Subject: Correct The Record Thursday August 14, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 13:48:49 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*Correct The Record Thursday August 14, 2014 Afternoon Roundup: *

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@allidablack
<https://twitter.com/allidablack> wrote in @TheAdvocateMag
<https://twitter.com/TheAdvocateMag> how @HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> has demonstrated her commitment to gay
rights
http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/08/14/op-ed-hillary-ready-us …
<http://t.co/DxmCRZGr0O>[8/14/14, 12:35 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/499957462246916096>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: The @HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> that @AllidaBlack
<https://twitter.com/allidablack> met in 1993 has always stood by #LGBT
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/LGBT?src=hash> people.
http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/08/14/op-ed-hillary-ready-us …
<http://t.co/DxmCRZGr0O> [8/14/14, 12:08 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/499950587258347520>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> worked to advance policies helping
parents balance work and family #HRC365
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash>
http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/issues.html …
<http://t.co/fOgQneFnrE> [8/13/14, 6:00 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/499676843566723072>]

*Headlines:*

*New York Times: “Is This Island Big Enough for Clinton and Obama?”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/us/politics/is-this-island-big-enough-for-clinton-and-obama-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMedia&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>*

“Hillary Rodham Clinton blew into this tiny island town like a fast-moving
hurricane on Wednesday, creating a commotion at the Bunch of Grapes
bookstore, where hundreds of admirers waited for hours in the rain for a
glimpse of the woman who they hope will be the next president.”

*The Daily Beast: “Obama Stifled Hillary’s Syria Plans and Ignored Her Iraq
Warnings for Years”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/14/obama-stifled-hillary-s-syria-plans-and-ignored-her-iraq-warnings-for-years.html>*

“But for Clinton personally, the engagement of the armed groups was crucial
and the White House’s forced policy of pretending that the best way to
support the revolution was through the civilian opposition based in Turkey
was foolish.”

*Wall Street Journal opinion: Karl Rove: “Hillary's Risky Hawkish Makeover”
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/karl-rove-hillarys-risky-hawkish-makeover-1407971047?KEYWORDS=karl+rove>*

“Moving away from Mr. Obama may look good on paper, but it may not work so
well. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton cannot point to any notable successes
during her State Department tenure.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Even with Hillary Clinton in the race,
2016 is basically a toss-up”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/14/even-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-race-2016-is-basically-a-toss-up/>*

“A new poll from McClatchy and Marist College documents that decline pretty
well. In hypothetical matchups with potential 2016 Republican candidates,
Clinton has seen her lead decline from 20-plus points in February to the
mid-single digits today.”

*CNN: “Gap shrinks between Hillary Clinton and Republicans”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/14/gap-shrinks-between-hillary-clinton-and-republicans/>*

“While Hillary Clinton still maintains an advantage over potential GOP
rivals in 2016, a new poll shows that her lead is narrowing. And as her
book tour has received extensive coverage, her support has dropped below
50%, according to the McClatchy-Marist poll released Thursday.”

*Politico: “Poll: Hillary Clinton’s 2016 lead drops”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/poll-hillary-clinton-2016-110009.html?hp=l6>*

“A McClatchy-Marist poll released Thursday shows that support for potential
Democratic candidate Clinton has dropped to under 50 percent in
head-to-head matchups as support for Republican potential candidates such
as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is gaining.”

*Time opinion: Sen. Rand Paul: “We Must Demilitarize the Police”
<http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>*

“The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse
for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep
the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a
military response.”

*Articles:*

*New York Times: “Is This Island Big Enough for Clinton and Obama?”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/us/politics/is-this-island-big-enough-for-clinton-and-obama-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMedia&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>*

By Michael D. Shear, Jonathan Martin and Amy Chozick

August 13, 2014

VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass. — Hillary Rodham Clinton blew into this tiny island
town like a fast-moving hurricane on Wednesday, creating a commotion at the
Bunch of Grapes bookstore, where hundreds of admirers waited for hours in
the rain for a glimpse of the woman who they hope will be the next
president.

“When I heard Hillary was going to be here, I literally started crying,”
said Lily Richards, a 17-year-old high school senior from Greenfield,
Mass., whose high school thesis paper argued for Mrs. Clinton’s election as
president. “Oh my God, I have to go.”

Up island from the hubbub, President Obama is vacationing at a sprawling
shingled home, still setting off friendly waves from locals when his
motorcade glides by. But after six years, energy here and elsewhere appears
to be shifting from Mr. Obama toward Mrs. Clinton, as the former secretary
of state moves away from the president’s orbit toward her own political
future, generating tensions that are spilling out in unusual ways.

Mr. Obama is fast becoming the past, not the future, for donors, activists
and Democratic strategists. Party leaders are increasingly turning toward
Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as Democrats
face difficult races this fall in states where the president is especially
unpopular, and her aides are making plain that she has no intention of
running for “Obama’s third term.”

The moment is an awkward one, and some moves by Mrs. Clinton are reopening
wounds from the 2008 primary contest. Her blunt public criticism of the
president’s foreign policy in The Atlantic this week touched off
frustration among Mr. Obama’s advisers and supporters, especially her
suggestion that under Mr. Obama, the United States lacked an “organizing
principle” in its approach to international relations. “ ‘Don’t do stupid
stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Christine Pelosi, a longtime Democratic activist and daughter of the House
minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, said her phone and email “just exploded”
after Mrs. Clinton’s remarks.

“Now is not the time to second guess the commander in chief, particularly
when you’re a former member of his cabinet and national security team,” Ms.
Pelosi said.

The sharpest response to the interview came from David Axelrod, who helped
Mr. Obama crush Mrs. Clinton in the primary six years ago in part by
calling attention to her support for the Iraq war. “Just to clarify: ‘Don’t
do stupid stuff’ means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which
was a tragically bad decision,” Mr. Axelrod wrote on Twitter on Tuesday.

Mrs. Clinton then issued an unusual public statement, saying that she had
called the president to reassure him that she had not intended to attack
him, and that she looked forward to “hugging it out” with him at a party
hosted by Vernon E. Jordan Jr. on Martha’s Vineyard on Wednesday night.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama sat at the same table during the party, a
birthday celebration for Mr. Jordan’s wife, Ann, at the Farm Neck Golf
Club. The president and his former top diplomat ate surf ’n’ turf and
pasta, but White House officials declined to say whether they hugged.

When Mrs. Clinton arrived Wednesday to begin signing copies of her latest
book, “Hard Choices,” on Wednesday, she paused to respond to reporters who
called out questions about her relationship with Mr. Obama. She answered
without missing a beat, saying: “We have disagreements, as any partners and
friends — as we are — might very well have. But I’m proud that I served
with him and for him.”

Then she turned her focus to her waiting fans, greeting them with a big
smile, a “thanks for being here” or “hello, sir, how are you?” and a quick
flick of the pen as she signed their books. Owners of the bookstore said
they had sold more than 1,000 books in advance of the event.

“Awesome. I just talked to the 45th president!” said Cynthia Woolbright,
63, who pumped her fist in the air after the former first lady signed her
copy.

Some Obama administration officials complain privately that Mrs. Clinton is
already making the president’s job more difficult. As Mr. Obama navigates
multiple foreign crises abroad, they say, he finds few vocal supporters in
the Democratic foreign policy establishment because would-be diplomats and
advisers have their eye on jobs in a future Clinton administration and do
not want to be seen as taking sides in a dispute between Mr. Obama and Mrs.
Clinton.

Even before Mrs. Clinton’s critique of Mr. Obama, some of the president’s
original loyalists were questioning the wisdom of her high-profile book
tour, which has been likened to a trial run for a national campaign.

“I don’t even understand why they’re doing this,” Mr. Axelrod said in an
interview earlier this summer. “If I were her, I would be so sparing. With
this, she makes herself a candidate and a target. Why she’d want to be out
there so early is beyond me.”

Robert Gibbs, another former adviser to Mr. Obama, said Mrs. Clinton risked
being drawn into an extended news media examination that would not benefit
a potential candidacy. Plus, Mr. Gibbs noted, Mrs. Clinton is inevitably
going to draw attention from Mr. Obama’s agenda in the small window that
exists between now and when the 2016 campaign is fully engaged.

“There’s no doubt that there’s a certain amount of news that you’re going
to cede each day,” he said of Mr. Obama.

Officially, Mr. Obama’s aides dismiss the notion that there is strain
between the president and Mrs. Clinton and insist that their staffs have
worked hard to develop trust. And they say it is natural for Mrs. Clinton
to stake out her own positions.

“It would be weird if she had no differences with us,” Benjamin J. Rhodes,
the deputy national security adviser, said shortly after “Hard Choices” was
published. “She has every right to say where there are some differences,
even as she’s made clear they agree on most issues.”

Still, the role reversal is a striking reminder that nothing in politics is
fixed. Mr. Obama eclipsed the Clintons in 2008 as the fresh, new face of
the Democratic Party, portraying them as baby boomer relics. Now, Mr. Obama
is in danger of becoming a lame duck, and his party has once again started
thinking about tomorrow — with the Clintons in mind.

Democratic strategists say the difference in standing will be especially
striking this fall. The party is being overrun with candidates’ requests
for the Clintons to campaign for them, while almost no candidate wishes to
appear with Mr. Obama.

Others suggested that Mrs. Clinton’s criticism of the president’s foreign
policy could actually help some Democratic candidates in places where Mr.
Obama is very unpopular. And her aides clearly believe it will help her.

Many of those who lined up for the book-signing in the steady rain,
patiently submitting to Secret Service screening and following lines marked
with yellow police tape, were women.

“I love Obama,” said Patti McGrath, 72, of Harwich, Mass., “but I want to
see women leading countries.”

*The Daily Beast: “Obama Stifled Hillary’s Syria Plans and Ignored Her Iraq
Warnings for Years”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/14/obama-stifled-hillary-s-syria-plans-and-ignored-her-iraq-warnings-for-years.html>*

By Josh Rogin

August 14, 2014

[Subtitle:] The rift between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over Syria
that spilled view this week was three years in the making and was about
much more than just arming the rebels.

Throughout 2011 and well into 2012, President Obama’s White House barred
Hillary Clinton’s State Department from even talking directly to the
moderate Syria rebels. This was only one of several ways the Obama team
kept the Clinton team from doing more in Syria, back before the revolution
was hijacked by ISIS and spread into Iraq.

The policy feud has flared up again in recent weeks, with Clinton decrying
Obama’s Syria policy, Obama’s inner circle hitting back, and the president
himself calling criticism of his Syria moves “horseshit.” Obama and his
former secretary of state promised to patch things up at a social gathering
on Wednesday. But the rift is deep, and years in the making.

Clinton and her senior staff warned the White House multiple times before
she left office that the Syrian civil war was getting worse, that working
with the civilian opposition was not enough, and that the extremists were
gaining ground. The United States needed to engage directly with the Free
Syrian Army, they argued; the loose conglomeration of armed rebel groups
was more moderate than the Islamic forces—and begging for help from the
United States. According to several administration officials who were
there, her State Department also warned the White House that Iraq could
fall victim to the growing instability in Syria. It was all part of a State
Department plea to the president to pursue a different policy.

“The State Department warned as early as 2012 that extremists in eastern
Syria would link up with extremists in Iraq. We warned in 2012 that Iraq
and Syria would become one conflict,” said former U.S. ambassador to Syria
Robert Ford. “We highlighted the competition between rebel groups on the
ground, and we warned if we didn’t help the moderates, the extremists would
gain.”

But the warnings, which also came from other senior officials—including
then-CIA chief David Petraeus and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta—fell on
deaf ears. Obama’s small circle of White House foreign policy advisers
resisted efforts to make connections with rebel fighters on the ground
until 2013, when the administration began to train and equip a few select
vetted brigades. For many who worked on Syria policy inside the
administration, it was too little, too late.

In the spring of 2012, the State Department prepared several classified
reports for the White House that provided evidence that the Assad regime
was much more durable than thought and was not on the verge of collapse, as
both the White House and State Department had assessed up to that point.
Back then, the al Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra was the main extremist
threat, but Clinton’s State Department was prevented from having any
relationship with the rebels who were fighting both the terrorists and the
regime, often having to work through intermediaries.

But for Clinton personally, the engagement of the armed groups was crucial
and the White House’s forced policy of pretending that the best way to
support the revolution was through the civilian opposition based in Turkey
was foolish.

“Clinton understood that the guys with the guns mattered, not the people in
Istanbul, that it would have regional implications, and that it could
become one large operating area for al Qaeda,” said Ford. “In 2012 and the
start of 2013 the most we could do was to provide help to the civilian
opposition. We had no permission from the White House to help the FSA, so
we did not do so.”

Toward the end of 2012, the White House allowed Ford and other State
Department officials to have direct contact with the FSA but still barred
even the provision of non-lethal aid. John Kerry, who also pushed to arm
the rebels, finally got the White House to agree to non-lethal assistance
in February 2013. The CIA ticked up its support for some armed rebel groups
later that summer.

Throughout Clinton’s tenure, the White House ban on doing more to help the
Syrian rebels wasn’t explicit, but over time everybody got the message.
Even U.S. allies in the region, who wanted the United States to take
control of the arming of the rebels, were complaining loudly to U.S.
officials that the extremists were taking advantage of U.S. inaction.

“There was never a stated policy, but there was a well understood view that
we were not going to do any more in Syria than we absolutely had to,” said
James Smith, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 2009 to
2013. “The Saudis wanted us to be more involved. They were very concerned
about the U.S. being perceived as weak and ineffectual.”

White House and National Security Council press staff did not respond to
requests for comment.

Another State Department official who worked on Syria during Clinton’s
tenure said the fights between White House and State Department staff over
whether to help the rebels got heated at times. The State Department tried
to alleviate Obama’s concerns about helping the rebels—it’s too risky, the
arms could get lost, it won’t help—by working hard to figure out who the
rebels were and how the United States could help them safely.

“[The State Department] tried to get the opposition to a place where if the
president did decide to arm the rebels, it would be easier to do,” the
official said. “But the institution of the State Department and the
institution of the White House were not on the same page. The president
didn’t budge, and Hillary had no control over that.”

Several former officials expressed exasperation this week after President
Obama told The New York Times that the idea that arming the rebels would
have made a difference had “always been a fantasy” and that “former
doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth” could win the war “was never in
the cards.”

They say Obama’s recent comments reveal that he was pursuing a policy that
he didn’t believe in, by eventually agreeing to let the CIA arm some
rebels, but only a little. This year, the president is asking Congress for
$500 million to train and equip the very rebels Obama thinks are hopeless.

“It wasn’t a fantasy when the U.S. government started training and arming
these doctors, farmers, and pharmacists, and led them to believe the U.S.
was coming to help them,” said another former administration official who
worked on the Middle East. “To them, the president’s remark is a kick in
the gut.”

Clinton had to call Obama and apologize after the publication of her
Atlantic interview, in which she said Obama’s “failure to help build up a
credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the
protests against Bashar al-Assad—there were Islamists, there were
secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left
a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”

Obama’s and Clinton’s press staffs have both tried to deescalate the feud
this week and emphasize their areas of agreement. Obama is particularly
sensitive about the criticism that his refusal to arm the rebels
contributed to the current crisis in Syria and Iraq. In a meeting with
lawmakers even before Clinton’s interview, he called that criticism
“horseshit.”

But even as the White House and Clinton team tried to paper over dispute
this week, White House and State Department spokespeople were still sending
different messages about the Syrian moderate opposition and whether the
U.S. will help them. The State Department emphasized American assistance
for the rebels; the White House downplayed the efficacy of that assistance.

“The U.S. has increased the scope and scale of our assistance to the
moderate Syrian opposition, including announcements made last year and a
request the president made of Congress this year to fund and authorize a
train-and-equip program for the moderate Syrian opposition. That’s
something we think is important, and we’ve continued to increase our
efforts in that area,” said State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf
on Tuesday, emphasizing that Assad helped start ISIS in the first place and
facilitated its activities in Iraq for years. “The Syrian opposition is
alive and well in Syria.”

Deputy National Security Adviser for Communications Ben Rhodes, on the
other hand, emphasized Obama’s resistance to Clinton’s strategy to help the
rebels, because Obama never thought it could work.

“The reason that the president was very deliberate in his decision-making
there is 1) we wanted to make sure that we were providing assistance to
people who we knew, so that it wouldn’t fall into the wrong hands given how
many extremists were operating in that area,” he said. “And 2) we didn’t
see a plan that was going to decisively tip the balance against Assad.”

*Wall Street Journal opinion: Karl Rove: “Hillary's Risky Hawkish Makeover”
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/karl-rove-hillarys-risky-hawkish-makeover-1407971047?KEYWORDS=karl+rove>*

By Karl Rove

August 13, 2014, 7:04 p.m. EDT

Barack Obama believed his legacy as president would be that he ended the
Iraq war. It looks increasingly that his legacy could be that he lost it.

By their admission, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden inherited
a war that had been won. In 2011 Mr. Obama said America was "leaving behind
a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq," and Mr. Biden proclaimed Iraq
"one of the great achievements of this administration."

Mr. Obama then committed a massive error in judgment by withdrawing all
U.S. troops. That allowed the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and
al-Sham, or ISIS, the world's most formidable, merciless and dangerous
terrorist army. ISIS is now establishing an Islamist caliphate that
stretches from Aleppo in Syria to Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq and beyond.

The president was warned about the ISIS threat for months, yet did
essentially nothing. As in so many other important moments when decisive
action was required, his actions were haphazard and reactive, his
leadership detached, his will almost nonexistent.

Even this past week, with ISIS threatening Kurdistan's capital and engaging
in genocide against Yazidis and Christians, the best the president could do
was order "targeted" airstrikes and send 130 additional troops to serve as
"military advisers." While better than nothing, these actions do not
demonstrate a commitment to defeating ISIS. Instead, Mr. Obama seems
content to cede much of Iraq and Syria to the terrorists. That will have
catastrophic consequences.

The Iraq calamity is the most recent in a staggering run of foreign-policy
failures, from Syria to Libya to Afghanistan to Russia to Gaza. The
president is paying a political price for his bumbling. The July 14 Pew
Research poll found only 35% approve of Mr. Obama's handling of Iraq, while
54% disapprove, down from 46% approve and 41% disapprove in January 2011.
Mr. Obama's numbers are likely worse today, one month further into the
crisis.

Things are so bad that Mr. Obama is even drawing fire from his former
secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. She is distancing herself from his
foreign policy, telling the Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg that she favored
aiding Syrian opposition groups when Mr. Obama did not. His refusal to
provide aid, she said, left a vacuum that was filled by ISIS.

Mrs. Clinton also made it clear that she would be tougher on the Iranian
nuclear program and a stronger supporter of Israel than Mr. Obama. Then she
added a wicked jab. Playing off the president's earlier quip that his
approach to foreign policy is "Don't do stupid s—", she said, "Great
nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an
organizing principle."

Mrs. Clinton is calculating that she must separate herself from the
president she served because voters increasingly see him as inept and weak.
She argues that she is a foreign-policy Goldilocks, balanced between the
frontier rambunctiousness of Mr. Obama's predecessor and the erudite
timidity of Mr. Obama.

Moving away from Mr. Obama may look good on paper, but it may not work so
well. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton cannot point to any notable successes
during her State Department tenure. If she developed a strategy that was
more than the laughable "reset" button she used to mend U.S. relations with
Russia, it escaped public view. Distancing herself from the president's
foreign policy also underscores her failure to persuade Mr. Obama to act
otherwise.

Mrs. Clinton's shots at the president have angered administration
loyalists. Former Obama senior adviser David Axelrod reacted by tweeting
that her vote as a senator to authorize the use of force in Iraq was "a
tragically bad decision." Liberal commentators are warning that Mrs.
Clinton's comments show she is not the inevitable nominee. After being
whipsawed, her people now say she called Mr. Obama to "clarify her
criticism" and looked forward to "hugging it out" with him at a Martha's
Vineyard party Wednesday.

There is a historical precedent worth considering. Vice President Hubert
Humphrey found it difficult to distance himself in 1968 from an unpopular
President Lyndon Baines Johnson, and he suffered because of it. It was not
until a Sept. 30 nationally televised address, when he broke completely
with LBJ over the Vietnam War, that he felt he got his campaign back on
track. But it was too little, too late, and Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon.

While she is starting her distancing earlier, in some respects Mrs. Clinton
faces a greater challenge than Humphrey did in 1968. A gifted politician
might be able to pull off what she is attempting, but she is hardly that
talented. It's more likely that she will fail to win over many of Mr.
Obama's critics as she alienates many of his supporters, making her road to
the nomination and White House more difficult.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Even with Hillary Clinton in the race,
2016 is basically a toss-up”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/14/even-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-race-2016-is-basically-a-toss-up/>*

By Aaron Blake

August 14, 2014, 1:19 p.m. EDT

It's no big surprise that Hillary Clinton has come back down to earth
polling-wise in the last few months. Her stumbles aside, it was basically
bound to happen eventually -- for a whole host of reasons.

A new poll from McClatchy and Marist College documents that decline pretty
well. In hypothetical matchups with potential 2016 Republican candidates,
Clinton has seen her lead decline from 20-plus points in February to the
mid-single digits today. She leads Chris Christie by six points after
leading him by 21 points six months ago. She leads Jeb Bush 48-41 after
leading him by 20 in February. She leads Rand Paul 48-42 after leading him
by the same margin early this year.

Here's how that looks:

[GRAPHS]

Democrats will point out that Clinton is still ahead against all comers.
And that's true. It's also true, though, that these polls pretty much show
the 2016 presidential race is a toss-up.

Clinton's continued lead, at this point, is pretty clearly a function of
her superior name ID. While Clinton wins the votes of 97 percent of "strong
Democrats" in all three matchups, Christie and Paul take only 91 percent of
"strong Republicans." While Clinton takes 79 percent of "soft Democrats,"
Paul only takes 65 percent of "soft Republicans." That's largely because
these Republicans aren't as well-known to their base.

In all three matchups, Clinton continues to take at least 20 percent of
so-called "soft Republicans." That's to her credit, and good on her if she
can somehow keep it up. We would wager, though, that as those "soft
Republicans" actually get to know Republicans and the GOP's campaign
against Clinton begins in earnest, there's no way Clinton will continue to
pick off one in five of even the most casual GOP voters. It's just not
possible in today's polarized political environment.

As for pure independents-- those who don't really lean toward either party
-- they continue to favor Clinton in two of the three matchups. But in all
three matchups, around one-third of these voters are undecided. These are
the voters that will decide the 2016 election, and there are a lot of them
up for grabs. We doubt many of them know much about Rand Paul, Jeb Bush and
Chris Christie, even as all of them know who Clinton is.

At this point in the game, Clinton is so well-known that she's effectively
the incumbent, trying to ward off her lesser-known challengers. And, as
with an incumbent, to the extent that she's below 50 percent in the polls,
it's hard to call her a favorite.

*CNN: “Gap shrinks between Hillary Clinton and Republicans”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/14/gap-shrinks-between-hillary-clinton-and-republicans/>*

By Ashley Killough

August 14, 2014, 8:36 a.m. EDT

While Hillary Clinton still maintains an advantage over potential GOP
rivals in 2016, a new poll shows that her lead is narrowing.

And as her book tour has received extensive coverage, her support has
dropped below 50%, according to the McClatchy-Marist poll released Thursday.

The survey also looks at the 2016 Republican primary and who fares best
among the potential candidates.

*Clinton vs. Republican*

In a hypothetical matchup against Sen. Rand Paul, Clinton bests the
Kentucky Republican, 48%-42%, with 10% undecided. The 6-point margin is
equal to the poll's sampling error, and the gap is narrower than in April,
when Clinton had a 55%-39%

Matched against Gov. Chris Christie, Clinton leads the New Jersey
Republican, 47%-41%, with 12% of voters undecided. That's down from her
53%-42% advantage over Christie in April.

Clinton has also lost her wide margin over former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush,
who she leads 48%-41%, down from her 55%-39% advantage in April.

*Republican primary*

The poll also asked Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who
they would support in the GOP presidential primary. Like nearly every other
2016 poll, the McClatchy-Marist poll indicates there is no frontrunner in
the race, and nearly a quarter of Republicans are undecided.

Bush and Christie tie for the top spot at 13% each, with Sen. Ted Cruz of
Texas following behind at 10%. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who served as
the 2012 vice presidential nominee, ties with Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida
at 9%.

Paul and Texas Gov. Rick Perry tie at 7% each. Gov. Scott Walker of
Wisconsin, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and Louisiana Gov.
Bobby Jindal all receive less than 5% of support.

The poll also indicates that Paul, while trying to expand the Republican
Party has lost support among tea party supporters. In April, he came in at
20% among tea party backers, with Cruz at 6%. Paul now has only has 7%
support from the group, compared to Cruz at 15% - the top spot.

The survey was conducted on August 4 with 1,035 adults, including 806
registered voters, questioned over the phone. The registered voters’ subset
has a sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. For questions
about the 2016 GOP primary, 342 Republicans and Republican-leaning
independents were interviewed, with a sampling error of plus minus 5.3
percentage points.

*Politico: “Poll: Hillary Clinton’s 2016 lead drops”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/poll-hillary-clinton-2016-110009.html?hp=l6>*

By Kendall Breitman

August 14, 2014, 10:12 a.m. EDT

The Republican front-runners for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination are
shrinking the gap between themselves and Hillary Clinton, according to a
new poll.

A McClatchy-Marist poll released Thursday shows that support for potential
Democratic candidate Clinton has dropped to under 50 percent in
head-to-head matchups as support for Republican potential candidates such
as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is gaining.

When asked to chose between Clinton and Christie, 48 percent of those
polled said they would vote for Clinton in a general election if one were
held today, compared to 41 percent who supported Christie. Four months ago,
in April, 53 percent of people said that they would vote for Clinton, while
42 percent sided with Christie. In February, Clinton had an even larger
advantage, with 58 percent supporting Clinton and 37 percent saying they
would vote for Christie.

Paul, another front runner for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, is
also gaining on the former secretary of state. In April, Clinton led Paul
54 percent to 40 percent. In August, Paul is catching up with 42 percent of
Americans saying they would vote for the Kentucky senator while 48 percent
sided with Clinton.

A similar shrinking gap can be seen between Clinton and Bush. In April, 55
percent of Americans said that they would vote for Clinton in a general
election and 39 percent said that they would vote for Bush. On Thursday,
results show that only 48 percent supported Clinton while 41 percent said
that they would side with Bush in a general election.

This poll was conducted via live-interview telephone survey Aug. 4-7 among
803 registered voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5
percentage points.

*Time opinion: Sen. Rand Paul: “We Must Demilitarize the Police”
<http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>*

By Sen. Rand Paul

August 14, 2014, 12:26 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Anyone who thinks that race does not skew the application of
criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention.
And the root of the problem is big government.

The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is an awful tragedy that
continues to send shockwaves through the community of Ferguson, Missouri
and across the nation.

If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have
been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t
have expected to be shot.

The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse
for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep
the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a
military response.

The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than
traditional police action.

Glenn Reynolds, in Popular Mechanics, recognized the increasing
militarization of the police five years ago. In 2009 he wrote:

“Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. … Police look inward.
They’re supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to
maintain order with a minimum of force.

“It’s the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays,
police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad
consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent
civilians.”

The Cato Institute’s Walter Olson observed this week how the rising
militarization of law enforcement is currently playing out in Ferguson:

“Why armored vehicles in a Midwestern inner suburb? Why would cops wear
camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and
beauty parlors? Why are the authorities in Ferguson, Mo. so given to
quasi-martial crowd control methods (such as bans on walking on the street)
and, per the reporting of Riverfront Times, the firing of tear gas at
people in their own yards? (‘‘This my property!’ he shouted, prompting
police to fire a tear gas canister directly at his face.’) Why would
someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the
Ferguson police scene, comment that ‘We rolled lighter than that in an
actual warzone’?”

Olson added, “the dominant visual aspect of the story, however, has been
the sight of overpowering police forces confronting unarmed protesters who
are seen waving signs or just their hands.”

How did this happen?

Most police officers are good cops and good people. It is an unquestionably
difficult job, especially in the current circumstances.

There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem.
Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by
using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are
essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire
military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law
enforcement.

This is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism.
The Heritage Foundation’s Evan Bernick wrote in 2013 that, “the Department
of Homeland Security has handed out anti-terrorism grants to cities and
towns across the country, enabling them to buy armored vehicles, guns,
armor, aircraft, and other equipment.”

Bernick continued, “federal agencies of all stripes, as well as local
police departments in towns with populations less than 14,000, come
equipped with SWAT teams and heavy artillery.”

Bernick noted the cartoonish imbalance between the equipment some police
departments possess and the constituents they serve, “today, Bossier
Parish, Louisiana, has a .50 caliber gun mounted on an armored vehicle. The
Pentagon gives away millions of pieces of military equipment to police
departments across the country—tanks included.”

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of
civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and
jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants,
pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our
hands.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to
feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities
in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not
to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of
St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is
an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael
Brown.

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the
application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close
enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who
are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent
mistakes in their youth.

The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented
expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal
officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve
crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.

Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous,
or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and
one that is at a near-crisis point in our country.

Let us continue to pray for Michael Brown’s family, the people of Ferguson,
police, and citizens alike.