Subject: Correct The Record Monday July 28, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:49:42 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Monday July 28, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@neeratanden advised @HillaryClinton
"while still upholding [her] responsibilities as a mom"
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/working-mother-washington-powerhouse-good-luck-20140725
…
<http://t.co/4WaYrMtQHv> [7/28/14, 10:20 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/493762982229573632>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: "Working Mother, Washington
Powerhouse? Good Luck." @neeratanden on her career, family, & working for
@HillaryClinton
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/working-mother-washington-powerhouse-good-luck-20140725
…
<http://t.co/4WaYrMtQHv> [7/28/14, 9:45 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/493754078191964161>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton told @charlierose her
mother's resilience inspired her #HRC365 #NationalParentsDay
http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60419259  <http://t.co/cVQm24EF6R>
[7/27/14, 3:01 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/493471181497204736>]

*Headlines:*

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “A Closer Look at Hillary
Clinton’s Approach to China”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/28/a-closer-look-at-hillary-clintons-approach-to-china/>*

“The clarity of her thinking, respect for China and awareness of how
assertive it can be—and the stakes for the U.S.–bode well for how she would
handle Beijing as president.”

*Slate blog: Weigel: “Poll: Hillary Clinton Does Better With White Voters
Than Any Democrat Since 1976”
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/28/poll_hillary_clinton_does_better_with_white_voters_than_any_democrat_since.html>*

“Obama, who won only 39 percent of the white vote in 2012, is swooning
because he's lost even more of it. But Clinton's grabbing 46 percent of the
white vote.”

*Associated Press: “Clinton: U.S. Needs Orderly Process for Border Kids”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/clinton-us-needs-orderly-process-border-kids>*

“Hillary Rodham Clinton says she supports creating a refugee screening
process for Central American children in their home countries to discourage
dangerous trips to the U.S. and opposes changing a 2008 immigration law
under review by Congress.”

*Mediaite: “Jorge Ramos Asks Hillary Clinton: Do You Have a ‘Latino
Problem?’”
<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jorge-ramos-asks-hillary-clinton-do-you-have-a-latino-problem/>*

“In a preview of a longer interview that will air on Fusion’s America with
Jorge Ramos Tuesday night, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
weighed in on the current debate over undocumented minors flooding over the
border from Central America, telling the host that without further action
from Congress, ‘more kids are going come.’”

*Huffington Post: “Hillary Clinton: 'I Don't Agree' On Changing Trafficking
Laws To Address Border Crisis”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/28/hillary-clinton-border-crisis_n_5626584.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>*

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday that she opposes
changes to a 2008 law meant to help unaccompanied children and teenagers
who crossed the border illegally, and instead endorsed the idea of
screening minors in their native countries before they make a dangerous
trek to the U.S.”

*CNN: “Hillary Clinton defends Obama against conservative barbs”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/27/hillary-clinton-defends-obama-against-conservative-barbs/>*

“As conservatives throw arrows aimed at the President's handling of
multiple world crises, Clinton defended her former
adversary-turned-boss-turned-friend.”

*The Week: Speed Reads: “Hillary Clinton tacks right: praises Bush,
criticizes Obama, cozies up to Wall Street”
<http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/265454/speedreads-hillary-clinton-tacks-right-praises-bush-criticizes-obama-cozies-up-to-wall-street>*

“Clinton distanced herself from President Obama's foreign policy,
suggesting that he has not made it clear how D.C. ‘intend[s] to lead and
manage’ international affairs.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “‘Holograms’ brought back Tupac. Now
they want to take Washington.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/28/holograms-brought-back-tupac-now-they-want-to-take-washington/>*

“‘Let's take New Hampshire and Clinton,’ explained Taylor, referencing the
early nominating state. She could appear remotely via hologram in areas her
schedule prevents her from traveling to, if she runs for president,
fielding questions in a kind of virtual town hall meeting, he suggested.”

*Financial Times column: Gideon Rachman: “A Clinton in power will not bring
back the good times”
<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c64ec6e-163c-11e4-93ec-00144feabdc0.html#axzz38mIVsdG9>*

“Mr Clinton had his strengths as president – intelligence, shrewdness,
empathy – but he was, above all, lucky in his timing. He came to power at a
golden moment for the US in both economics and in geopolitics.”

*Associated Press: “Analysis: Clinton Impeachment Shadows GOP Lawsuit”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IMPEACHMENT_STAKES_ANALYSIS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

“The last time Republicans unleashed impeachment proceedings against a
Democratic president, they lost five House seats in an election they seemed
primed to win handily.”

*Articles:*

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “A Closer Look at Hillary
Clinton’s Approach to China”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/28/a-closer-look-at-hillary-clintons-approach-to-china/>*

By Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and
co-author of “Strategic Reassurance and Resolve:  U.S.-China Relations in
the 21st Century.”

July 28, 2014, 9:53 a.m. EDT

Lost amid the clamor over Hillary Clinton’s book tour are some of her views
on China, where–despite challenges from Ukraine to the Middle East–her
legacy as secretary of state is arguably the most consequential. Mrs.
Clinton was a key part of the “pivot to Asia,” a process that arguably
began with visits to Beijing and Hanoi in 2010 during which she pushed back
against China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea. She accelerated the
effort with a ForeignPolicy.com article in October 2011, and President
Barack Obama traveled to Asia the next month.

Personally, I wish Mrs. Clinton would drop the term “pivot”–as it
overstates the shift in U.S. defense and foreign-policy resources that can
or should be directed toward the Asia-Pacific region–in favor of
“rebalance.” But her policy thinking toward China has been clear. And while
John Kerry has made trips to Asia since becoming secretary of state, he has
not conveyed the sense of focus on the region and its problems and
possibilities that Mrs. Clinton developed.

Why haven’t her ideas about China drawn more attention? The book’s style
may be one reason: It’s written more as a log of her time in office than a
reflection on the major issues of the day. Accordingly, more pages are
devoted to U.S. efforts to free the blind dissident lawyer Chen Guangcheng
after he took refuge in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing than to the much
broader issue of China’s rise in strategic terms. Mrs. Clinton’s commitment
to human rights is an important component of her thinking about China—and
part of what makes her so good on China policy matters–but the long account
about Mr. Chen also could distract from her larger observations about how
to handle Beijing.

And those larger observations are hard-hitting. “In November 2009,
President Obama received a noticeably lukewarm reception during his visit
to China,” she writes. “Many observers wondered whether we were seeing a
new phase in the relationship, with an ascendant and assertive China no
longer hiding its resources and enhanced military capabilities, moving away
from ‘hide and bide’ and toward ‘show and tell.’ ”

Mrs. Clinton then recounts the history of Chinese military provocations in
recent years, including Beijing’s harassment of the U.S.S. Impeccable in
2009; its declaration of its claims in the South China Sea as a core
interest in early 2010; and its complaints in May 2010 that the U.S. was
supposedly seeking to encircle China. During a regional security meeting in
July 2010, Mrs. Clinton advocated a multilateral approach to resolving
disputes, which prompted the Chinese foreign minister to remind
listeners–in bullying fashion–that “China is a big country. Bigger than any
other countries here.”

There is a firmness in Hillary Clinton’s thinking about China that provides
a good guide to policy and that is less well articulated by the current
Obama team. She makes issues easy to understand. The clarity of her
thinking, respect for China and awareness of how assertive it can be—and
the stakes for the U.S.–bode well for how she would handle Beijing as
president.

Too bad this kind of analysis has been lost in the fuss over peripheral
matters with the book’s rollout.

*Slate blog: Weigel: “Poll: Hillary Clinton Does Better With White Voters
Than Any Democrat Since 1976”
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/28/poll_hillary_clinton_does_better_with_white_voters_than_any_democrat_since.html>*

By David Weigel

July 28, 2014, 12:23 p.m. EDT

Long ago, before the God of Narratives decided that Hillary Clinton was an
out-of-touch elitist, she was seen as a fearsome 2016 contender. As the
theory went, she could outpoll Barack Obama with white voters while winning
non-white voters. The new CNN poll suggests that this is still mostly true.
In a fun, cheeky trial heat, CNN's pollster asked voters who they'd support
in a 2012 election do-over: Mitt Romney or Barack Obama? Romney won in a
rout, the poor guy:

[POLL]

Next, the pollster asked voters to take sides in a hypothetical and
inhumanely boring Clinton v. Romney race. Clinton won easy, 55-42. It
doesn't take true genius to figure out where those new Democratic votes
came from.

[POLL]

Would you look at that? Obama, who won only 39 percent of the white vote in
2012, is swooning because he's lost even more of it. But Clinton's grabbing
46 percent of the white vote. That's better than Obama did in 2008 (43
percent), better than John Kerry did in 2004 (41 percent), better than Al
Gore did in 2000 (42 percent). It's even better than her husband did in
1996 (43 percent), though that result -- like the 1992 result -- is skewed
by the presence of Ross Perot. You have to go back to 1976 to find a
Democrat who polled better than 46 percent with whites. And when Jimmy
Carter narrowly defeated Gerald Ford, the electorate was 89 percent white
overall. In 2016, it's likely to be closer to 70 percent white. In 2016, a
Democrat who wins only 40 percent of the white vote and holds close to
Barack Obama's totals with non-whites can win easily.

Special bonus reason for Democratic gloating: In the theoretical Romney
race, Clinton wins 62 percent of voters who make less than $50,000. Yes,
even after the scandal of her speaking fees.

*Associated Press: “Clinton: U.S. Needs Orderly Process for Border Kids”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/clinton-us-needs-orderly-process-border-kids>*

By Ken Thomas

July 28, 2014, 1:19 p.m. EDT

Hillary Rodham Clinton says she supports creating a refugee screening
process for Central American children in their home countries to discourage
dangerous trips to the U.S. and opposes changing a 2008 immigration law
under review by Congress.

The potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate says in an interview
with Fusion's Jorge Ramos that Congress should provide more money to help
immigration officials determine whether children should be considered
migrants or refugees. Some of the children should be sent back, Clinton
says, but the U.S. needs a "sensible, orderly process" to care for the tens
of thousands of children crossing the border, mostly from El Salvador,
Honduras and Guatemala.

"A lot of people are understandably, as I am, upset about what's happened
to these kids but if we don't have a procedure, it's not going to stop,"
Clinton said in the interview airingTuesday.

Clinton's comments were her most extensive on the ongoing border crisis.
She said in a CNN forum in June that the children should be reunited with
their families but the U.S. needed to make clear that "just because your
child gets across the border doesn't mean your child gets to stay."

Congress is seeking ways to reduce the influx of the children this week.
Republicans have supported changing a 2008 law so that migrant youths can
be sent home more quickly. Clinton cautioned some children would face
"terrible danger" if they returned and a better process is needed to screen
the children.

The White House is considering a pilot program that would give refugee
status to young people from Honduras, which could be expanded to Guatemala
and El Salvador. It involves screening youths in their home countries to
determine whether they qualify for refugee status.

*Mediaite: “Jorge Ramos Asks Hillary Clinton: Do You Have a ‘Latino
Problem?’”
<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jorge-ramos-asks-hillary-clinton-do-you-have-a-latino-problem/>*

By Matt Wilstein

July 28, 2014, 12:47 p.m. EDT

In a preview of a longer interview that will air on Fusion’s America with
Jorge Ramos Tuesday night, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
weighed in on the current debate over undocumented minors flooding over the
border from Central America, telling the host that without further action
from Congress, “more kids are going come.” But first, she addressed her
possible “Latino problem.”

“Do you think you have a Latino problem?” Jorge Ramos asked Clinton.

“I hope not!” she replied, laughing enthusiastically, before Ramos’ deadpan
demeanor caused her to turn more serious. “I never have before, so I hope
not,” she added. “Obviously, we have a lot of problems that we have to
address.”

Ramos explained that he was asking because Clinton recently said of the
Central American children during her CNN town hall interview that we as a
country need to “send them back.”

“Well, that was sort of a short circuit of what I have said overall,”
Clinton said, explaining that she was referring more to “migrant children”
than “refugee children.” While both deserve “as much love” as we can give
them, she said there should be separate “procedures” for each group.

Ramos grilled Clinton on her stance, asking her specifically who she would
deport. If children don’t have a legitimate case for asylum or an existing
family connection in the U.S., then Clinton said they “should be returned
to their families.”

“We send kids back all the time,” she said, seemingly admitted that some of
those children who are sent back to their home countries could be in
danger. “That’s why we need a process to determine who falls into [the
refugee] category.” She argued that the U.S. should help set up a screening
process in places like Honduras and Guatemala that determines whether
children are in need of asylum before they even make the dangerous journey
across the border.

“If we don’t have a procedure, it’s not going to stop, more kids are going
to come,” Clinton said.

Watch video below, via Fusion:

[VIDEO]

*Huffington Post: “Hillary Clinton: 'I Don't Agree' On Changing Trafficking
Laws To Address Border Crisis”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/28/hillary-clinton-border-crisis_n_5626584.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>*

By Elise Foley

July 28, 2014, 10:14 a.m. EDT

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday that she opposes
changes to a 2008 law meant to help unaccompanied children and teenagers
who crossed the border illegally, and instead endorsed the idea of
screening minors in their native countries before they make a dangerous
trek to the U.S.

"We should be setting up a system in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador to
screen kids. Before they get in the hands of coyotes, or they get on the
'Beast,' or they're raped. Terrible things happen to them," she told
Fusion's Jorge Ramos, referring to the "Beast," a series of freight trains
that minors from Central America are riding to get through Mexico to the
U.S.

Border patrol agents have apprehended more than 57,500 unaccompanied minors
crossing the border illegally since the beginning of October, straining the
country's system of caring for, screening and possibly deporting the
children and teenagers.

"If we don't have a procedure, it's not going to stop," Clinton said. "More
kids are going to come."

She differed from President Barack Obama and many Republicans on whether to
change the 2008 trafficking law that keeps unaccompanied minors from
countries other than Mexico and Canada from being quickly deported.

While Obama initially said he wanted Congress to change the 2008 law, he
did not propose legislative changes in his $3.7 billion funding request
earlier this month, angering Republicans who say he flip-flopped on the
issue. The administration has, however, continued to back changing the law
at a later date.

"I don't agree that we should change the law," Clinton said. "That's why
I'm advocating an appropriate procedure, well funded by the Congress, which
they are resisting doing, so that we can make individual decisions."

Clinton said the U.S. could instead screen minors in their native countries
to determine whether they would be eligible for refugee status or some
other type of relief.

Clinton said in June that unaccompanied minors "should be sent back as soon
as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are."

Pressed on that point by Ramos, Clinton stood by her statement that some
minors should be deported.

"Some of them should be sent back," she said, adding that those without a
legitimate claim for asylum or some type of family connection should be
deported and returned to their families.

*CNN: “Hillary Clinton defends Obama against conservative barbs”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/27/hillary-clinton-defends-obama-against-conservative-barbs/>*

By Shannon Travis

July 27, 2014, 2:09 p.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) – If you wanted a friend to defend your reputation against
serious sideswipes, who better to do it than one of the most recognizable
women in the world, with years of experience beating back barbs?

Enter Hillary Clinton in defense of President Barack Obama.  As
conservatives throw arrows aimed at the President's handling of multiple
world crises, Clinton defended her former
adversary-turned-boss-turned-friend.

The former secretary of state – and prospective presidential candidate -
sat down with CNN's Fareed Zakaria for a wide-ranging interview taped
Friday and
aired Sunday on "CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS."

Some conservatives accuse Obama of not being tough enough on Russian
President Vladimir Putin.  Is the President appropriately handling the
Ukranian crisis, Clinton was asked?

"I think that he is facing some of the same challenges that American
presidents face when dealing with threats within Europe," Clinton said.
"The United States, obviously, has a great interest in helping to maintain
peace and security in Europe and we have a formal alliance, NATO, to do so.
But much of what we can do and what the President is calling for requires
the full participation of our European friends and allies."

Clinton continued: claiming Putin "bears responsibility" for the downing of
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, calling for more sanctions, urging Europe to
"stand up to" Putin despite its reliance on energy from Russia, and
stressing the need for Europe and the United States to assist Ukraine.

And she wasn't done offering supportive words for the President.

Later in the hourlong interview, Clinton was asked about one specific
criticism.

"Charles Krauthammer, the conservative critic, has said, 'The world is
going to hell and President Obama is playing golf,'” Zakaria said.  "Is he
playing too much golf while all these crises are popping up?"

Clinton was unequivocal.

"No," she said. "I think that's an unfair comment to make."

"I know from my own experience with the President, where we worked so
closely together, and as I write in the book, you know, went from being
adversaries to partners to friends, that he is constantly working and
thinking. But he also wants to do what will make a difference, not just
perform. He wants to be sure that we know what the consequences, both
intended and unintended, are.

“When it comes to the Middle East, this is always a very difficult issue
for any American president," she said.

"I think the President is doing what he can do to try to get a cease-fire
and then see whether we can sort out some, you know, longer-term
resolution."

*The Week: Speed Reads: “Hillary Clinton tacks right: praises Bush,
criticizes Obama, cozies up to Wall Street”
<http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/265454/speedreads-hillary-clinton-tacks-right-praises-bush-criticizes-obama-cozies-up-to-wall-street>*

By Bonnie Kristian

July 28, 2014, 11:50 a.m. EDT

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, an expected contender in the
2016 presidential election, has positioned herself to appeal to more
moderate or even neoconservative audiences in recent days. Speaking to CNN on
Sunday, she praised President George W. Bush's AIDS relief programs in
Sub-Saharan Africa, saying his initiatives there make her "proud to be an
American."

In the same interview, Clinton distanced herself from President Obama's
foreign policy, suggesting that he has not made it clear how D.C.
"intend[s] to lead and manage" international affairs. Clinton advocated a
more interventionist approach, arguing that, "We have to go back out and
sell ourselves" as guarantors of worldwide stability. Currently, the U.S.
military has as many as 900 bases worldwide, and has ground troops or
drones active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen.

Meanwhile, despite objections from supporters within her own party, Clinton
has repeatedly spoken to audiences at large Wall Street banks like Goldman
Sachs and Ameriprise Financial. "The problem is these speeches give the
impression that she's still in the Wall Street wing of the party," said
Charles Chamberlain of the left-wing Democracy For America PAC.

If Clinton is elected President in 2016, the White House will have been in
the hands of just three families — the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas — for
32 years by the time her first term is complete.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “‘Holograms’ brought back Tupac. Now
they want to take Washington.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/28/holograms-brought-back-tupac-now-they-want-to-take-washington/>*

By Sean Sullivan

July 28, 2014, 11:25 a.m. EDT

Resurrect Tupac for a live performance? Been there. Help elect a prime
minister in the world's second most populous country? Done that. Next stop?
Washington.

Holographic technology is coming to the nation's capital. The hope is to do
for political campaigns, government agencies and trade groups what it's
done for the entertainment industry and elected officials overseas in
recent years: Increasingly become more necessity and less novelty.

Hologram USA, a company specializing in the technology, will announce
Monday that
it has hired the Northern Virginia-based firm U.S. Government Relations
International. USGRI will try to convince would-be clients that Hologram
USA's lifelike three-dimensional images that can be broadcast live across
the country are vital communications tools.

"A general or a politician or a head of corporate can project themselves
physically in a life-size projection that is completely believable at a
matter of a few feet," said Alki David, who heads up Hologram USA.

That's what Narendra Modi did in his winning campaign for prime minster of
India this year. Hologram USA helped Modi reach out to the country's
hundreds of millions of voters by enabling him to appear live in
holographic form via satellite at political rallies. For many of the eager
crowds who gathered to hear Modi speak, it was the next best thing to a
stump speech in the flesh.

Hologram USA wants to eventually do the same thing for Rand Paul or Hillary
Rodham Clinton -- David says he's a fan of both -- or anyone else who runs
for office and is looking to improve its voter communication efforts.

David, who comes from a wealthy Greek shipping family, owns the North
American license to the patent for technology created by Uwe Maass, an
engineer born in Germany. The technology is a modern twist on a 19th
century illusion technique called Pepper's Ghost that involves reflecting
images off of glass. Maass's version uses foil. (David refers to it as
technically not a hologram, but "hologram-like" technology.)

David has partnered with Maass and Giovanni Palma, who belong to a separate
company called up Musion Das Hologram.

Jeffrey Taylor, a managing partner at USGRI and former congressional aide,
envisions the technology increasing interaction between voters and
presidential candidates, who simply can't appear physically in every city,
even in crucial swing states.

"Let's take New Hampshire and Clinton," explained Taylor, referencing the
early nominating state. She could appear remotely via hologram in areas her
schedule prevents her from traveling to, if she runs for president,
fielding questions in a kind of virtual town hall meeting, he suggested.

"You would actually have an interactive, three-dimensional image and a
monitor in front of her [to field questions] when the lady at a coffee
klatsch says, 'What are your views on energy?' " said Taylor.

He added: "The only thing you cant do is shake her hand."

But that's a challenge advocates of the technology will encounter, experts
say. Retail politics is a big part of campaigning. Voters want to see
candidates in person at the state fair or the local parade. Technology, no
matter how advanced, is never going to offer a perfect replacement.

For hologram technology to take a foothold in campaigns, "it has to
complement" the human element, said Zac Moffatt, Mitt Romney's 2012 digital
director.

Another challenge is competition from other, less expensive social media
and communication tools. For example, Clinton recently held a live chat on
Facebook and one on Twitter that was streamed live on YouTube.

The question when it comes holographic technology, in Moffatt's view: "Is
the impact on the voter or constituent exponentially greater than Skype of
Google Hangout or other [voter contact] methodologies?"

David pegs the cost of of a robust national effort in the U.S. at about $6
million a month. That's beyond the budgets of most congressional campaigns
and is a sizable investment even for White House hopefuls. But David argues
that weighed against the cost of barnstorming the country and advancing and
staffing events, it will eventually look like a bargain.

The perpetual desire to build buzz in politics could spur demand for
David's company. The Republican and Democratic presidential nominating
conventions routinely try to outdo one another with bells and whistles
designed to attract earned media attention.

Few technological advances are buzzier now than holograms. The 2012
Coachella music festival featured a performance by a holographic recreation
of late rapper Tupac Shakur. It went viral online. This year's Billboard
Music brought back Michael Jackson. (The performance triggered competing
lawsuits between David and another company over patent rights.)

The increasing desire to micro-target voters in campaigns could also boost
the appeal of holographic technology.

"With advancements in artificial intelligence, you could soon have
holograms of presidential candidates at your door, interacting with you and
asking and answering questions," wrote David Plouffe in a recent Wall
Street Journal op-ed. Plouffe managed President Obama's 2008 campaign.

Beyond the campaign trail, David and Taylor see other reasons to bring the
technology to Washington. Military simulations and briefings could be
improved, they say. It could also enable the White House to communicate
with more Americans by bringing the president into a "sixth grade classroom
in Missouri," without all the costs of travel and security, for example,
said Taylor.

It was technology that brought Taylor and David together. Taylor reached
out after seeing David in a TV interview. They connected through LinkedIn,
the social networking site.

To David, who says he is already in talks with Democrats and Republicans he
declined to name, the technology's best selling point is the awe it in
inspires when people experience it for the first time.

"I think that as much as we can write about it and evangelize it and
imagine it and see it online, you don't get the impact of what it's really
like until you see it," he said.

*Financial Times column: Gideon Rachman: “A Clinton in power will not bring
back the good times”
<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c64ec6e-163c-11e4-93ec-00144feabdc0.html#axzz38mIVsdG9>*

By Gideon Rachman

July 28, 2014, 4:23 p.m.

[Subtitle:] Bill Clinton became president at a golden moment for the US

Back in 1992 I was watching from the balcony of Madison Square Garden as
Bill Clinton accepted the Democratic party nomination for the presidency.
On stage with him was his wife, Hillary, and their young daughter, Chelsea.
The music that blared from the loudspeakers as the Clintons took their bow
was Fleetwood Mac singing “Don’t stop thinking abouttomorrow”. It was a
quintessentially American message – optimistic and forward-looking.

By contrast, if and when Hillary Clinton bids for the presidency in 2016,
her unofficial campaign anthem might as well be “Yesterday”. The most
powerful appeal of the Clinton name is nostalgia for the good old days of
the 1990s, when all America’s troubles seemed so far away.

Opinion polls show that Mr Clinton is now easily the most well-regarded
president of the past 25 years. Mrs Clinton has her own formidable résumé –
as a senator and as secretary of state. But a large part of her appeal
still lies in the warm glow of the Clinton brand. As Maureen Dowd of The
New York Times, a long-time chronicler of the foibles of the Clintons,
pointed out in a recent column, even their bitter enemies seem to be
succumbing to nostalgia. Ms Dowd quoted Bill O’Reilly, the conservative
television star: “With Hillary you get Bill. And Bill knows what’s going
on.”

But while Mr Clinton may yet return to the White House as First Man, the
Clinton years are never coming back. Mr Clinton had his strengths as
president – intelligence, shrewdness, empathy – but he was, above all,
lucky in his timing. He came to power at a golden moment for the US in both
economics and in geopolitics.

The Soviet Union had collapsed in 1991, just a year before Mr Clinton was
first elected. Throughout his eight years as president, there was no
serious competitor to the US for the role of global superpower. The
Japanese, who had haunted the dreams of Americans in the 1980s, entered a
prolonged slump at the start of the 1990s, from which they have yet to pull
out. China had been knocked sideways by the student uprising of 1989 and
its violent suppression. The Chinese economy grew rapidly in the 1990s but
it was still only 12 per cent the size of the US economy by the time Mr
Clinton left office.

The name Osama bin Laden had yet to impinge on the public consciousness.
Al-Qaeda struck New York and Washington nine months after Mr Clinton left
the Oval office. The foreign-policy preoccupations of the Clinton years
presented themselves as moral dilemmas – such as Bosnia or Rwanda – rather
than as threats to national security.

Mr Clinton’s economic inheritance was similarly golden. The frightening
deficits of the Reagan years disappeared in the 1990s, partly because of
sensible fiscal decisions taken by President George HW Bush. By the time Mr
Clinton took office, the US economy was already recovering strongly. He was
the lucky beneficiary of a surge in American productivity, following the
transformation of the workplace by computers. With unemployment at just 4
per cent and inflation under control, there was exuberant talk of a “New
Economy”.

Given this fortunate combination of circumstances, is it any wonder that
the president had time for dalliances in the Oval Office?

Now compare Mr Clinton’s inheritance, with the America that faced Barack
Obama. The collapse of Lehman Brothers, just two months before the 2008
presidential election, meant that Mr Obama and his team took office facing
an acute financial and economic crisis – which continues to overshadow his
presidency, six years after the event. (Despite that, Mr Obama was able to
push through the comprehensive healthcare reform that had eluded Mr Clinton
and his wife, who was placed in charge of the first effort to secure
universal coverage.)

The international picture that Mr Obama faced was similarly bleak. The
“unipolar moment” Mr Clinton enjoyed was already drawing to a close by the
time Mr Obama came to power. The US was struggling to extricate itself from
draining wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. When Mr Obama leaves office in
January 2017, perhaps to give way to President Hillary Clinton, China will
– at least measured in terms of purchasing power – already have displaced
the US as the world’s largest economy. Conservative commentators, such as
Mr O’Reilly, often blame these setbacks on Mr Obama’s “weakness” or
failures of leadership. In truth, he was dealt a much weaker hand than any
of his recent predecessors.

The nostalgia for the Clinton years also extends to matters of style. Mr
Obama, once praised for his cool, is now condemned for his “coldness”. Mr
Clinton, once attacked for his ill-discipline, is now lauded for his
humanity. It is true that Mr Clinton brought a warmth to the presidency
that Mr Obama lacks. On the other hand, Mr Obama has conducted himself with
a dignity that eluded Mr Clinton.

As Mrs Clinton prepares to run for the ultimate prize – with the
publication of a worthy book and numerous television appearances – she will
be hoping that Americans remember the good bits of the Clinton years and
forget the icky parts. The real contrast between the Obama and the Clinton
presidencies, however, is not between personalities but between eras.

It would be nice to believe that another Clinton in the White House could
somehow magically recreate the golden economic and geopolitical
circumstances of the 1990s. But, as Fleetwood Mac once put it: “Yesterday’s
gone, yesterday’s gone.”

*Associated Press: “Analysis: Clinton Impeachment Shadows GOP Lawsuit”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IMPEACHMENT_STAKES_ANALYSIS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

By David Espo

July 28, 2014, 11:43 a.m. EDT

The last time Republicans unleashed impeachment proceedings against a
Democratic president, they lost five House seats in an election they seemed
primed to win handily.

Memories of Bill Clinton and the campaign of 1998 may help explain why
Speaker John Boehner and the current GOP leadership want no part of such
talk now, although conservatives increasingly clamor for it. And also why
President Barack Obama's White House seems almost eager to stir the
impeachment pot three months before midterm elections.

Republicans have already "opened the door for impeachment" with their plans
to sue the president over allegedly failing to carry out the health care
law, White House aide Dan Pfeiffer told reporters. In something of a dare
last week, he also said any further action Obama takes on his own on
immigration will "up the likelihood" of a GOP-led move to remove Obama from
office.

House Democrats' campaign committee used reports of tea party Republicans
meeting to discuss impeachment in an emailed fundraising plea sent Sunday.
They warned "the fate of Obama's presidency is at stake."

Pfeiffer and Democratic fundraisers aren't privy to the inner workings of
the House Republican leadership. Boehner, who is, insists at every public
opportunity that the lawsuit is one thing, impeachment is another - and not
on the table. The planned suit results from a dispute over the balance of
powers between the president and Congress, he said last month, and the
House "must act as an institution to defend the constitutional principles
at stake."

Republicans dispute suggestions by Democrats that the suit's true purpose
is to release pressure from the party's more extreme supporters for
impeachment.

One Republican committee chairman, Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, said in a
brief interview that Clinton deserved to be impeached, but Obama does not.

The 42nd president "broke the law," he said of formal allegations that
accused Clinton of lying under oath to a grand jury and obstructing justice
in connection with his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Contrasting the former president with the current one, Sessions said:
"Breaking the law is different from not fully enforcing the law."

At least one senior Republican isn't as definitive. Interviewed on Sunday on
Fox, Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, newly elected to the GOP leadership,
repeatedly declined to rule out impeaching Obama.

For his part, Sessions spoke a few hours after he opened a meeting of the
House Rules Committee with what could well have been a case for
impeachment: sweeping allegations that went far beyond the boundaries of
the planned lawsuit.

"The president has unilaterally waived work requirements for welfare
recipients," the Texas Republican said. The chief executive "ended
accountability provisions in No Child Left Behind," an education law dating
to the George W. Bush era, he said.

The president "refused to inform the Congress of the transfer of what is
known as the Taliban five," Sessions went on. "And ignored the statutory
requirements of the Affordable Care Act," he said, using the formal name
for the 4-year-old health care law.

However compelling the complaints, no judge will ever rule on most of them.

Three months before the November elections, Republicans intend to limit
their lawsuit to a narrower claim, that he has failed to faithfully carry
out the health care law that, according to polls, remains poorly received
by the public.

"In 2013, the president changed the health care law without a vote of
Congress, effectively creating his own law by literally waiving the
employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it," Boehner
said in a statement last month. "No president should have the power to make
laws on his or her own."

Republican officials say they decided to narrow the focus of the court case
after being advised by lawyers that their chances of succeeding would be
stronger.

None of this seems likely to satisfy the political right, as 2008 vice
presidential candidate Sarah Palin recently made clear. "It's time to
impeach; and on behalf of America we should vehemently oppose any
politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles
of impeachment," she wrote.

Yet her opinion is not widely shared among non-Republicans, and Democrats
quickly sought to use calls like the one from Palin to raise campaign funds.

In a CNN survey last week, more than half of all Republicans said they
favor Obama's impeachment, but that level that fell to one-third of the
overall electorate. Among independents, 63 percent opposed it.

A lawsuit is also generally unpopular, but less so than impeachment would
be, the poll indicated.

When it came to the lawsuit, 41 percent of the country backed it. Support
was 75 percent among Republicans, while independents opposed it by 43-55.

As a junior member of the leadership in 1998, Boehner had a seat at the
table when Republicans decided to inject Clinton's impeachment into that
year's elections.

Republicans held their majority, but Democrats gained five seats, a rarity
in midterm elections for the party in power in the White House.

Clinton was impeached in a post-election session of the House, later
acquitted in the Senate and remained in office. Then-Speaker Newt Gingrich
fared worse. Under pressure from his rank and file, the Republican gave up
his post and left Congress soon after the election debacle.

In the upheaval, Boehner lost his leadership post for a decade.