Subject: Correct The Record Friday October 3, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:32:09 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Friday October 3, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Associated Press: “Clinton Feels ‘Grandmother Glow’ from Charlotte”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HILLARY_CLINTON_FLORIDA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

“Speaking to a national convention of female real estate professionals, the
former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential
contender called on business and political leaders to close the gap in
wages and leadership positions between men and women.”

*CNN: “New to Hillary Clinton's stump speech: Her granddaughter”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/politics/hillary-granddaughter-stump-speech/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter>*

“Hillary Clinton rolled out a new addition to her usual stump speech geared
towards women empowerment on Thursday: Her new granddaughter Charlotte.”

*ABC News blog: The Note: “Hillary Clinton Adds Key Line to Pre-2016 Stump
Speech”
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/10/hillary-clinton-adds-key-line-to-pre-2016-stump-speech/>*

“‘I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy
who was born in that hospital on the same day,’ Clinton told the crowd at
the Loews Miami Beach Hotel, adding, ‘I just believe that. That’s the way I
was raised.’”

*NBC 6 (South Florida): “Hillary Clinton Signs Books in Coral Gables”
<http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-Signing-Books-in-Coral-Gables-277900681.html>*

“Thousands waited hours in the sun to see Former First Lady and Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton Thursday in South Florida.”

*Fox News: “Hillary Clinton raises $1M for Dem Florida gov candidate Crist
at fundraiser”
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/02/hillary-clinton-raises-1m-for-dem-florida-gov-candidate-crist-at-fundraiser/>*

“Hillary Clinton raised $1 million for Democratic gubernatorial candidate
Charlie Crist in a closed-door fundraiser in Coral Gables Thursday night, a
Crist source confirms to Fox News.”

*Foreign Policy: “Leave It to Hillary”
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/02/leave_it_to_hillary_clinton_obama_islamic_state_afghanistan>*

“Clinton, who was too centrist for the political swing sought by the public
in 2008, may be just right for a public desirous of splitting the
difference between the shortcomings of one president who thought he could
do it all unilaterally and another who built great coalitions to assist him
in postponing problems until his successor could take office.”

*Politico Magazine: Amb. Christopher R. Hill: “They Sent Me to Iraq. Then
They Ignored Me.”
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/how-the-obama-administration-disowned-iraq-111565.html#.VC5-2fldWSo>*

“Exhilarated and grateful, I stood on the edge of the landing zone in a
line with a few other embassy personnel, all of us waving farewell to our
secretary with the expectation she would be back soon. Three months later,
Vice President Joe Biden took the lead on Iraq policy and she never
returned.”

*MSNBC: “The sleeper issue of the 2016 Democratic primary”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-sleeper-issue-the-2016-democratic-primary>*

“Fracking is quickly emerging as an under-the-radar issue likely to
influence the Democratic presidential primary in 2016, inflaming passionate
opposition among the party’s base.”

*The Week: “Can Bill Clinton save the Senate for Democrats?”
<http://theweek.com/article/index/269161/can-bill-clinton-save-the-senate-for-democrats>*

“Whether or not Bill Clinton can pull Pryor or other red-state Democrats
across the finish line remains to be seen.”

*Articles:*

*Associated Press: “Clinton Feels ‘Grandmother Glow’ from Charlotte”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HILLARY_CLINTON_FLORIDA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

By Michael J. Mishak

October 2, 4:05 p.m. EDT

As she weighs another bid for the White House, Hillary Rodham Clinton said
Thursday she has a "grandmother glow" that's fueling her campaign for
female empowerment and gender equality around the world.

Speaking to a national convention of female real estate professionals, the
former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential
contender called on business and political leaders to close the gap in
wages and leadership positions between men and women.

Clinton, who joked that she felt that glow after the recent birth of her
first grandchild, Charlotte, said she wanted all women to grow up in a
world of "full participation and shared prosperity."

"I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy who
was born in that hospital on the same day," she said.

In a speech that drew heavily on her own professional and personal
experiences - including several references to her bruising presidential
campaign in 2008 - Clinton said women face double standards in business and
politics and that governments should work to enact policies that break down
barriers to equal opportunity. Her remarks were met with standing ovations.

"These ceilings I'm describing don't just keep down women, they hold back
entire economies and countries," she said, "because no country can truly
thrive by denying the contributions of half of its people."

Clinton has repeatedly hit those themes as she travels the campaign trail
to help Democrats in the midterm elections. On Thursday, she said the U.S.
should eliminate what she called the "motherhood penalty" by requiring paid
leave for new mothers. The measure, she said, would pave the way for more
women to participate in the workforce.

"Laws matter," Clinton said. "I believe 100 percent in women being able to
make responsible choices, but it's hardly a choice if you're working at a
low-wage job, you get no leave and you can't even afford to bond with your
baby because you have to get back to work."

Clinton was also in South Florida to promote her book about her tenure as
the nation's top diplomat and to help Democrat Charlie Crist raise money
for his gubernatorial campaign. Crist, a former Republican governor, is
locked in a tight race with GOP Gov. Rick Scott, who has outspent the
Democratic nominee by a 2-1 margin in television advertising.

Clinton has said she expects to make a decision on a White House bid by the
beginning of next year. The appearances help increase her exposure to
voters in the nation's largest swing-voting state and allow her to
reconnect with some of the same big-money donors who supported her and her
husband's past political campaigns.

*CNN: “New to Hillary Clinton's stump speech: Her granddaughter”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/politics/hillary-granddaughter-stump-speech/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter>*

By Dan Merica

October 2, 2014, 6:10 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton rolled out a new addition to her usual stump speech geared
towards women empowerment on Thursday: Her new granddaughter Charlotte.

"I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy
born in that hospital on the same day," the former Secretary of State said
at the Commercial Real Estate Women Network Convention in Miami.

Bill and Hillary Clinton became grandparents last week when their only
daughter, Chelsea, gave birth to Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky on Friday,
Sept. 26 in New York City.

While it is obvious that that line is new for Hillary Clinton -- the baby
was just born last week -- she was more overt in mentioning her
granddaughter as a way to drive home her points.

Clinton's speech both opened and closed with a mention of her new
granddaughter.

When the former secretary of state took the stage, a woman shouted, "You
look beautiful!"

Clinton laughed and said, "I think it is a grandmother glow."

"She is doing great," Clinton said of Charlotte. "She is the most perfect,
most beautiful, smartest five day old you will ever know."

After delivering a speech that stressed the importance offering an equal
playing field to women, Clinton closed her speech stating that with the
right policies, her vision of equal pay, paid leave and affordable child
care could be attained.

That, Clinton said, is "the kind of country I want my granddaughter growing
up in."

Charlotte was also on the minds of many of the attendees -- and
participants -- in Thursday's conference. While on stage with Clinton, Judy
Nitsch, the president of CREW, asked what advice she will have for
Charlotte when she gets older.

"One is do the very best you can at everything you do... but learn from
your mistake and your failures," Clinton said. "Second, be kind. Try to
find a time for kindness every single day."

Her last piece of advice was something, Clinton said, she hoped to model
for her new granddaughter.

"Find something you are passionate about, that you love to do," Clinton
said. "And again, pursue it. It can be anything, it can be a sports, it can
be the arts, it can be service. Find something that you really feel
invested in."

*ABC News blog: The Note: “Hillary Clinton Adds Key Line to Pre-2016 Stump
Speech”
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/10/hillary-clinton-adds-key-line-to-pre-2016-stump-speech/>*

By Liz Kreutz

October 2, 2014, 3:48 p.m. EDT

Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky is just five days old and already appears to be
a living embodiment of themes her grandmother, Hillary Clinton, could put
to use on the campaign trail.

During her prepared remarks at a women’s real estate convention in Miami
this afternoon, the former secretary of state used a line never heard
before on her paid-speaking circuit: one about the future for her new
granddaughter.

“I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy who
was born in that hospital on the same day,” Clinton told the crowd at the
Loews Miami Beach Hotel, adding, “I just believe that. That’s the way I was
raised.”

Chelsea Clinton’s daughter, Charlotte, was born last week in New York City
and is the first grandchild for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Thursday’s one-day
visit to Miami is the first time Clinton has traveled outside of the state
since the baby’s birth. Earlier this week, she cancelled her appearance at
two other fundraising events in Washington, D.C., because of the new baby.

In addition to her keynote at the CREW convention this afternoon, Clinton
is also holding a book signing for her new memoir, “Hard Choices,” and
campaigning for Florida’s Democratic candidate for governor, Charlie Crist.

While Clinton still says she has not made a decision about running for
president, equality for women and girls is an issue very close to her and
one she will likely bring with her on the campaign trail should she decide
to run.

Her comments today indicate that the newest addition to the family is
well-positioned to play a role in Clinton 2016 – even if just symbolically.

*NBC 6 (South Florida): “Hillary Clinton Signs Books in Coral Gables”
<http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-Signing-Books-in-Coral-Gables-277900681.html>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

October 2, 2014, 8:39 p.m. EDT

Thousands waited hours in the sun to see Former First Lady and Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton Thursday in South Florida.

Clinton was signing copies of her new book "Hard Choices" at Books & Books
at 265 Aragon Ave. in Coral Gables.

There, she spoke about her book and about becoming a grandmother just a few
days ago, saying, "I highly recommend it!"

Earlier on Thursday, Clinton spoke at the Crew Network Convention &
Marketplace at the Loews Hotel in Miami Beach.

Her message for the 1,200 professional women at the event was one of
empowerment.

"You can't get tied into knots by what others say and think, because we all
know women sometimes get judged by different criteria -- even powerful
women in powerful positions," she said.

Karyl Argamasilla, with the Miami Crew chapter, said she took Clinton's
message to heart.

"At the end of the day, she's someone who has broken all the glass
ceilings," Argamasilla said.

At one point, a woman in the audience shouted out, "2016!" -- the only
mention of a possible presidential run during Clinton's Miami stops. But
those in attendance said they don't doubt she'll be joining the race.

"She's already been to Iowa," said Steve Sails. "She's running."

*Fox News: “Hillary Clinton raises $1M for Dem Florida gov candidate Crist
at fundraiser”
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/02/hillary-clinton-raises-1m-for-dem-florida-gov-candidate-crist-at-fundraiser/>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

October 2, 2014

Hillary Clinton raised $1 million for Democratic gubernatorial candidate
Charlie Crist in a closed-door fundraiser in Coral Gables Thursday night, a
Crist source confirms to Fox News.

The former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential
contender headlined the fundraiser for Crist, a former Republican governor
who is locked in a tight race with GOP Gov. Rick Scott.

Scott has outspent the Democratic nominee by a 2-1 margin in television
advertising.

Clinton also spoke to a national convention of female real estate
professionals on Thursday, and said her newborn granddaughter Charlotte is
fueling her campaign for female empowerment and gender equality around the
world.

Clinton joked that she felt a "grandmother glow" after Charlotte’s birth,
and said she wanted all women to grow up in a world of "full participation
and shared prosperity."

"I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy who
was born in that hospital on the same day," she said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

*Foreign Policy: “Leave It to Hillary”
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/02/leave_it_to_hillary_clinton_obama_islamic_state_afghanistan>*

By David Rothkopf

October 2, 2014

[Subtitle:] The president arrives at a turning point, but it's unclear
whether it means a new Obama or a punt to tomorrow.

There is a scenario that one can imagine is unspooling in the mental
multiplexes of the president and his top White House advisors. It is
Christmas time. Stockings everywhere are filled to overflowing due to a
resurgent U.S. economy. In Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State is beginning
to wither under the pressure of the American-led coalition. In Afghanistan,
a new government has repaired relations with the United States, and an
agreement to leave a smallish U.S. military force in place promises to
ensure stability for years to come. And a deal has been reached -- or is
within reach -- for the United States and Iran that reduces the threat that
Tehran will soon be overseeing a nuclear weapons arsenal.

Sitting by a crackling fire, Barack Obama (who in the late summer of 2014
seemed on the verge of foreign-policy ignominy thanks to a string of lousy
policies and bad luck) lifts his mug of eggnog high and toasts his team for
engineering a remarkable turnaround. He has regained his mojo, and
architects are scrambling to add back the foreign-policy wing to the plans
for the Obama presidential library. No more Ditherer-in-Chief or
Hamlet-on-the-Potomac jokes. The most powerful man in the world has
re-entered the building!

Of course, in order for this scenario to play out a number of things must
go very well, and the public must willingly sets aside two major categories
of knowledge: everything they know about the past and everything they might
reasonably expect regarding the future.

Setting aside for a moment the economy -- which is actually an area where
the president and his team have made huge progress for which they neither
give themselves nor receive enough credit -- the obstacles to this scenario
on the foreign-policy front are formidable. The bombings that the United
States conducts in Iraq and Syria need to do more than blow up the
occasional Humvee or armed pickup truck; some capable ground force needs to
take advantage of the impact these assaults do have. For such a mobile
enemy to be defeated, key elements of its forces need to be in the wrong
place at the wrong time and sustain real damage, especially to the enemy's
leadership ranks. In Afghanistan, the administration not only needs to cut
a suitable deal, but the new government has to gather and maintain support,
political enemies need to refrain from undercutting it, and the Taliban and
other opposition forces need to sit on their hands. Finally, as far as Iran
is concerned, not only does a deal have to be struck, but the political
conditions associated with the deal have to be acceptable in both
Washington and Tehran. This new deal cannot trigger new sanctions from the
United States or new provocations from Iranian hard-liners -- to say
nothing of the reactions that might come from America's allies like Israel
or those central to the anti-Islamic State coalition.

Experience suggests that all these things will be hard to achieve. It also
suggests that other issues may emerge that could overshadow (or call into
question) the president's foreign-policy rebound -- whether Vladimir Putin
in Ukraine, being linked to protests in Hong Kong, or self-inflicted wounds
like the president's ill-considered move to blame his lag in addressing the
Islamic State threat on an intelligence community that had, in fact, warned
him of the group's rise since it began last year. Experience also suggests
that the approach the coalition is taking to defeat the Islamic State --
air power combined with dubious ground-force support -- is not going to
work, that forces of instability have the upper hand in Afghanistan (both
inside the government and out), and that even if Iran were to truly
forswear nuclear weapons, it could still be a big thorn in the side of U.S.
interests (as it has been for the past three decades, during which time it
has never had, of course, nuclear weapons). All of this means that not only
is the happy holiday scenario unlikely to unfold exactly as described, but
even the momentary lift Obama's foreign policy is experiencing this fall is
likely to dissipate when longer-term historical trends start to regain the
upper hand.

But one can hope. And there is no denying that the president has been both
bolder in addressing the Islamic State crisis than he appeared just weeks
ago and has been pretty stalwart (as has his State Department team) in
pursuing the goals in Afghanistan and Iran that have been important goals
of his since he took office.

But there is another way to interpret recent moves and foreign-policy
initiatives of the administration. They do not represent a change for the
president. Instead, they are all really just a continuation of past
policies and characteristics of how Obama deals with foreign policy. In
each case, scratch the shiny surface rhetoric and one finds that what lies
beneath is a common impulse -- to postpone many of the toughest choices
associated with addressing major problems until after the president has
left office. In short, the goal is to get out of the White House in one
piece and leave the hard work to Hillary.

Because hopes and wishes and spin of the White House aside, most of these
U.S. policies seem to have been conceived with the idea of doing just as
much as is necessary to handle the short-term political needs of the
president while creating as little risk as possible for him during the
remainder of his term in office. Indeed, you don't have to take my word for
it.

The president's own assertion that his primary foreign-policy goal is only
to hit "singles" and "doubles" and not "do stupid shit" drives the message
home with absolute clarity.

Take the "war" against the Islamic State. First, the president has been
resisting action to contain the rising threats associated with the conflict
in Syria for three years. Two-hundred thousand people have died there;
chemical weapons were used more than a dozen times; foreign fighters
flocked to the fractured state; extremist groups flourished with the help
of America's "friends"; and still nothing was done. Indeed, action was only
taken when, after a series of gaffes and some horrifying videos of
beheadings, the president was at the absolute nadir of his foreign-policy
standing (doing little to effectively stand up to Putin didn't help).
Indeed, the threat he seemed most concerned with came not from the Islamic
State but from public opinion.

Wait, you say, don't be so cynical. Obama took action.

Well, did he? And was it designed to actually solve the principal threat to
U.S. national security the Islamic State represents? The United States has
only really committed to half its "degrade and defeat" formula regarding
the extremist group. America may degrade it. But there is not a shred of
evidence or even a stated belief on the part of this administration that
the United States will, during Obama's term of office, defeat it. The
Pentagon's own spokesperson said the effort will take three or four or
perhaps five or six or even more years -- in other words, this campaign
will continue into the next administration. While we have a coalition,
virtually none of its members is committed to what is necessary to
defeating the Islamic State -- boots on the ground. (We'll see what Turkey
does in the wake of its vote Thursday, Oct. 2, to commit military force to
the anti-Islamic State effort.) In fact, the public still doesn't know what
the commitments of each of the members is. This is a formula for keeping a
lid on a problem, for managing it -- not for solving it.

Think about it from another perspective. Yes, terrorists are tricky and
terrible. But the Islamic State is a force of only 20,000 to 30,000 that is
roughly the size of the active military in the Dominican Republic. Or, the
population of my hometown of Summit, New Jersey. By comparison, say,
roughly 20 million people served in the German army during World War II --
which took six years to wage, of which the United States fought for three
and a half. The Islamic State has no air force, no navy, no dependable
resource base on which to draw; it has had little training and is using
lousy equipment. Still we estimate that even if we take 26 of the richest
and most powerful nations on Earth, including its sole superpower, and
"commit" to fighting Islamic State forces, we will still probably be
fighting them six years from now. That's not a commitment. That's an effort
to keep a lid on things.

Further, of course, the real problem is not the Islamic State -- it is the
spreading, virulent militant extremism that the president has said he has
no real desire to address, categorizing it as a "generational" problem for
regional powers to handle even though it is clear its spread could
destabilize large swaths of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Further,
even if we beat back the Islamic State, we have no clear plan (or even a
coherent policy) for how we will deal with the way that may strengthen the
group's extremist enemies in Syria, the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad,
or forces in Iraq that might not be committed to the Sunni empowerment that
is essential to truly stabilizing that country.

As for Afghanistan, literally no one I know in the U.S. government or the
NGO community who deals with the country believes the new Afghan government
will be able to maintain control without a significant U.S. force (at least
10,000 or so) remaining in country, providing stability that will last
precisely until the day they leave. In the meantime, all expect the Taliban
to gain ground and political rivalries and corruption to eat away at the
government like a cancer. In short, again, the best deals we are striking
now are only likely to postpone the big issues until the term of the next
president.

When considering the Iran deal, since both sides want to reach an
agreement, there are really only two possibilities: Either a deal will be
struck by the deadline in November, or both sides will find a way to
prolong talks. A permanent breakdown is just not going to happen. The most
likely outcome is a phased series of steps to dismantle some of Iran's
program to be accompanied by the sanctions relief the Iranians want and
need. The first steps will be ones that the U.S. president can do without
Congress. If Congress passes new sanctions, the president will veto them.
Dealing with the sanctions that require congressional action will likely be
delayed until, well, who knows -- maybe after the next president is in
place. And of course, that president will have to deal with whether Iran is
holding up its end of the deal, whether it is continuing to destabilize the
region via Hezbollah, whether reformers can maintain their roles in the
face of hard-line pushback, and the hard part of enforcing a deal in which,
in all likelihood, the Iranians will get more of what they want (economic
normalization) than we get of what we want (delaying their ability to get
nuclear weapons -- we've already tacitly accepted the idea of their being
able to build them within one year of breaking our agreement).

With Putin, he will get all he wants, and we will not take any steps to
preclude him from his next aggressive action. That too will be left for the
next president. Dealing with the spread of violent extremism -- for the
next president. Re-engaging with the necessary pivot to Asia -- likely left
to the person who best championed that pivot in the first place, Hillary
Clinton. The list goes on and is too long to cover here. (Also yes, I get
it. Hillary may not run, may not be the candidate, may not beat a
Republican challenger. But right now, I'll take that bet. She's the one
person in the United States of America most likely to be its next president
and thus the one person most likely to have to deal with all of Obama's
unfinished business.)

And therefore, in all likelihood, President Hillary Clinton's first major
foreign-policy challenge will be much like that which faced President
Barack Obama -- cleaning up the messes of her predecessor and sending a
message to the world that she will not make the same mistakes. Perhaps that
is inevitable. We have swung from one extreme to another, too much action
to too little, too much appetite for risk to too little, too much of a
conviction of America's centrality to world affairs to too little. Clinton,
who was too centrist for the political swing sought by the public in 2008,
may be just right for a public desirous of splitting the difference between
the shortcomings of one president who thought he could do it all
unilaterally and another who built great coalitions to assist him in
postponing problems until his successor could take office.

*Politico Magazine: Amb. Christopher R. Hill: “They Sent Me to Iraq. Then
They Ignored Me.”
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/how-the-obama-administration-disowned-iraq-111565.html#.VC5-2fldWSo>*

By Amb. Christopher R. Hill

October 2, 2014

It was late April of 2009, and Hillary Clinton was coming to Iraq for her
first official trip as secretary of state. Normally, visits by a secretary
of state are a logistical nightmare for an embassy. As François Truffaut
once said of making films: They start as an effort to create a masterpiece,
and end as something you just want to get over with. But Embassy Baghdad
was the visitor capital of the world. It had an entire “visits unit”
staffed with former military personnel, more political and economic
officers for note-taking than any embassy I had ever seen in the world, and
logistical strengths in terms of a motor pool that were second to none.
Managing the highly choreographed visit of a secretary of state would pose
no strain on the embassy. I decided not to worry. After all, I was sure
Clinton would be coming every few months.

I had arrived myself in Baghdad only hours before as America’s new
ambassador, in what was to be my final posting after a three-decade-long
Foreign Service career that had taken me from the front lines of the
Balkans conflict and the historic Dayton peace conference to Poland and
South Korea. Much of what I saw on my arrival was the the military’s effort
to set up the State Department as the successor organization in charge of
Iraq. But letting go is hard to do, and the military was clearly uncertain
whether the State Department, much less Embassy Baghdad, was ready for the
responsibility. The military and its civilian camp followers were used to
running everything in Iraq. Iraqi national security meetings held on
Sunday nights
included U.S. military officials as well as (for civilian sensitivities)
the U.S. and British ambassadors, even though the British had pulled their
troops out and could not even agree with the Iraqis on a residual maritime
patrolling mission. I was appalled by the idea that anyone but Iraqis
should be in attendance at an Iraqi national security meeting, but was told
to avoid thinking that anything in Iraq should be what is considered normal
elsewhere.

I soon learned that the word normal, which I had always thought was on
balance a good thing, was taken as a sign that the person did not really
understand Iraq.

After she arrived, Secretary Clinton put herself through a grueling day:
meetings with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and senior Iraqi officials, and
women who had lost their husbands to war and violence (alas, sometimes at
the hands of our forces). Also, a kind of holdover from her days on the
campaign trail: the proverbial town meeting with all sorts of people—young,
old, women, men, muftis, seculars in gray suits, sheiks in flowing robes
and keffiyehs, women in black chadors and checkered shemaghs, just about
everybody.

Finally, at the end of the long day there was a meeting with the U.S.
Embassy staff in the large atrium of the half-billion-dollar embassy.
Secretary Clinton, seeming to make eye contact with every person in the
room, spoke eloquently and passionately, and with a sincerity that brought
tears to some eyes. She said how important Iraq was to her, a top-tier
issue, and how much she valued the staff at this embassy. She kindly
introduced me as the ambassador she would leave behind, and said she would
look forward to working with this embassy in the years ahead.

To thunderous applause, she walked the rope line—connecting, it seemed,
with everyone she shook hands with or simply touched. She took photos
effortlessly with people, waited patiently as employees turned amateur
photographers fumbled to find the flash switch on their cell phone cameras.
She finally made her exit out of the embassy to the waiting car, her
nervous security detail beginning to breathe a sigh of relieve that it was
all coming to an end soon. I said goodbye in the car on the edge of the
helicopter landing pad, and she made clear that I should call her whenever
I needed her help—and I would really need help, she said in mock
seriousness.

Exhilarated and grateful, I stood on the edge of the landing zone in a line
with a few other embassy personnel, all of us waving farewell to our
secretary with the expectation she would be back soon.

Three months later, Vice President Joe Biden took the lead on Iraq policy
and she never returned.

***

Soon after I arrived in Iraq, I was asked to produce a weekly memo for the
president to update him on what was going on. This request turned into a
month-long tug of war between the National Security Council staff and the
State Department, because if I was to write a regular memo, surely it
should be addressed to my direct boss, Secretary Clinton, first. Finally,
in a decision worthy of King Solomon, it was decided that the memo would go
to both the president and the secretary, but it would first make its way to
the State Department, addressed “Madam Secretary,” so that the secretary
could read and reflect on it, then forward it on to the president with her
own cover note.

Yet despite the ferocious fight the State Department had put up to make
sure these memos did not go directly to the White House, in 15 months of
writing them, I never received a single comment on them from anyone in the
State Department. President Obama was the only person I ever heard from.

It was increasingly unclear just who was doing what in the first six months
of the Obama administration. An embassy, especially a large player like
Embassy Baghdad, needs someone in D.C. to watch its back. I had had high
hopes that Under Secretary Bill Burns would play that role, but he seemed
to have been asked to do everything not Iraq, including taking on the task
of ensuring that Iran policy would not be taken over by the White House
with the creation of a special envoy position. Although special envoy
Dennis Ross, a former Middle East envoy and an internationally respected
expert on the region, was to sit at the department, the ease with which he
enjoyed relationships in the White House (indeed, all across Washington)
made it understandable why the secretary had wanted a crafty operator like
Bill to shadow that issue.

The decision to pull Bill away from Iraq meant that our backstop would be
Deputy Secretary James Steinberg. Although a political appointee, Jim had
had vast experience in the State Department and the White House during the
Clinton administration and could be counted on as a steady presence in the
interagency process, often a microwave cookbook of bad, half-baked ideas
(such as micromanaging what kind of candidate lists to have in the Iraqi
election law). Jim had an appetite for facts and figures and a talent for
taking any idea, good or bad, and analyzing the perils of it in such a way
that soon everyone would want to wheel it back into the garage for further
work. Jim saved people from themselves on a daily basis.

But within months, there were rumors that Jim was unhappy with his role at
State. Jim was above all a foreign policy realist, especially on China,
where he had delivered a thoughtful speech on the need to overcome
“strategic mistrust” (during the first term of the Obama administration the
word strategic was often married with another word, for example patience,
to convey thoughtfulness in foreign policy), but his reflections on China
were not necessarily what the administration was looking for at the time.
He seemed increasingly unhappy with the more strident tone the Obama
administration was taking on China and other issues. I knew he could not be
counted on for long to carry water for us back in Washington.

The State Department’s Near Eastern Affairs Bureau leadership was often
criticized for being inadequately seized with Israel’s agenda. Many of
NEA’s leaders had already done their Iraq time and had no intention of
doing any more if they could avoid it. Iraq, so the thinking went, was
someone else’s problem—especially the military’s, and rarely did Shia-led
Iraq help on any regional issues that NEA was concerned about. Assistant
Secretary Jeff Feltman, a veteran Arabist who had had a career in the
region in small but important posts, culminating as ambassador in war-torn
Lebanon, seemed particularly distressed by Iraq, insofar as it caused him
problems with the rest of the region and with the Pentagon suspicions that
the State Department lacked commitment.

In the end it was increasingly clear that Iraq remained the military’s
problem, not the State Department’s. It is not to say that Iraq was not on
people’s minds in Washington. But it was increasingly a legacy issue, a
matter of keeping faith with our troops rather than seeing Iraq as a
strategic issue in the region.

Iraq got the bureaucratic reputation as a loser, something to stay away
from. No question, Shia-led Iraq was the black sheep of the region, with no
natural allies anywhere.

Shia-led Iraq also did not fit into any broader theme that the
administration was trying to accomplish in the Middle East. The launching
of former Senate majority leader George Mitchell’s mission as the Middle
East envoy had been grounded almost immediately by the decision to press
the Israelis for a settlement freeze as a precondition to the resumption of
talks. In June 2009, Mitchell’s team began to consider options for how to
approach President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus to explore whether there
might be flexibility on the issue of the Golan Heights. CENTCOM commander
David Petraeus had taken the view that the Syrians had in fact been helpful
on the increasingly peaceful border with Iraq, and that this level of
cooperation should be rewarded with a senior U.S. trip to Damascus and
discussions with Assad about broader issues. A senior-level trip to
Damascus on Middle East peace would be controversial enough, so a cover
story was concocted in which the discussion would involve border stability
with Iraq.

The department asked me to inform Maliki of our intention to talk with
Assad, and to reassure him that the discussions were very preliminary, and
that if they went anywhere they would surely not involve any requests made
of the Iraqis.

I had already met with Maliki on several occasions in my first few weeks at
post. He was intelligent and thoughtful, tending to get down to business
faster than the average Iraqi politician. He had a dry sense of humor, and
some irony that also eluded many of his contemporaries, not to speak of
Washington visitors often frustrated at the lack of any English-language
capacity. Apart from saying “very good” excessively to visitors, Maliki
appeared to offer very little, though. Extremely thin-skinned, he devoted
much of his interpersonal skills to detecting any slights, real or
imagined. Fortunately, this extreme sensitivity did not appear to extend to
the casual clothing sometimes chosen by Washington visitors to the war
zone. Maliki wore dark suits and dark neckties seemingly every day of the
year.

He listened to the reassurances I offered on Syria, and thanked me for the
heads-up. Then, at first politely, and later not so, he got to the point,
“You Americans have no idea what you are dealing with in that regime,” he
said. “Everything for those people is a negotiation, like buying fruit in a
market.” He gestured at the luncheon table. “If you even mention us [Iraq],
Assad will see it as something you are concerned about losing and will make
you pay in the negotiation for it. Please do not even say the word ‘Iraq’
to him. Just keep it on your Middle East negotiations. That is your
business, not mine.” OK, I thought. That became a typical meeting with
Maliki. Not a lot of fun, but at least I know where he stood.

So much, I thought, for the idea that Maliki had some kind of special
relations with the Assad regime. I sent the cable in to the department.
Within a few days I learned from the embassy’s political-military
counselor, Michael Corbin, who was soon to become the Iran-Iraq deputy
assistant secretary and briefly visiting Washington in preparation for that
assignment, that the proverbial road to Damascus had been closed for
permanent repair. Not that I had thought it a particularly good idea to go
there in the first place, but I asked Michael why the idea had been
shelved, and whether Maliki’s skepticism had played any role.

“No idea,” he told me, reflecting the chaotic information flow in
Washington.

On June 30, 2009, Maliki gave a speech to announce a major development in
the U.S.-Iraqi Security Agreement. The occasion was the anniversary of the
2003 assassination of the Iraqi Shia leader Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir
al-Hakim. After a few words in memory of the fallen ayatollah, Maliki
shifted gears to describe the moment that U.S. forces would withdraw from
populated areas as a great victory for the Iraqi people, which did not sit
well with those who had backed the war effort. After all, Maliki was
suggesting that what had happened was the U.S. forces had in effect been
ordered to retreat. But as he talked more about the sacrifice that must
attend such a great victory, I began to understand better what he was
saying. In essence, Maliki was acknowledging that the Iraqi forces that
would soon take over checkpoints and mobile patrols would have their
problems doing so. He was bracing people for more casualties to follow.

I understood what he was saying, but it sure didn’t win him any friends in
Washington. The U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, spoke with him
soon thereafter to tell him he needed to make a gesture, suggesting that
during his upcoming visit to Washington he visit Arlington National
Cemetery and lay a wreath. He did so, but it was too little, too late.
Maliki’s reputation never recovered in Washington, and complaints about
him, whether in matters of human rights or relations with Sunni neighbors,
or his attitudes toward Americans, or political alliances within Iraq, all
seemed to reinforce each other with the conclusion that Iraq would be
better off with a new prime minister, perhaps one who did not seem
systematically to upset every conceivable constituent group. Nonetheless,
Maliki was a formidable player who could outwork and often outthink his
rivals. For years, U.S. officials had looked for a strong Iraqi leader, and
having found one they objected to the fact that he didn’t do what he was
told. As my late colleague from the Bosnian conflict, Amb. Bob Frasure, had
once said about a certain Balkan leader, “We wanted a junkyard dog like
this for a long time. Why would people expect him to start sitting in our
lap?”

The Washington-based concerns about Maliki, reinforced by the complaints
from other Arab countries, gave rise to the view that somehow we needed to
replace him, as if this were our responsibility let alone within our
capability. Foreign ambassadors in Baghdad, having heard the discontent
reported by their colleagues in Washington, came to my embassy to ask me,
“So, how are you going to get rid of him?” as if I had instructions to do
so.

My sense was that these foreign ambassadors were hearing typical Washington
grousing and were then pole-vaulting to the conclusion that we were
hatching a plan. Obviously that was not the case, but I could tell that the
talk was reaching the ever-paranoid Maliki and not helping our relationship
with him. I could see that a similar process was unwinding in Afghanistan.
Even if the United States were a latter-day Roman Empire as some neocon
pundits seemed to want, we still have to work with local leaders like
Maliki and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. Reports that we were trying
to get rid of them didn’t help. But even if we wanted to topple Maliki, you
can’t beat something with nothing, and the Iraqi political landscape was
not exactly blooming with new political prospects.

As sparse as that landscape looked to me, I never lacked for advice coming
from Washington, where some seemed to think that choosing Iraqi leaders was
akin to forming a fantasy football team. People who had served in Iraq, and
for whom time froze when they left, increasingly manned Iraq policy. Thus I
was treated to suggestions, often in the form of admonishments, as to why I
hadn’t recently visited such-and-such a politician, who, I was to glean,
had been some kind of hot prospect back in 2004 and 2005.

***

The fall of 2009 was a daily grind in Iraq’s political corridors as we
lobbied the parties for the passage of an election law, on the basis of
which there could be an election in early 2010. The Iraqis understood they
needed to agree on an election law, but they would do so on their
timetable, not ours. Hurrying them, as was Washington’s instinct to do,
seemed to reinforce in the Iraqi minds that what we really wanted was to
get an election, a new government, and pull our troops out.

On Nov. 8, the Iraqi Council of Representatives overwhelmingly approved an
election law, but two weeks later Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, the
Sunni representative to the collective presidency—which also consisted of
the president, the Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, and the vice president,
the Shia politician Adel Abd al-Mahdi—used the power vested as a member of
the presidency to veto the law.

Hashimi’s main line of concern with me was the perfidy of the Shia and
Kurds, and with Odierno he spent the lion’s share of his time seeking the
immediate release of nefarious persons inexplicably, in his view, picked up
by U.S. forces and held in detention centers. Ray always politely agreed to
look into the matter, and would send back his political advisor to Hashimi
with the bad news that the individuals in question could not be released at
this time. The British-trained Hashimi would take advantage of Ray’s
British political adviser to give a further spin on how bad things were—and
how they were getting worse—due, of course, to the Americans. He then would
give her still more lists of persons in detention who in his view had done
nothing wrong.

Hashimi vetoed the election law based on an issue that was very much a
Sunni concern, but which had not played a major role during the
parliamentary discussion of the law—the right of out-of-country Iraqis
(read: Sunni refugees) to vote. Within weeks, a compromise was worked out.
Vice President Biden, Washington’s point man on Iraq, and President Obama
were pressed into service making telephone calls to senior officials,
including offering a Washington visit for Massoud Barzani, the president of
Iraqi Kurdistan.

I welcomed Obama’s and Biden’s direct interest, but I knew that these
senior-level phone calls were adding to the perception that the United
States was desperate for an election law so that U.S. troops could be
withdrawn. By signaling our interest in withdrawal, we began to lose more
influence on the ground.

The high-level calls had another unhelpful impact on our efforts. They
became part of the toolbox, meaning that whenever there was an impasse on
the ground, the idea of ginning up a telephone call quickly emerged on the
to-do list. Senior phone calls also had still another negative impact on
our efforts: Washington bureaucrats went operational. Thus we began to
receive missives offering such nuggets of advice as “Never ignore Hashimi!”
Of course, we had been in regular contact with him, but he wasn’t the great
hope that some of these veterans of the early years had thought. Some of
the Washington micromanagement extended to offering me advice as to who
from the embassy I should bring along for meetings with Maliki and others.
It all added up to an impression that Washington wanted out of Iraq.

The parliamentary election on March 7, 2010, was a peaceful day. U.S.
troops, working with Iraqi counterparts, ensured security throughout the
country, and the number of incidents was remarkably low. The election
results took weeks to tabulate, and when they finally came in they were
very close. Ayad Allawi’s Iraq National Party, or Iraqiyya, a party that
was disproportionately Sunni, won 91 seats, while Maliki’s State of Law
coalition had 89 seats. A total of 163 seats would be needed to gain a
majority of the 325-seat Council of Representatives, and it meant that the
two top coalitions would be off to the races. Many of those seats would be
controlled by the Kurds, and therefore by Barzani, who mistrusted both
Maliki and Allawi.

The difference between Maliki’s and Allawi’s approaches was striking.
Maliki went to work, while Allawi went to CNN. Anytime I visited the prime
minister’s office I would have to pass a row of tribal chiefs waiting their
turn to be wooed with some political favor in return for their willingness
to support Maliki. Allawi thought it was enough to get on CNN to accuse
Maliki of becoming the “new Saddam.” Allawi also thought that what became
known as the government formation period was a good occasion to fly around
the Middle East and dump on Maliki.

According to a Kurdish leader with good connections to the Egyptian
government, Allawi had gone to Cairo to complain to President Hosni Mubarak
about Maliki, prompting the Egyptian strongman to respond: “Why are you
telling me this? I don’t vote in Iraq. In fact, if the situation is as you
describe, what are you even doing here?”

In a perfect parliamentary world, the party or coalition that garners the
most seats is given the opportunity to form the government. If Iraq were
part of that world, Allawi should have been given the right to form the
government, having come through the elections with two more seats than
Maliki. But the reality of the situation was that with both main coalitions
in a statistical dead heat, neither was going to step aside for the other.
We knew it would be a long, hot summer. In addition to working harder on
the ground for additional seats, Maliki also outpaced Allawi in
aggressively challenging the vote count, a decision that opened him to the
charge of being a sore loser, and a possible cheater. His recount demands
also exposed him to the charge that he was ultimately not going to respect
the results of the voting and might, as General Odierno suggested in a
teleconference with Washington, try to stage a “rolling coup d’état.” Ray
surprised everybody with that comment. It was nothing he had ever said to
me in private, nor had he taken that tone in any conversation with Maliki.
I always tried to make sure we spoke with one voice on the teleconferences
with Washington, but I fell silent when he expressed that opinion,
especially as he as he hadn’t warned me. The effect of his comment on
Washington was to heighten concerns about Maliki’s intentions.

Indeed, Maliki’s tough-minded behavior, his own bitter disappointment at
not coming out ahead of Allawi and his increasing feistiness on every issue
were making him a thoroughly unlikable and unlikely candidate to replace
himself. The foreign press corps was completely against him. Most foreign
diplomats were against him, including the U.S. Embassy’s own political
section.

Maliki was far from my ideal candidate, but I had real doubts whether
someone else was going to be able to unseat him. “Can’t beat someone with
no one,” I kept repeating to Gary, Yuri and other members of the political
section, who always seemed to fall silent when I asked the question, “If
not Maliki, then if you were king who do you suggest for prime minister?”
as if it were our choice to make. As the crucial postelection weeks of
April and May 2010 rolled by, Allawi spent more of his time traveling
abroad, using a jet provided him by the Gulf states, instead of building
his political support back home. I also noticed that regardless of Maliki’s
volatile and at times ugly behavior, there seemed to be no swing from the
other Shia blocs toward Allawi.

The process suggested to me that much of what we were seeing from the other
Shia was just bluster and an effort to give Maliki a well-deserved hard
time, but that whenever Maliki was prepared to show some real respect and
humility toward them, he could also gain their support.

Maliki’s Shia detractors had plenty of kind words for Allawi, but I could
not see that any of them were truly prepared to support Allawi’s Iraqiyya.
In Erbil, many Kurds describe Iraqiyya as a crypto-Baathist party. I became
skeptical that the Shia and Kurds would ever allow Iraqiyya to become the
governing party. He seemed to have no chance of increasing the number of
seats through coalition-building beyond the 91 he had won in the actual
election.

Allawi was a Shia himself, but he was secular. Those foreigners, and
especially those foreigners who had not seen these political patterns in
other countries, who believed that a Shia without Shia constituents could
become prime minister in Iraq’s current circumstances didn’t understand the
game being played. During the hard-fought campaign, Allawi never ventured
into southern Iraq, where most of the Shia lived. He did not make the
slightest effort to gain Shia votes. I concluded that the government
formation period was not going to be even close, but I hedged my comments
to Washington, not wanting to seem pro-Maliki or anti-Allawi.

I concluded we needed to focus on making a better Maliki than he had been
in his first four-year term, rather than engage in a quixotic effort to try
to oust him.

As the summer wore on, Maliki, who unlike Allawi rarely left the country or
even, it seemed, his office, started making progress with the other Shia
and some small Sunni parties. While no one was overtly committing to him,
it was clear that he was building the momentum to expand well beyond the 89
seats he already controlled. Allawi, still stuck at 91 seats, at one point
met with the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Damascus, a bizarre meeting
evidently arranged for Allawi by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who
probably had tired of Maliki and his public allegations against the Syrians
for terrorist attacks in Iraq. Allawi’s meeting with Sadr didn’t lead to
anything.

In the meantime, Barzani, the Kurdish leader, began to say that Maliki
might be an acceptable choice after all. Barzani had no interest in a
Kurdish-Shia alliance that would isolate the Sunnis, but he had realized,
just as I had, that there were no good alternatives to Maliki.

In early August Barzani invited me to his hometown of Barzan, up in
Kurdistan. We talked nonstop about the political deadlock and about
Barzani’s welcome decision to invite Maliki to his palace in Sulahaddin,
just north of the Kurdish capital of Erbil, the next day. By
prearrangement, at 4 p.m. my cell phone rang and a voice, identified as
“Joe,” was on the other end of the line. It was Vice President Biden. I
gave the phone to Barzani, who sat down on a folding chair cupping his
other ear to reduce the roar of the river. He and “Joe” had a good
discussion about the importance of the next day. We knew that the upcoming
meeting with Maliki would be crucial to forming a government.

I said farewell to Barzani that evening outside the guesthouse. I knew it
was my last visit to Kurdistan, and given that I was leaving Iraq a few
days later, and my career in the Foreign Service a few days after that, I
knew it was my last chance at diplomatic deal making. The odds are often
stacked against these deals working out, and when they do they are
sometimes short-lived, but the feeling that one has done everything
possible is a very good one. And better yet was the appreciation for
someone like Barzani, who, unlike a visiting diplomat, has to live with the
consequences that any political deal would involve. We performed our
awkward hugs and kisses before I headed to the helicopter for the trip back
to Baghdad.

I met Maliki in the morning and told him I thought the road was open to a
rapprochement with Barzani, provided he was willing to address Kurdish
concerns about their oil contracts and previous understandings about
disputed territory with Arab Iraq. Much later that day, word came from
Erbil that the meeting between Maliki and Barzani had gone well. They
pledged to work together for “inclusive” government—i.e., there would be a
Sunni component as well.

***

Three days later, I climbed in my last Black Hawk helicopter, strapped
myself into the seat next to the window, and rose up from the embassy
landing pad. We crossed out over Baghdad, its bright city lights shining in
the gathering dusk. In Washington a day later, Secretary Clinton asked to
see me in between appointments. She was busy that day, and even though it
was my last day in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer, I
knew she had other things going. I quickly briefed her on the embassy
operations, and said how pleased I was that a very good successor, the U.S.
ambassador to Turkey, Jim Jeffrey, had been named to follow me. I told her
about my next career as dean of the Korbel School of International Studies
at the University of Denver. She warmly said goodbye and thanked me for my
33 years of service. And then she asked me a question as I started walking
through the outer door of her office.

“Who could have ever thought Maliki should have a second term?”

“Beats me,” I answered.

*MSNBC: “The sleeper issue of the 2016 Democratic primary”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-sleeper-issue-the-2016-democratic-primary>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

October 2, 2014, 4:46 p.m. EDT

Fracking is quickly emerging as an under-the-radar issue likely to
influence the Democratic presidential primary in 2016, inflaming passionate
opposition among the party’s base.

The use of hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas has created
thousands of new jobs and drastically increased domestic energy production,
but it has also raised major environmental and health concerns.

Not unlike the issue of Common Core educational standards among
conservatives, fracking touches a nerve with rank-and-file progressives,
especially in rural areas, even as it gets less attention from cosmopolitan
Democrats, who will likely never encounter a fracking well in their
backyard.

Anti-fracking activists on the left have been disappointed by the Obama
White House’s acquiescence to the technique – it’s hard for any president
to turn down jobs during a recession – and are pressuring those who might
be the Democratic Party’s next presidential nominee to draw a harder line.

Activists have already knocked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
and are turning their sights on other potential candidates.

New York and Maryland are the only two states with shale formations that
haven’t yet allowed drilling. As it happens, both states have popular
Democratic governors with major national ambitions.

In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said that anti-fracking activists are by
far the visible pressure group in the state. “I literally see them
everywhere I go,” he told Capital New York. “One of my daughters joked – we
were pulling up to an event – she said, ‘We must be in the wrong place.
There are no fracking protesters.’”

Last year, anti-fracking activists ran a full-page ad in The Des Moines
Register – far from Albany, but close to the Iowa Caucuses – warning Cuomo:
“Not one well.”

And the pressure is now on Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. In a letter sent
to him Thursday, a coalition of more than 200 environmental, progressive
and health groups fired a warning shot across the bow of the nascent
O’Malley presidential effort.

If he runs for president —and it’s looking increasingly like he will – the
governor will want to be the consensus progressive alternative to Clinton.
With progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren unlikely to enter the race,
O’Malley has a good shot at carrying that mantle, though he may have to
compete with others like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

O’Malley has been working hard to lay the groundwork for a campaign, and he
has positioned himself to the left of Clinton on everything from
immigration to campaign finance.

Fracking would be another obvious place for him to draw a contrast with the
former secretary of state, who has said she will announce her 2016 plans
early next year. If O’Malley doesn’t do that, however, some activists are
warning he could risk his position as a leading liberal alternative.

“If Gov. O’Malley is serious about making a play for progressive
‘Warren-wing’ Democratic voters in the 2016 presidential primary, he should
know better than to do Wall Street’s bidding and put the health of millions
at risk by allowing fracking to come to Maryland on his watch,” said Jim
Dean, the chair of Democracy for America, a national organization that grew
out of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign.

More than three years ago, O’Malley effectively imposed a moratorium on
fracking in Maryland until the completion of a study he commissioned. With
the study process wrapping up soon, the anti-fracking activists who sent
the letter Thursdaywant O’Malley to take a stand against the practice, both
for the remainder of his final term and to influence the next governor of
his state.

And they worry privately that if the more progressive O’Malley approves
drilling in Maryland, it will give political license for Cuomo to do the
same in New York.

“In 2016, Democrats are looking to nominate a presidential candidate who
will stand up and fight growing income inequality, not cave to the special
interest forces on Wall Street who advocate for fracking at any cost,”
added Dean, whose group has 20,000 members in Maryland.

While the letter focused exclusively on the potential health and
environmental risks fracking may pose to Maryland residents, some of the
groups involved – like Dean’s – used the release as a means to remind
O’Malley of the potential risk to his personal ambitions as well.

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, another member of
the coalition, also hinted at 2016. “Gov. O’Malley is traveling extensively
throughout the country to places like Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire in an
effort to raise his national profile and tout his environmental record, but
the national movement against fracking is watching what is happening in
Maryland closely,” Hauter said. “Should Gov. O’Malley open the state to
fracking, that is what people will remember about him.”

Currently, fracking is regulated on the state level, but many
environmentalists and progressives want federal regulation or even an
outright ban on the practice. A majority of Democrats (59%) opposed
fracking, according to a Pew poll from last September, and the opposition
is even higher among liberals (64%).

At the same time, there are many in the party who view fracking as a boon
to the economy and U.S. energy independence. And natural gas is much
cleaner than other fossil fuels, so many environmentalist view the fuel as
an ideal “bridge” to a future when renewable energy is more practical.

That’s the balance Democrats hoping to win their party’s nomination in 2016
will have to make.

*The Week: “Can Bill Clinton save the Senate for Democrats?”
<http://theweek.com/article/index/269161/can-bill-clinton-save-the-senate-for-democrats>*

By Matt K. Lewis

October 3, 2014, 6:35 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Liberals certainly hope so

With barely a month to go until the midterm elections, and President
Obama's coattails looking more and more like a lead weight, vulnerable
Democrats across the country are turning to former President Bill Clinton
to appeal to red-state voters. And some analysts are calling on him to do
even more. Here's Brent Budowsky at The Hill:

“My advice to the Democratic Party for the close of the midterm elections
would be for Clinton to tape a series of 3- to 5-minute videos supporting
top Democratic Senate candidates, in addition to personally campaigning for
them. [...]

“[T]he party should bring the appealing and optimistic Clinton message to
the widest circle of voters in the largest number of states. It could be a
decisive advantage for Democrats that the most believable political referee
in the nation supports the plays of the home team in the closing minutes of
a tie game. [The Hill]”

This isn't the first time Democrats have looked to Bubba to bail them out.
After all, it was the "explainer in chief" who seemed to make the argument
for President Obama's re-election better than anyone — remember that
stemwinder at the 2012 convention? — and if the Democrats are able to
preserve their Senate majority in 2014, Bill Clinton will once again
deserve much of the credit.

Next week, Clinton will return to Arkansas to headline a series of rallies
for several candidates, including Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor, who is
attempting to fend off a tough challenge from GOP Rep. Tom Cotton. Mounting
evidence indicates that Pryor is in deep trouble, with most polls showing
Cotton narrowly ahead. But Clinton's potential appeal in Arkansas is even
stronger than elsewhere: After all, he was governor for a dozen years, and
the state is home to his presidential library. (And as Patricia Murphy
notes, he has an additional incentive: "Winning in November would not only
mean victory for his friends, but also for his own legacy, preserving the
brand of Southern progressive politics he has championed and installing
Clinton allies in important statewide slots ahead of a potential 2016
presidential bid for Hillary Clinton.")

So an all-Bill, all-the-time strategy is a no-brainer for Dems and the
Clintons, right? Well, not necessarily.

First, Clinton can't necessarily just deliver Arkansas. He couldn't do it
for Al Gore in 2000. And he campaigned hard for then-Sen. Blanche Lincoln
in 2010 — even appearing in a hard-hitting campaign ad for her. She got
crushed by 20 points.

Look no one believes Pryor will lose by such a wide margin. But Lincoln's
loss should put the Clinton visit in context.

Still, as Todd Purdum at Politico Magazine recently noted, "There is more
demand for Bill Clinton on the campaign trail than for any other single
figure in either party — including President Obama."

And the fact that President Clinton — once mired in scandal himself, once
shunned by his own party — has emerged as the most sought after surrogate
is quite noteworthy. Today, Mark Pryor might want to distance himself from
Barack Obama, but a dozen years ago, he was distancing himself from Bill
Clinton.

During his 2002 race, Pryor was benefiting from running against an opponent
(then-Sen. Tim Hutchinson) who was plagued by an adultery scandal. Pryor
(who is now divorced) was trying to usurp the "family values" mantle. Thus,
he sought to keep his distance from (you guessed it!) Bill Clinton.

A 2002 news report noted that Pryor "studiously avoided appearing at any of
the Democratic fundraising events that former President and Arkansas Gov.
Bill Clinton has headlined in the state this year, including a
get-out-the-vote rally earlier this week." One news report from the time
shows Pryor begging off a Clinton appearance, opting instead to do "debate
prep." Another notes that Pryor waited to accept a speaking invitation
alongside Clinton until after the programs had been printed, so he wouldn't
be listed as a speaker. As Jeff Zeleny noted at the time, "In Clinton's
home state of Arkansas, a Democratic candidate for Senate declined to
appear publicly with him late last month. Clinton's former chief of staff,
running for Senate in North Carolina, has also made it clear that he wants
his old boss nowhere near his race."

So what's changed? Obviously, the passage of time has healed some wounds.
You could also argue that the nation's changing views on social issues and
cultural mores helps. And, of course, there's the fact that Bill Clinton is
an incredibly gifted and likable politician.

It's strategic, too. I recently interviewed Daniel Halper about his book
Clinton, Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine. As the
title suggests, the Clintons have assiduously plotted this comeback by
taking proactive steps, including the building of a post-presidential
philanthropic infrastructure, wooing former enemies, and, as Halper puts
it, "seducing the Bushes."

Whether or not Bill Clinton can pull Pryor or other red-state Democrats
across the finish line remains to be seen. But the very fact that he's the
one they now turn to — having shunned him a dozen years ago — is, itself, a
big story. Guess we know why they call him the "comeback kid."

*Calendar:*

*Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official
schedule.*

·  October 6 – Ottawa, Canada: Sec. Clinton speaks at Canada 2020 event (Ottawa
Citizen
<http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/hillary-clinton-speaking-in-ottawa-oct-6>
)

·  October 8 – Chicago, IL: Sec. Clinton stumps for Illinois Gov.
Quinn (Chicago
Sun-Times
<http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/hillary-clinton-hitting-illinois-stump-gov-quinn/mon-09292014-1000am>
)

·  October 8 – Chicago, IL: Sec. Clinton keynotes AdvaMed 2014 conference (
AdvaMed
<http://advamed2014.com/download/files/AVM14%20Wednesday%20Plenary%20Media%20Alert%20FINAL%209_30_14(1).pdf>
)

·  October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton and Sen. Reid fundraise for the
Reid Nevada Fund (Ralston Reports
<http://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/hillary-raise-money-state-democrats-reid-next-month>
)

·  October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation
Annual Dinner (UNLV
<http://www.unlv.edu/event/unlv-foundation-annual-dinner?delta=0>)

·  October 14 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes
salesforce.com Dreamforce
conference (salesforce.com
<http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF14/highlights.jsp#tuesday>)

·  October 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton fundraises for House
Democratic women candidates with Nancy Pelosi (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-nancy-pelosi-110387.html?hp=r7>
)

·  December 1 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton keynotes a League of
Conservation Voters dinner (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-green-groups-las-vegas-111430.html?hp=l11>
)

·  December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts
Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)