and the prosperity and
interdependence it engenders — was central to both U.S. economic strategy
and U.S. security policy.

Understanding this, and hoping to extend past achievements into the 21st
century, President Obama is seeking Trade Promotion Authority from Congress
so as to negotiate a consolidation of trade relationships with Pacific Rim
nations, the most crucial of which is Japan, to be followed by an agreement
deepening U.S. economic ties with Europe. It may be a turning point in
contemporary history; if the president succeeds, the United States’
leadership could be strengthened for a generation. If he fails, U.S.
influence will ebb, and, with it, American prosperity and security alike.

Of all the people who should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Mr.
Obama at this moment, none could do more to help him than Hillary Clinton,
who was an enthusiastic champion of these agreements throughout her tenure
as secretary of state. The resistance to Mr. Obama’s trade agenda is led by
Democrats in the House who fear that supporting the president will earn
them the enmity of organized labor and other progressive groups that
simplistically denounce the president’s trade agenda as a threat to jobs
and the environment. These Democrats are joined, and validated, in this
shortsighted position by Ms. Clinton’s rivals for the Democratic
nomination, former governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland and Sen. Bernard
Sanders (IVt.).

Think of the bracing effect it might have had on her fellow Democrats if
Ms. Clinton had stood up against electionyear political pressure and
reiterated what she said as America’s top diplomat in 2012: “that we need
to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the
region through agreements like the TransPacific Partnership, or TPP.”
Imagine if she had read from her memoir, published just last year under the
now ironic title “Hard Choices”: The TPP, Ms. Clinton wrote, “was also
important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more
level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would
strengthen the position of the United States in Asia.”

Instead, Ms. Clinton broke her silence on the issue only long enough to
equivocate about it, or, as she did Monday, to expand on the “legitimate”
concerns of opponents of the TPP — and secondguess the president’s
strategy. With 18 months to go in his second term, she now advises Mr.
Obama to use the House Democrats’ obstruction of Trade Promotion Authority
as “leverage” against the 11 negotiating partners; perhaps to reopen it
just as the Obama administration spent a couple of years redoing the
U.S.Korea trade deal it inherited from the Bush administration.

What this politically unrealistic advice did not include, however, was a
simple yes or no to the question of whether Mr. Obama should have the
additional bargaining power of Trade Promotion Authority now, as he
requests. And that is the question of the hour.

*How Obama Abandoned Israel
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-obama-abandoned-israel-1434409772> // WSJ
// Michael Oren – June 15, 2015 *

‘Nobody has a monopoly on making mistakes.” When I was Israel’s ambassador
to the United States from 2009 to the end of 2013, that was my standard
response to reporters asking who bore the greatest responsibility—President
Barack Obama or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—for the crisis in
U.S.-Israel relations.

I never felt like I was lying when I said it. But, in truth, while neither
leader monopolized mistakes, only one leader made them deliberately.

Israel blundered in how it announced the expansion of Jewish neighborhoods
and communities in Jerusalem over the border lines that existed before the
Six Day War in 1967. On two occasions, the news came out during Mr.
Netanyahu’s meetings with Vice President Joe Biden. A solid friend of
Israel, Mr. Biden understandably took offense. Even when the White House
stood by Israel, blocking hostile resolutions in the United Nations,
settlement expansion often continued.

In a May 2012 Oval Office meeting, Mr. Netanyahu purportedly “lectured”
Obama about the peace process. Later that year, he was reported to be
backing Republican contenderMitt Romney in the presidential elections. This
spring, the prime minister criticized Mr. Obama’s Iran policy before a
joint meeting of Congress that was arranged without even informing the
president.

Yet many of Israel’s bungles were not committed by Mr. Netanyahu
personally. In both episodes with Mr. Biden, for example, the announcements
were issued by midlevel officials who also caught the prime minister
off-guard. Nevertheless, he personally apologized to the vice president.

Mr. Netanyahu’s only premeditated misstep was his speech to Congress, which
I recommended against. Even that decision, though, came in reaction to a
calculated mistake by President Obama. From the moment he entered office,
Mr. Obama promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and
achieving a nuclear accord with Iran. Such policies would have put him at
odds with any Israeli leader. But Mr. Obama posed an even more fundamental
challenge by abandoning the two core principles of Israel’s alliance with
America.

The first principle was “no daylight.” The U.S. and Israel always could
disagree but never openly. Doing so would encourage common enemies and
render Israel vulnerable. Contrary to many of his detractors, Mr. Obama was
never anti-Israel and, to his credit, he significantly strengthened
security cooperation with the Jewish state. He rushed to help Israel in
2011 when the Carmel forest was devastated by fire. And yet, immediately
after his first inauguration, Mr. Obama put daylight between Israel and
America.

“When there is no daylight,” the president told American Jewish leaders in
2009, “Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility
with the Arabs.” The explanation ignored Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza
and its two previous offers of Palestinian statehood in Gaza, almost the
entire West Bank and half of Jerusalem—both offers rejected by the
Palestinians.

Mr. Obama also voided President George W. Bush’s commitment to include the
major settlement blocs and Jewish Jerusalem within Israel’s borders in any
peace agreement. Instead, he insisted on a total freeze of Israeli
construction in those areas—“not a single brick,” I later heard he ordered
Mr. Netanyahu—while making no substantive demands of the Palestinians.

Consequently, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas boycotted negotiations,
reconciled with Hamas and sought statehood in the U.N.—all in violation of
his commitments to the U.S.—but he never paid a price. By contrast, the
White House routinely condemned Mr. Netanyahu for building in areas that
even Palestinian negotiators had agreed would remain part of Israel.

The other core principle was “no surprises.” President Obama discarded it
in his first meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, in May 2009, by abruptly demanding
a settlement freeze and Israeli acceptance of the two-state solution. The
following month the president traveled to the Middle East, pointedly
skipping Israel and addressing the Muslim world from Cairo.

Israeli leaders typically received advance copies of major American policy
statements on the Middle East and could submit their comments. But Mr.
Obama delivered his Cairo speech, with its unprecedented support for the
Palestinians and its recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear power, without
consulting Israel.

Similarly, in May 2011, the president altered 40 years of U.S. policy by
endorsing the 1967 lines with land swaps—formerly the Palestinian
position—as the basis for peace-making. If Mr. Netanyahu appeared to
lecture the president the following day, it was because he had been assured
by the White House, through me, that no such change would happen.

Israel was also stunned to learn that Mr. Obama offered to sponsor a U.N.
Security Council investigation of the settlements and to back Egyptian and
Turkish efforts to force Israel to reveal its alleged nuclear capabilities.
Mr. Netanyahu eventually agreed to a 10-month moratorium on settlement
construction—the first such moratorium since 1967—and backed the creation
of a Palestinian state. He was taken aback, however, when he received
little credit for these concessions from Mr. Obama, who more than once
publicly snubbed him.

The abandonment of the “no daylight” and “no surprises” principles climaxed
over the Iranian nuclear program. Throughout my years in Washington, I
participated in intimate and frank discussions with U.S. officials on the
Iranian program. But parallel to the talks came administration statements
and leaks—for example, each time Israeli warplanes reportedly struck
Hezbollah-bound arms convoys in Syria—intended to deter Israel from
striking Iran pre-emptively.

Finally, in 2014, Israel discovered that its primary ally had for months
been secretly negotiating with its deadliest enemy. The talks resulted in
an interim agreement that the great majority of Israelis considered a “bad
deal” with an irrational, genocidal regime. Mr. Obama, though, insisted
that Iran was a rational and potentially “very successful regional power.”

The daylight between Israel and the U.S. could not have been more blinding.
And for Israelis who repeatedly heard the president pledge that he “had
their backs” and “was not bluffing” about the military option, only to
watch him tell an Israeli interviewer that “a military solution cannot fix”
the Iranian nuclear threat, the astonishment could not have been greater.

Now, with the Middle East unraveling and dependable allies a rarity, the
U.S. and Israel must restore the “no daylight” and “no surprises”
principles. Israel has no alternative to America as a source of security
aid, diplomatic backing and overwhelming popular support. The U.S. has no
substitute for the state that, though small, remains democratic, militarily
and technologically robust, strategically located and unreservedly
pro-American.

The past six years have seen successive crises in U.S.-Israeli relations,
and there is a need to set the record straight. But the greater need is to
ensure a future of minimal mistakes and prevent further erosion of our
vital alliance.

*Hillary Clinton is owning the joke about her fashion choices — and it’s
working
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/06/16/hillary-clinton-is-owning-the-joke-about-her-fashion-choices-and-its-working/>
// WaPo // Robin Givhan - June 16, 2015*

Hillary Clinton, candidate for president, has been making jokes about
fashion. They have not exactly been rib-cracking laugh lines, but they have
been knowing, droll, even a bit silly. But mostly, they have not been
defensive.

Instead, Clinton has gone on the offensive by finding humor in her fashion
foibles and beauty regimen. Sometimes she takes up the shtick of her
critics and makes it her own. Or she recognizes the joke and tells it
before others have the chance. She long ago found a timeless aesthetic that
works for her: pantsuit (preferably with matching blouse), blond bob,
statement necklace, sensible heels. Now she has taken full ownership of it.

The fashion monster has — for the moment — been wrestled into submission.
Clinton stands victorious.

Is this pantsuit blue enough for you? (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

She put the stake in her tormentor on Roosevelt Island as she delivered her
first big campaign speech. There she stood, in her new royal blue silk
suit, making cracks about dyeing her hair.

“All our Presidents come into office looking so vigorous. And then we watch
their hair grow grayer and grayer,” Clinton said. “Well, I may not be the
youngest candidate in this race. But I will be the youngest woman president
in the history of the United States! And the first grandmother as well. And
one additional advantage: You’re won’t see my hair turn white in the White
House. I’ve been coloring it for years!”

The image of her against a backdrop of cerulean blue sky and flag-waving
throngs combined with the cheeky comment about her hair to make a statement
about comfort, familiarity and confidence — at least in the realm of public
presentation. Here was Clinton laughing about her hair in a manner that was
not the usual wry and grumpy remark about the pressures on women to be
young, thin and Barbie-doll attractive. (“Your hair will send significant
messages to those around you,” she said, mockingly during a Class Day
speech at Yale in 2001. “What hopes and dreams you have for the world, but
more, what hopes and dreams you have for your hair. Pay attention to your
hair, because everyone else will.”)

Saturday’s was a different kind of comment. It acknowledged a bit of
vanity, indulgence and stage craft. It was an Everywoman comment —
self-conscious to be sure, but not fraught with feminist theory.

The light-hearted observation took direct aim at a topic raised by
conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh during the 2008 campaign: “Will
Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily
basis? And that woman, by the way, is not going to want to look like she’s
getting older, because it will impact poll numbers. It will impact
perceptions. In politics, perceptions are reality.”

Clinton’s joke addressed that question before it could become an issue,
again. Because surely it would.

And yes, blond hair is high-maintenance, in case you were wondering or
perhaps had forgotten. But you don’t want to witness the alternative, do
you?

Clinton’s suit was designed by Ralph Lauren, who is known for his
celebration and elevation of Americana. The label that has been worn by
those who summer in exclusive New England enclaves, as well as those who
spent their July and August only dreaming about such luxuries. Lauren, a
self-made man, donated $13 million in 1998 to preserve the original
Star-Spangled Banner hung at Fort McHenry in 1814. In 2014, he received the
James Smithson Bicentennial Medal for his patriotism and philanthropy
during a ceremony at the National Museum of American History. Could there
be a better example of bootstrapping, entrepreneurial all-American success?
Clinton was there for the occasion — wearing an eerily similar suit also
designed by Lauren in cobalt blue silk.

According to the folks at Ralph Lauren, the Roosevelt Island ensemble was
new. But really, who could tell other than Clinton herself? For a campaign
that’s putting its senior staff on the Vamoose bus, Clinton could have made
a sly nod to frugality. On her biggest campaign event so far, she could
have shopped her closet. Instead, she had her own private little fashion
moment.

Clinton has done more than reach détente with fashion. Fashion is now
working for her — as a pleasure, an aesthetic proposition, as well as a
campaign symbol. After years of dabbling in Donna Karan and St. John
Collection, contact lenses and headbands, skirts and millinery, she finally
said “enough.” In 2012, while Secretary of State, she faced the public in
an official capacity without makeup and wearing her once-maligned
eyeglasses. Observers commented and debated the professionalism of her
appearance. She did not look bad, although she certainly appeared tired.
She eschewed the standard accouterments of the female professional class.
When asked about her natural look, she laughed and noted she’d reached a
stage in life when she felt empowered to dress as she pleased. Not to flout
civility and good manners, but to make choices that more honestly
represented her. Indeed, admitting that she had made a considered decision
about her appearance — and decided to ignore all the unwritten rules — was
a kind of victory for personal style in the political realm.

Clinton is now using her much-discussed and undiminished love of a
brightly-colored pantsuit as a fundraising device. From her Senate campaign
to her first presidential race, she has made cracks about her affection for
the practical ensemble. In speeches, she referred to “my sisterhood of the
traveling pantsuits.” In multiple appearances on “The Late Show with David
Letterman,” they were reliable fodder for a chuckle. And in informal
settings, off-hand comments about them served as icebreakers.

The cracks about her pantsuits framed her as a no-frills, serious-minded
politician with a uniform — albeit one that came in every color of the
rainbow.  It often seemed as though she delighted in these jokes because
they set her outside the realm of fashion. They gave her a pass when it
came to considerations of her style.

In her second presidential campaign, she’s still wearing the pantsuits and
she’s still making jokes, but this time the jokes are aimed to cash in.
Supporters can purchase a red “everyday pantsuit tee,” with its tromp
l’oeil print of a blazer, for $30.

To deflect the barbs about her style, Clinton used comedy as a defense. But
through the jokes and the one-liners, she built her own fashion vocabulary.
She found a way of talking about her personal aesthetics. And she’s
pointedly redefining them on the public stage.

*Why Jim Webb Is the Most Interesting Candidate in the Democratic Primary
<http://observer.com/2015/06/why-jim-webb-is-the-most-interesting-candidate-in-the-democratic-primary/>
// The Observer // Jimmy Soni – June 15, 2015 *

What is the point of the Democratic primary?

For the media, the point is figuring out how to make the inevitable
interesting. For Hillary Clinton, the point is to make it through Super
Tuesday with a minimum of drama and damage.

Ask Jim Webb that question, though, and you’re likely to get an answer
befitting someone who morphed from a Reagan Republican to an Elizabeth
Warren Democrat; who entered an unwinnable Senate race in 2006 and won; who
gave one of the only successful State of the Union responses in recent
memory; who got bored of the Senate and quit to write books; and who became
the first member of his party to explore the 2016 presidential race, with a
longshot, shoestring campaign that’s still waiting for traction. As Webb
put it in his latest book, “All I have asked, as the ancient philosopher
intoned, is not to be understood too quickly.”

In other words: it’s complicated.

It’s complicated by the fact that Webb fits uncomfortably into his party’s
ideological boxes, and by the fact that the Vietnam veteran and ex-Navy
Secretary enjoys politics about as much as the average low-information
voter. Yet I’m convinced that Jim Webb is going to make noise this election
season. Let’s not expect him to derail the Clinton juggernaut—but let’s be
thankful that the Democratic primary is going to give one of the most
interesting people in politics a public stage.

Yes, Webb is polling at around 1 percent right now. But here’s why that
number is going up.

He was Elizabeth Warren before it was cool.

It’s clear that the Clinton-Warren showdown that much of the Democratic
base has been pining for is not going to happen. That means Warren’s
defining issues—economic fairness, record inequality, and the political
power of big finance—are up for grabs, and Webb is well-positioned to put
them at the center of his campaign.

As early as 2006, he was calling out economic elites in the kind of
blistering language that seems to have anticipated Warren’s appeal: “The
most important—and unfortunately the least debated—issue in politics today
is our society’s steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of
which we have not seen since the 19th century. America’s top tier has grown
infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair
to say that they are literally living in a different country.” In the
Senate, he supported a tax on bonuses for executives whose companies
received government bailouts, as well as a higher capital gains tax.

Whatever you think of that version of economic fairness, it strikes a
serious chord with the Democratic base. Can Clinton capitalize on it? She
can try. But economic populism is always going to sit awkwardly on a
politician with Clinton’s personal wealth and ties to the financial
industry. Webb isn’t impoverished by any stretch—but he’s a lot closer to
the rest of us than Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.

He can broaden his party’s appeal.

It’s true that other would-be Clinton challengers, like Bernie Sanders and
Martin O’Malley, are running to her left on the economy. But while they
share the culture of East Coast, urban liberalism, a Virginian like Webb
comes out of a different tradition—the Southern populism that was once the
Democratic party’s backbone. Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, a Democratic
strategist who’s still close to Webb, put it this way: “His constituency is
people who feel like they’re getting screwed.”

If working-class, white voters represent the Achilles heel of the current
Democratic coalition, Webb is the candidate best placed to bring them into
the fold. Part of that is a question of symbolic signifiers, like the
combat boots Webb famously wore during his Senate campaign, in honor of his
son, who was deployed in Iraq. But it’s also his own military service,
which resonates heavily in rural America. Along with Rick Perry and Lindsey
Graham, Webb is one of just three 2016 candidates with military experience.
But Webb is by far the most decorated: he returned from Vietnam with a Navy
Cross, two Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and shrapnel
that he still carries in his body.

Beyond that, Webb’s service in the Reagan administration and his positions
on issues like gun control and immigration, which are to the right of his
party’s liberal mainstream, could make him competitive in states that
haven’t been in the blue column since the days of Bill Clinton. At the very
least, he’s capable of pinning down the very fickle blueness of Virginia
and continuing Barack Obama’s inroads into North Carolina, two huge states
for Democrats in 2016. Webb’s ability to expand the electoral map is worth
taking seriously in an election year when Republican frontrunners like Jeb
Bush and Marco Rubio (and VP hopefuls like John Kasich) stand a strong
chance of making gains in Democratic territory.

He has unmatched credibility on foreign policy.

At the center of Hillary Clinton’s case for the presidency is the fact that
she’s tough and tested, a politician who’s truly been through the wringer
and come out standing. But just as Webb’s economic views capture part of
Warren’s populism, his time in government and the military captures part of
Clinton’s tenacity and experience.

Make what you will of the value of “executive experience,” but actual time
inside the belly of the federal government can make a real difference. A
huge part of the president’s power comes from his or her ability to push
and prod the executive bureaucracy—especially in the current partisan
environment, where the president’s influence over legislation is limited.
Skill at navigating byzantine bureaucracies isn’t the sexiest campaign
selling point, but it’s an underrated asset and one that Webb can credibly
claim as a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy.

Granted, Webb wasn’t especially long-lived in the latter post—he resigned
in protest of a plan to cut the size of the fleet—but we shouldn’t
underestimate the importance of his time in and around the military to his
foreign policy judgments. Remember, he opposed President Bush’s Iraq war
and President Obama’s intervention in Libya, which helped topple a dictator
but set off a spiral of civil bloodshed. Clinton, on the other hand,
arguably got both of those calls wrong.

But credibility on foreign policy issues is about more than just casting
the right votes. As Navy veteran Ken Harbaugh wrote at Time.com,
“Presidents with military experience, especially in combat roles, have
undergone the kind of test that politics cannot match. As
Commanders-in-Chief, they carry with them real empathy, the kind that
cannot be faked, towards the men and women they will inevitably send into
harm’s way.” Webb is the only contender in the race who has seen combat,
the only one you could imagine saying, as Dwight Eisenhower once said, “I
hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can.” (Though Webb would
probably give you an ugly look if you called him a soldier instead of a
Marine.)

Consider the citation for Webb’s Silver Star. In 1969, on a search and
destroy mission deep behind enemy lines, First Lieutenant Webb attacked two
bunkers and apprehended three enemy soldiers, seemingly on his own. As the
assault continued,

he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the
enemy threw another grenade. Observing the grenade land dangerously close
to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at
the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from
the explosion with his own body. Although sustaining painful fragmentation
wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture
and completely destroy the remaining bunker.

But as heroic as that was, does it matter today? I think it does. The
president decides when and whether to send people to fight and die
overseas, and the next president will become a wartime leader the second he
or she takes the oath. There’s a moral authority in being able to say to
the soldiers under their command, “I’m not asking you to do what I haven’t
done. I’ve been there.”

He hates politics.

From Ross Perot to John McCain in his more candid moments, Americans have
long had a thing for anti-politicians. Anti-politicians can still run for
office—it’s just that they aren’t defined by vote-chasing and
poll-watching. Like the kid in the back of the class shooting spitballs,
the anti-politician appeals to the rebels, scares the establishment, and
makes the rest of us pay attention.

In a field of political animals, that’s perhaps Webb’s defining
characteristic. He left the Senate because, he said, “I faced the Hobson’s
choice of either turning into a perennial scold or surrendering a part of
my individuality to the uncontrollable, collective nature of group
politics. I was not ready to do either.” The constant campaigning, the
fundraising, the glad-handing and backslapping—Webb viscerally hates it.
And that puts him in league with the many millions of Americans who can’t
stand politics for the same reasons. Anti-politicians aren’t good at
measuring their words or securing wealthy backers for their runs—but they
are good at connecting with the anti-political public in an instantly
credible way. When it comes to Washington dysfunction, someone like Webb
can take a believable position above the fray.

Perhaps that’s why Webb’s ideological hodgepodge is something of an asset.
There are large swathes of voters whose own views are weakly represented by
either party—blue-collar workers who are falling behind economically but
hold to traditional social values, or libertarian-ish millennials who want
less regulation and more gay marriage. A candidate like Webb couldn’t
possibly speak to all of those views, but he can speak to the sense of
being dissatisfied with our standard-issue ideologies, of choosing a set of
beliefs without the usual calculations. No, that’s not a formula for
winning a primary. But it is a formula for looking a bit more like a
“normal” person in a field of political lifers.

He’s the closest to “normal” of any candidate in the race.

This, it seems to me, is the core of Webb’s appeal: politics is part of his
life, but it’s not his entire life. In this day and age, it may be too much
to ask that our politicians be the kind of people we can comfortably have a
beer with, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask that our leaders have
done something—anything—outside the narrow world of politics and government.

And yet look at the field. Hillary Clinton has been on the national stage
for a generation. Politics is the Bush family business, and Jeb was born
into it. Marco Rubio and Scott Walker have had essentially no other careers
but politics. Sure, Webb is a politician, too, but he’s also lived a full,
varied, non-political life. He hasn’t plotted his every move on the basis
of how it might look to voters; if anything, he seems to have done the
opposite. Remember, this is a guy who twice held high office—and twice gave
it up: he resigned as Secretary of the Navy, and he chose not to run for
re-election after only one term in the Senate.

Seeing all this, you get the sense that part of him would rather not be in
politics at all. Were one of his better-funded, better-organized,
better-known opponents to win the primary, you get the feeling that he’d
simply shrug his shoulders and move on. Which means that, more than any of
his rivals, he’s a candidate with nothing to lose. That’s good, because he
is going to lose. But whether because of a sharp performance in a debate, a
surprise showing in a primary state, or sheer Clinton fatigue, Webb is
going to have his moment in the spotlight. And whether it’s by speaking out
for the constituency of “screwed” Americans, calling attention to the
issues of criminal justice reform he’s been working on for a decade, or
criticizing the drift of our foreign policy, the point of Webb’s campaign
is making the most of that moment when it comes.

*Alexandria Phillips*

*Press Assistant | Communications*

Hillary for America | www.hillaryclinton.com