Subject: Correct The Record Monday September 8, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:19:00 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Monday September 8, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: As FLOTUS, Clinton received Mother
Teresa award for her humanitarian work, Albania's highest civilian honor
#HRC365http://1.usa.gov/U6M2xM [9/7/14, 4:00 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/508706300918648832>]

*Headlines:*

*MSNBC: “Clinton and Bush get chummy at joint event”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-and-bush-get-chummy-joint-event>*

“A potential future president, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
was also there, taking a seat in the back. She did not speak.”

*Associated Press: “Clinton, Bush Trade Jabs, Launch Scholars Program”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_BUSH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

“With Hillary Rodham Clinton seated in the fourth row, Bush noted that many
people ask him about the possibility of another Bush-Clinton White House
campaign. His father, President George H.W. Bush, lost to Clinton in 1992,
and his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, may seek the GOP nomination
in a race that could pair him against Hillary Clinton. ‘The first one
didn't turn out too good,’ Bush quipped.”

*U.S. News & World Report blog: The Run 2016: “How Hillary's 2016 Timeline
Will Affect the Others”
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/09/08/how-hillary-clintons-2016-timeline-will-affect-republicans>*

“In essence – due to her unique stature in American politics – once Clinton
is in, it will be difficult for others to wait.”

*Politico: “Benghazi panel to hold first hearing”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/benghazi-panel-first-hearing-110702.html>*

“The House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi
will hold its first public hearing next week, according to a committee
spokesperson.”

*Washington Post blog: Erik Wemple: “False advertising on ‘Meet the Press’:
People are afraid to say Hillary Clinton’s running for president”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/09/08/false-advertising-on-meet-the-press-people-are-afraid-to-say-hillary-clintons-running-for-president/>*

“Now, what is the thing that people have been so afraid to say of late?
According to yesterday’s show, it’s that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running
for president. So Todd said it: ‘Yeah, it’s obvious … that she’s running.’”

*Burlington Free Press (V.T.): “Sanders would tempt fate, and history, as
Democrat”
<http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/08/sanders-weighs-democratic-presidential-run/15151293/>*

“Sanders says he's yet to decide whether to run for president in 2016. But
he has plenty of supporters urging him to run — and to do so as a Democrat.”

*Slate: “Field of Dreams”
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/hillary_clinton_visits_iowa_voters_hope_for_change_but_midterm_elections.html>*

“There will also be thousands of normal human beings in that Indianola
field, extending their phones like periscopes to capture one or both of the
Clintons as they pledge allegiance before a vast flag or pretend to cook
steak on a grill that’s almost as large.”

*Washington Post blog: WorldViews: “Obama’s new man in Moscow doesn’t do
Twitter”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/08/obamas-new-man-in-moscow-doesnt-do-twitter/>*

“When McFaul arrived in Moscow, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was
pushing her envoys to use Twitter to reach new audiences in the countries
where they were the public face of America. McFaul was happy to comply.”

*Associated Press: “University of Miami President Shalala to Retire”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MIAMI_SHALALA_RETIREMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

Shalala's goal was simple: She wanted to make Miami "the next great
American university" and seemed to succeed in raising the school's profile."

*Articles:*

*MSNBC: “Clinton and Bush get chummy at joint event”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-and-bush-get-chummy-joint-event>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

September 8, 2014, 12:17 p.m. EDT

The bonhomie was flowing between former presidents Bill Clinton and George
W. Bush Monday morning at an event to announce a new scholarship program
run jointly by their presidential centers.

Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush was there in spirit, sending a lighthearted
note urging his successors to keep their remarks brief at the event hosted
by the Newseum in Washington, D.C. A potential future president, former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also there, taking a seat in the
back. She did not speak.

The scholarship program is aimed at leveraging the experience and resources
of the former presidents to teach new generation of leaders, so the two
former presidents discussed at length what they admired about the
leadership style of other occupants of the Oval Office, including each
other.

Clinton revealed that Bush would call him twice a year in the latter’s
second term to talk casually for 30 to 45 minutes. “I felt good about that.
I thought that was a really healthy thing,” Clinton said. He’s now become
especially close with the elder bush, whom both former presidents praised
movingly. The younger Bush has a new book coming out about his father next
month.

With two Clintons and two Bushes in the mix, the specter of dynasty and the
2016 presidential election loomed over the event, but only addressed once.
The families have been close, but Hillary Clinton and former Florida Gov.
Jeb Bush are both considering runs, which could pit the clans against each
other once again.

Bush, who was relaxed and casual, joking as often as he was serious, said
he was recently asked about the prospect of another Clinton-Bush matchup.
“My answer was: The first one didn’t turn out too good,” he joked he
replied. Joshua Bolten, Bush’s former chief of staff who was moderating the
discussion, quickly moved the conversation elsewhere.

At one point while Clinton was speaking on stage, a cell phone ring could
be heard. The former president reached into his pocket to pulled out his
device and silence it. “Only two people have this number, and I’m related
to both of them,” he said, with his wife in the room. “I hope I’m not being
told I’m about to become a premature grandfather.”

While Clinton has used his post-presidency to engage in global issues and
remain on the public stage, Bush has led a relatively quiet life. “One of
the things I’ve learned, maybe through my painting, is that I’m trying to
leave something behind. Something to make the world a better place,” he
said in a rare introspective moment.

Clinton, as is his style – Bush called him an “awesome communicator” – was
more voluminous in his remarks. Both presidents were asked what they
admired about each other and Clinton gave a lengthy response, praising his
successor’s conviction and humility. Bush replied more briefly, praising
Clinton’s empathy and oratory skills.

“Is that enough? It was a lot shorter than your answer,” Bush said. Bolten
assured him the answer was “equally powerful.” “Thank you, Josh, former
chief of staff, I appreciate you saying that,” Bush replied sarcastically
to laughter.

Clinton spoke about the need for compromise in politics, saying that he
loved the film “Lincoln” and the Broadway show “All the Way” about LBJ
because they both showed presidents getting things done, even when it
sometimes required ugly dealmaking. “If you read the Constitution, it ought
to be subtitled, let’s make a deal,” he added.

Clinton said he hoped the new scholarship program would bring together
leaders from various walks of life and in different sectors. For example,
he hoped it would bring together tea party activists and community
organizers in inner-city African-American or immigrant communities, who
might find surprising common ground.

The program is a joint project of the presidential centers of George H.W.
Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Johnson, with support from private
foundations. It’s a non-degree program for people who have already proven
themselves and are ready to advance to another level. The board of advisors
is made of alumni of both Clinton and Bush White Houses, as well as retired
General Stanley McChrystal, the former Afghan War commander who was
relieved by President Obama.

Finally, Bolten asked Bush if he had any advice for Clinton on becoming a
grandfather. “Get ready also to be, like, the lowest person in the pecking
order in your family,” he replied warmly.

*Associated Press: “Clinton, Bush Trade Jabs, Launch Scholars Program”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_BUSH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

By Ken Thomas

September 8, 2014, 12:57 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Political opposites turned friends, former Presidents
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush launched a new scholars program at four
presidential centers with an opening act that might have been mistaken for
a comedy routine.

The two former presidents - one a Democrat, the other a Republican - shared
laughs and a buddy-like banter on stageMonday, talking about presidential
leadership while trading stories about their famous families and life after
the White House.

Bill Clinton said he and Bush laughed backstage about people coming up to
them at restaurants and asking to take "selfie" photos. Quipped Bush: "At
least they're still asking."

With Hillary Rodham Clinton seated in the fourth row, Bush noted that many
people ask him about the possibility of another Bush-Clinton White House
campaign. His father, President George H.W. Bush, lost to Clinton in 1992,
and his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, may seek the GOP nomination
in a race that could pair him against Hillary Clinton.

"The first one didn't turn out too good," Bush quipped.

The 42nd and 43rd presidents joined together to announce the Presidential
Leadership Scholars program, a partnership between the Clinton, Bush,
George H.W. Bush and Lyndon B. Johnson presidential centers. At a time of
partisanship and gridlock, both presidents said they hoped the scholars
program would attract people in business, public service and the military
interested in learning about presidential decision-making and applying it
to their own careers.

Clinton revealed that he and Bush would speak twice a year during Bush's
second term, 30-to-45 minute conversations about policy and politics. While
they didn't always agree, Clinton said he never talked about their
discussions and said the talks "meant a lot to me."

Clinton said the test of any democracy is finding ways of having a vigorous
debate and still reaching resolution to the nation's problems. "If you read
the Constitution, it ought to be subtitled: `Let's make a deal,'" Clinton
said.

The elder Bush got in the act from afar, writing in a letter read aloud
that every former president displays different qualities, "for example, not
all of us skydive."

Bush, who celebrated his 90th birthday in June by making a tandem parachute
jump, urged the two former presidents to "keep it brief."

George W. Bush campaigned for president in 2000 on restoring "honor and
dignity" to the White House following Clinton's impeachment over a sex
scandal. But the two former presidents have developed a bond, strengthened
by their mutual admiration for the elder Bush, whom Clinton visited in
Maine last week.

Clinton and the younger Bush worked together on relief efforts after
Haiti's devastating earthquake in 2010 and have been active in the fight
against HIV/AIDS in Africa.

Bush noted that his upcoming book, called "41: A Portrait of My Father,"
would be a "love story. It's a story about seeing someone you admire and
learning from them."

As moderator Josh Bolten joking plugged the book's Nov. 11 release date,
Clinton mused about writing his own competing Bush 41 book. "I think I can
put one together that would be ready to go," Clinton joked.

*U.S. News & World Report blog: The Run 2016: “How Hillary's 2016 Timeline
Will Affect the Others”
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/09/08/how-hillary-clintons-2016-timeline-will-affect-republicans>*

By David Catanese

September 8, 2014, 12:30 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Clinton's unique place in American politics could force an
earlier start to the 2016 race.

Hillary Clinton’s signal that she’ll finally settle on whether to run for
president again in January – a mere four months from now – likely will
force the rest of the prospective field to reassess their own timelines for
entry.

Assuming Clinton allows her intentions to be known during the first month
of the year and assuming she decides to run, the 2016 White House campaign
could commence before people have packed away their holiday decorations.

In essence – due to her unique stature in American politics – once Clinton
is in, it will be difficult for others to wait.

None of her potential rivals from either party are as well known or as
vetted as she is. Among Democratic constituencies, the expected rush of
unity around Clinton will only hasten the drumbeat for those like Vice
President Joe Biden and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley to make a decision
quickly. If either of them were to defiantly move ahead, it would be a
suicide mission to wait very long to begin gathering staff and attempting
to raise funds.

Top Republican operatives argue Clinton’s timeline won’t affect the GOP
tribe. There remains a line of thought within GOP circles – or perhaps it's
wishful thinking – that Clinton isn’t running after all.

“To me, she looks more like a person ending her career than starting,” says
Keith Nahigian, who managed Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s 2012
presidential bid.

“I think very few GOP wannabes care what she does,” offers Dave Carney,
Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s former top political aide. “More than a few think
she won’t pull the trigger anyway.”

Yet the better odds are that Clinton is running and the regular trickle of
paid speeches, book tour events and winks and nods in interviews is just a
drawn-out warm-up act to the 2015 kickoff.

It also explains why the emerging Republican field has taken shots at
Clinton at every chance afforded to them.

Because the GOP primary contest currently has only a marginal, tenuous
front-runner and is expected to turn into a wide open and divisive
free-for-all, there will be an incentive to get in early – beginning with
the traditional formation of an “exploratory committee” – and define
oneself.

Given that financial capacity within GOP circles is likely to be divided
among a handful of upper-tier candidates, free media will be vitally
important for the Republican slate – especially when juxtaposed against
Clinton, who will attract nonstop coverage the moment she’s in.

As one unaligned operative notes, Clinton has graced the covers of
supermarket checkout tabloids for almost a quarter of a century. Not one of
the Republican aspirants can match that level of familiarity. But they must
raise awareness of their biographies to compete in both the primary and
general elections.

A slightly compressed primary calendar – with fewer debates – only adds to
the urgency for Republicans, especially if Clinton is largely unopposed for
the Democratic nomination. Media coverage will slowly but surely begin to
frame the 2016 contest regarding which Republican is best suited to match
up against the former secretary of state.

Of all the Republicans mulling it, there are two that could wait somewhat
longer than the rest: Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and former Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush.

Bush’s name needs no explanation to the Republican primary voter and he’ll
have access to bundles of money whether he decides in January or June. Paul
has some residual name identification from his father’s three presidential
endeavors, though the Kentucky senator has been the most aggressive
contender in laying the groundwork for 2016 and it seems unlikely he'd wait
long after the new year to announce a bid.

In the 2012 presidential cycle, most of the GOP field triggered exploratory
committees – a legal vehicle that allows candidates to test the waters with
fundraising and operational staffing – in March and April of 2011, with
official announcements following in May and June.

But that timeline was calculated against a sitting president with no
intraparty opposition.

A better parallel is to look back at the last time there was an open seat
for the presidency without an incumbent. That, of course, was the 2008 race.

Then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., announced his exploratory committee on Jan.
16, 2007. Clinton dove in four days later onJan. 20.

But it’s often forgotten that several Republicans got out in front of them
with extraordinarily early announcements.

Former Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., announced his exploratory committee on
Oct. 30, 2006 – a week before the midterm elections.

It’s unlikely any major candidate would pull the trigger that early, but
both Sen. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani waited only a little more than a
week after the 2006 midterms to turn the switch for 2008. Giuliani and
McCain pulled the trigger in 2006 on Nov. 14 and Nov. 16, respectively.

That early of an entry would invite immediate scrutiny, but it would also
position a candidate to be on equal footing with Clinton when she makes her
expected announcement in January.

Maybe the political world won’t even have to wait until after the new year
for the next race for the White House; a daring contender could jump start
things before Thanksgiving.

*Politico: “Benghazi panel to hold first hearing”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/benghazi-panel-first-hearing-110702.html>*

By Lauren French

September 8, 2014, 10:49 a.m. EDT

The House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi
will hold its first public hearing next week, according to a committee
spokesperson.

The hearing will focus on the State Department’s Accountability Review
Board — a panel created by the State Department after the attacks — to
review the government’s security systems abroad.

That review board found “systemic” management and leadership failures at
the State Department surrounding the militant attacks, which left
Ambassador Chris Stevens dead. The panel issued more than two dozen
recommendations in December 2012 to help the U.S government tighten its
security controls.

The committee, chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), will focus on how the
implementation of those recommendations has proceeded.

The 12-member panel has actively worked since it was first created earlier
this summer, reviewing previous reports on the Benghazi attacks and
requesting documents from the State Department on the U.S. government’s
actions in the region before, during and after the attacks.

The hearing was first reported by Fox News.

*Washington Post blog: Erik Wemple: “False advertising on ‘Meet the Press’:
People are afraid to say Hillary Clinton’s running for president”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/09/08/false-advertising-on-meet-the-press-people-are-afraid-to-say-hillary-clintons-running-for-president/>*

By Erik Wemple

September 8, 2014, 1:11 p.m. EDT

Chuck Todd did a good job in his debut yesterday as host of “Meet the
Press.” He asked good questions of President Obama in an interview that the
show spread out over a few segments; he interviewed three mayors about how
they were overcoming Washington’s deep-set gridlock; and he acted like
Chuck Todd — humble and smart and reasonable.

None of which stops the Erik Wemple Blog from posing a monster quibble with
the program. As part of an effort to freshen up “Meet the Press,” Todd
introduced a segment titled “What everyone in Washington knows, but is
afraid to say.”

What a great premise! So bold and out-there. Now, what is the thing that
people have been so afraid to say of late? According to yesterday’s show,
it’s that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for president. So Todd said it:
“Yeah, it’s obvious … that she’s running.”

What courage. Todd is the first person to come out and make such a
declaration. Except for:

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, who wrote, “Let’s be honest: Hillary
Clinton is running for president.”

Carl Cannon, who wrote: “Yes, let’s get that out of the way: Hillary Rodham
Clinton is not deciding whether to run for president; she’s already running
for president.”

The Week, which wrote, “Yes, Hillary Clinton is running for president.”

UCLA political science professor Lynn Vavreck, who wrote in the New York
Times that the world is “sure she’s a candidate, and they are treating her
like one.”

Miami Herald world affairs columnist Frida Ghitis, who wrote on CNN.com,
“Yes, Hillary Clinton is running for president, and she is running away
from President Barack Obama’s record on foreign policy.”

A commentator on CNBC, who said that it “appears that she’s running for
president.”

“Daily Show” host Jon Stewart, who said in an interview with Clinton, “It
sounds to me like, if I may, you’ve declared for president.” A boomlet of
Clinton-is-running pieces sprung up after that July program. Here’s one,
another and another.

*Burlington Free Press (V.T.): “Sanders would tempt fate, and history, as
Democrat”
<http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/08/sanders-weighs-democratic-presidential-run/15151293/>*

By Nicole Gaudiano

September 8, 2014, 8:12 a.m. EDT

WASHINGTON – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has belonged to one political
party in his lifetime: the anti-war Liberty Union Party.

That was back in the 1970s. Since then, Sanders has forged his own
political path, caucusing with Democrats in Congress but remaining
independent on the ballot.

That could change as he considers a 2016 presidential bid. Among the
decisions he's weighing is whether to run as an independent or as a
Democrat.

On one hand, Sanders believes many people are dissatisfied with the
two-party system and think Democrats are doing too little to protect
working-class and middle-income Americans.

On the other hand, a Democratic presidential bid has definite advantages.

"If you run as a Democrat, it would obviously be much easier to get on the
ballot," Sanders said during a recent interview. "And the advantage, again,
running as a Democrat, is that you would be in the middle of Democratic
primaries, you would be in debates, and you would, I think, attract more
media attention for your ideas."

Sanders, who turns 73 today, is the longest-serving independent member of
Congress in history. His progressive views, which he delivers forcefully in
a Brooklyn accent on the Senate floor and left-leaning news shows, don't
always align neatly with the Democratic agenda or party politics.

*Democratic urges*

A self-described democratic socialist, he believes lessons can be learned
from the Scandinavian approach to governing, focusing on health care as a
right, free higher education, and an emphasis on environmental issues and
childhood poverty. In March, he held a subcommittee hearing on ways that
countries such as Denmark and Canada offer better health care for less
money.

"We should have a government that represents all of our people," he said,
"not one which is dominated by big money which significantly works for the
interests of the wealthy and large corporations."

Sanders says he's yet to decide whether to run for president in 2016. But
he has plenty of supporters urging him to run — and to do so as a Democrat.

Progressive Democrats of America has gathered about 14,000 signatures on a
petition, urging Sanders to run in the Democratic presidential primaries.
The group is organizing steering committees in Iowa towns and plans to
raise money for Sanders through its political action committee, Progressive
Democrats of America Action Fund.

When Sanders makes various stops in Iowa this month, the group will have
bumper stickers, signs and banners greeting him with the message, "Run
Bernie, Run."

"If he runs as an independent, we just feel he would be isolated," said
Conor Boylan, the group's co-executive director. "It wouldn't be a smart
move for him."

Sanders would encounter "substantial procedural and legal hurdles" to
accessing the ballot if he ran as an independent in the Democratic
primaries or in the general election, said Tad Devine, a Washington media
consultant and political strategist who has worked on two Sanders campaigns.

Devine, who has spoken with Sanders about the decision, said he thinks
Sanders would run as a Democrat, or at least within the structure of the
party.

"He understands that a third-party challenger of his nature could do
something very bad, like help elect a Republican president, like, for
example, (Ralph) Nader did in 2000," said Devine, who also has worked on
presidential campaigns for Al Gore and John Kerry.

*No spoilers*

Sanders said that would never be his intention if he ran as an independent.

"If the campaign did not catch on, I would not stay in the race until
November and play the role of a spoiler," he said. "But that decision would
have to be made down the line."

Sanders noted that he's always won in Vermont as an independent, and his
lack of party affiliation is part of his identity. His supporters in the
state appear to like him that way, according to recent poll conducted by
the Castleton Polling Institute in Vermont.

Fifty-five percent of 608 people polled in May said they likely would
support a Sanders presidential bid. Of that group, 55 percent said he
should run as an independent, while 31 percent said he should run as a
Democrat.

Boylan of the Progressive Democrats of America Action Fund, however, said
Sanders is an "ideal" progressive candidate to run in the Democratic
primaries, because the Vermonter would work to expand Social Security,
protect Medicare and Medicaid and advocate for the poor and working classes.

"We don't want Hillary Clinton to be the presumptive nominee and to run
unchallenged," Boylan said. "We need to have an open debate."

*Priorities*

Sanders, the son of a Polish-Jewish immigrant father and a New York-born
mother, studied psychology at Brooklyn College and graduated with a
political science degree from the University of Chicago, where he was
active in the civil rights movement.

After graduating, he spent time on an Israeli kibbutz. He moved to Vermont
in the 1960s and worked as a carpenter, filmmaker, writer and researcher.
He lost several elections as a Liberty Union Party member before his
successful bid as an independent for mayor of Burlington in 1981.

anders, now chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, has
caucused with Democrats since his days as Vermont's lone congressman,
beginning in 1991.

He believes the party does a better job than the GOP of standing up for
working families, but he said there are "too many Democrats who are not
prepared to stand up to the billionaire class, which today has incredible
economic and political power."

His priorities include:

• Overturning the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. the
Federal Election Commission, which allows corporations and unions to spend
unlimited amounts of money on ads supporting or opposing individual
candidates. Sanders calls the decision "disastrous."

• Addressing wealth and income inequality with a "massive federal jobs
program" to rebuild crumbling infrastructure, an increased minimum wage,
affordable higher education, a reformed trade policy to prevent
corporations from shipping jobs overseas and a reformed tax system so
profitable corporations can't avoid paying them and wealthy individuals pay
more.

• Focusing on the "crisis" of climate change and the need to move away from
fossil fuels.

• Creating a single-payer national health care system, also known as
"Medicare for all."

"These are the issues," he said. "This is what is important."

Sanders has been traveling the country, visiting traditional and
non-traditional presidential campaign stops. Last month, he visited North
Carolina, South Carolina and Mississippi. On Labor Day, he was at an
AFL-CIO breakfast in Manchester, N.H., and later this month, he'll be in
Wisconsin, Iowa and New Hampshire again.

His message is simple: The country's middle class is collapsing, the gap
between the rich and poor is widening, and if nothing changes, the country
could move toward an oligarchic society where a handful of billionaires
control the economic and political system.

Sanders said his main challenge is figuring out whether that message
resonates.

"How many Americans are prepared to get involved in the political process
and fight hard to prevent that?" he said. "That's the question that I have
to deal with."

*Slate: “Field of Dreams”
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/hillary_clinton_visits_iowa_voters_hope_for_change_but_midterm_elections.html>*

By John Dickerson

September 7, 2014, 11:55 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] A mixture of hope and high expectations brings voters out to
see the candidates. But the 2014 midterm elections are about to dash both.

The Iowa State Fair is over, but the circus is coming to town. On Sept. 14,
Hillary and Bill Clinton will attend the 37th annual Harkin Steak Fry, the
famous Iowa political event named after Sen. Tom Harkin. A mess of
journalists will rush after the couple, looking for signs of a presidential
campaign and drawing conclusions on the nearest barn wall. (It is fitting
that the event takes place on a hot air balloon field.) But there will also
be thousands of normal human beings in that Indianola field, extending
their phones like periscopes to capture one or both of the Clintons as they
pledge allegiance before a vast flag or pretend to cook steak on a grill
that’s almost as large.

The press will be there to cover the hype (and create it), but the people
sinking their folding chairs into the grass during the political speeches
will be there for the hope. It is the engine that drives all presidential
campaigns. Voters are exhausted with Washington politicians debating one
another in adjacent boxes on TV, but they can still be thrilled by a
presidential candidate walking in the fall air. Some will have brought
their kids so they can get a glimpse of perhaps the first female president.
That’s not simply a change from the previous president, but from the 227
years there will have been presidents.

But is this the beginning or the end of something? This will be Harkin’s
last steak fry—the senator is retiring after five terms, and there’s a
tough fight to replace him. The winner will become a freshman in a body
that is drastically different than the one Harkin entered—different even
than the one Hillary Clinton joined in 2001. It is partisan and deadlocked,
and the election of 2014 will show us why it’s likely to stay that way. The
structure of modern politics is driving toward more gridlock. That means
the sense of hope and high expectation that’s fueling all those people
coming out to look at Hillary Clinton may be a vain one.

It’s easy to see why presidential campaigns encourage hope for progress.
It’s not just that so many parties, including the media, are invested in
the conceit that big ideas are being debated and decided by the electorate.
The structure of the presidential campaign helps encourage the notion that,
despite the occasional silliness, progress is being made. In Washington, it
doesn't seem to matter how many people march or protest, little happens
when the gavel sounds. In a campaign, though, every yard sign and Facebook
posting is aimed at a guaranteed result: the verdict of Election Day.
Everyone who chooses to participate can believe that he or she might be
doing the thing that changes minds and determines outcomes. When that
verdict is rendered, all the activity that led to it is supposed to
represent the people’s will. A president chosen through that productive
process will have a honeymoon and a mandate. But is that an old idea that
has died? The election of 2012 changed nothing: Afterward it was the same
players, the same debates, the same clog. Still, voters will show up in
that field in Iowa this week, full of hope.

Usually we have to wait until a president disappoints us before the hope
dissipates, but the tall oaks of disappointment are being planted this
fall. The election feels national—control of the Senate is at stake, after
all, and the president's performance in office is on the ballot. But the
electorate participating will be small, and there isn’t much actual
engagement on national issues that could provide a mandate or give us a
sense of the public mood. And even if there were, the politicians would
learn soon enough to ignore the public message and follow the guidance of
the structure that rules elections.

In the election of 2014, only a small number of seats are in a position to
act as a proving ground for a battle of ideas. The Center for the Study of
the American Electorate suggests that this might be the lowest midterm
turnout in history. The number of people who will participate in states
with elections that will determine control of the Senate is even smaller
still. The House represents a national election of sorts, since all 435
members are up for re-election, but of that group only 30 (6 percent) are
in races that are considered up for grabs.

Even if there were a great chunk of the population being asked to weigh in
on competing visions about the issues of the day, those people would have
lots of free time. The two parties are running parallel campaigns aimed at
motivating their core voters. Republicans want the race to be about
national issues and the failures of the president. Democrats want it to be
about everything but that, so they're focusing on local issues.

In North Carolina last week, Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan ran four ads with
voters describing how the education cuts of her opponent, state House
Speaker Thom Tillis, have affected them. On the other side, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce launched its second general election ad attacking Hagan
for her ties to President Obama. When the two candidates participated in
their first debate last week, Hagan focused her remarks on how Tillis was
bad for women. Tillis talked about how Hagan was a rubber stamp for the
president. If the candidates aren’t discussing issues in an election, the
election can’t ratify one set of policy ideas over another.

Elections don’t need to be about issues because, as the National Journal’s
Ron Brownstein points out, congressional elections are increasingly just a
method for voters to show their presidential preferences. In the 2006
midterm election, Republicans won six of the 10 Senate races in states
where exit polls showed President Bush’s approval rating reaching 46
percent or above, but lost 19 of the 20 in states where he stood at 45
percent or below. In 2010, Democrats won Senate races in nine of the 10
states in which President Obama’s approval reached 48 percent or higher,
and lost 13 of the 15 states that gave him lower marks.

As Brownstein has been arguing, the death of split-ticket voting has
changed the electoral structure so that senators who were once encouraged
to compromise no longer have to. During the Reagan and Nixon presidencies,
Republicans controlled about half the Senate seats in the states they won.
That meant there were Democrats representing states that preferred
Republicans at the presidential level. That encouraged compromise. A
senator needed to show his voters who did not share his ideology that he
was not abandoning them. But that pressure has disappeared. During Bill
Clinton’s term, two-thirds of the senators from states Clinton carried were
also Democrats. Under President George W. Bush, that share became
three-fourths. Now, under President Obama, Democrats hold 83 percent of the
Senate seats in the states he won.

Democrats are sure to lose seats in 2014, and they may lose control of the
Senate, which should be the ultimate rebuke of their party and their
president. But since elections are increasingly driven by structural rather
than policy differences, the incentive will be for Democrats to hew to the
structure, not bend to some new policy view ratified by the last election.
The 2016 map favors Democrats the way the 2014 map favors Republicans.
Republican senators are on the ballot on blue or purple states like
Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Democrats will be encouraged to
block Republican ideas and blame them as Obama-hating. In 2016 Democrats
will run as the antidote to GOP overreach in a presidential election where
members of the Democratic coalition turn out in greater numbers than they
do during a midterm. If the first viable female nominee is on their ticket,
that will help Democrats even more.

It won't just be Democrats with an inclination to keep things bottled up in
Washington. Republican senators facing re-election will have to fear
challenges from the Tea Party on the right. One GOP strategist is advising
every Republican up for re-election in 2016 to plan for a primary. That
will not encourage Republicans running in competitive states to take vast
risks for the sake of bipartisanship, particularly if the Democrats are
being difficult.

Hope doesn’t have much of a chance in that environment. An even stronger
version of this hope was on display at the Harkin Steak Fry in 2006 when
President Obama was the keynote speaker. Iowa was a spiritual birthplace
for Obama, since his victory in its state caucus boosted his chances. He
went on to win the state twice in the general elections. But that hope was
dashed, too. As I was typing this piece and making plane reservations to
bring my tank of air to join the Hillary throng, an email came in from
Gallup about the Iowa Senate race: “As a key U.S. Senate race unfolds in
Iowa ... Obama’s approval rating among Iowans for the first half of the
year stood at 38 percent, five percentage points below the national average
and the lowest rating Gallup has measured in Iowa during his presidency.”

At an Iowa campaign rally, presidential candidates present a world of easy
possibility. Solutions promise to be effective, and entrenched opposition
is easy to vanquish. The stump speeches are infectious, because at a time
of high cynicism, people allow themselves the chance to believe that it
really could be like this. Perhaps Sen. Rand Paul or Gov. Chris Christie or
Hillary Clinton can pull this off. Every presidential season the feeling
that the right candidate can change things gets replanted like a field of
corn. But the way elections are heading, the idea that salvation can arise
from an Iowa cornfield is starting to feel like something that only makes
sense in Hollywood.

*Washington Post blog: WorldViews: “Obama’s new man in Moscow doesn’t do
Twitter”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/08/obamas-new-man-in-moscow-doesnt-do-twitter/>*

By Michael Birnbaum

September 8, 2014, 12:36 p.m. EDT

MOSCOW – The old U.S. ambassador to Russia was a firecracker on Twitter,
taking on critics and offering a view of Moscow life that was unusually
unfiltered for a diplomat.

The new U.S. ambassador – who on Monday presented his credentials to the
Russian Foreign Ministry – doesn’t even have a Twitter account.

John Tefft’s arrival in Moscow last week as Washington’s new envoy here
filled a post that had been empty since February, bringing a seasoned and
traditional hand to the embassy at the time of the worst relations between
Russia and the United States since the Cold War.

Tefft’s predecessor, Stanford academic Michael McFaul, 50, had been
President Obama’s chief Russia advisor before his arrival in Moscow in
January 2012, just as the protests against then-Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin were reaching their zenith. McFaul dived in to the job with a glee
and openness that befit his cheerful character and academic past – but it
unsettled Kremlin policymakers who said he was in town to stoke a
revolution.

When critics attacked him on Twitter, he was ready to fire right back,
countering a Russian Foreign Ministry offensive against him in spring 2013
with a series of protestations. He was – and remains – happy to engage with
both supporters and detractors on the messaging service.

The openness and speed of McFaul’s Twitter communications were unusual for
a U.S. ambassador, whose every public utterance is typically vetted and
filtered in advance by the State Department. But when McFaul arrived in
Moscow, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was pushing her envoys to
use Twitter to reach new audiences in the countries where they were the
public face of America. McFaul was happy to comply.

Clinton’s “message was that our diplomacy goes beyond meeting with our
counterparts in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” he said in a January
interview with The Washington Post, shortly before he announced he would be
departing after the conclusion of the Winter Olympics held in Sochi, Russia.

That experiment with Twitter may have backfired in Russia -- and Tefft's
appearance in Moscow is a reversion to a more traditional form of diplomacy
that may play better in the Kremlin's gilded hallways than McFaul's ever
did.

Tefft, born in 1949, is a career diplomat and former ambassador to Ukraine,
Georgia and Lithuania who was brought out of retirement for the Moscow job.
He has a far different style, one more accustomed to working the quiet
channels of diplomacy than punching out pithy 140-character observations on
his State Department BlackBerry. And his arrival is a retrenchment of sorts
for the Obama administration, which is gambling that his conservative
approach to diplomacy will play better for getting business done  The
embassy has said that if ever his words appear on Twitter, they will come
over the official embassy account, and he won’t be the one doing the
tweeting.

After he presented his credentials on Monday, he said that “as Ambassador,
I have two main responsibilities. First and foremost, I am here to promote,
defend, and explain the interests of the United States. Secondly, I am here
to help my own government understand Russia’s goals and perspectives.

“America’s relations with Russia have a long and complex history. We have
been allies, and we have been adversaries. We have cooperated and we have
clashed. One thing, however that has never changed is America’s enduring
commitment to engage with Russia, its people, and its government,” he said.

His words were published on Facebook.

But he wasn’t the man who did the typing.

*Associated Press: “University of Miami President Shalala to Retire”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MIAMI_SHALALA_RETIREMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

By Tim Reynolds

September 8, 2014, 12:12 p.m. EDT

CORAL GABLES, Fla. (AP) -- University of Miami President Donna Shalala
plans to step down in 2015, ending a tenure in which she raised the
school's profile but also guided the athletic department through a
controversial move to the Atlantic Coast Conference and a scandal involving
a rogue former booster.

Shalala, 73, told the school's board of trustees of her decision Monday.
She took over at Miami in 2001 after serving eight years as Health and
Human Services Secretary under President Bill Clinton, with whom she
remains close.

Shalala's goal was simple: She wanted to make Miami "the next great
American university" and seemed to succeed in raising the school's profile.
Miami is now consistently ranked among the nation's top 50 colleges and
universities. The school's first "Momentum" fundraising campaign under her
watch raised $1.4 billion, and the second such drive is on the way to a
goal of another $1.6 billion.

The school's next fiscal year begins June 1. It's expected a new president
could be in place by then.

Shalala also has been the chancellor at the University of Wisconsin and the
president of Hunter College. She has received the Presidential Medal of
Freedom from President George W. Bush, is a recipient of the Nelson Mandela
Award for Health and Human Rights, and was a Peace Corps volunteer in Iran
in the 1960s. She once made national headlines for foiling an attempted
robbery at an ATM from which she had just withdrawn cash in Washington. She
still teaches classes at Miami.

Sports has long been a major part of Shalala's life, and it was a major
part of her Miami presidency as well. On the day she announced she was
Coral Gables-bound in 2000, Shalala referenced the Hurricanes' football
team, saying that she knows why the program had long been a perennial power.

"They know how to recruit," Shalala said.

Now, Miami will be recruiting her replacement.

She has long been a regular at Miami games, no matter the sport. She's been
to World Cup matches, thrown out ceremonial first pitches at Olympic
softball games and served on the board of directors for the U.S. Soccer
Foundation. She enjoys telling the story of her first Little League coach
when she was growing up in the Cleveland area - a man by name of George
Steinbrenner, who would eventually own the New York Yankees.

It may be fitting that Shalala's best-known legacies at the school will be
tied to athletics, even though the school's reputation and its medical and
research reach grew considerably under her leadership.

The Hurricanes' basketball teams play in an on-campus building now, the
Bank United Center, the construction of which she spearheaded. Some moves
from her presidency made were far more controversial, including Miami's
part of the ACC expansion in 2003 and the school's decision to move home
football games from a decaying (and now demolished) Orange Bowl for Sun
Life Stadium, home of the Miami Dolphins.

Football won its fifth national championship a few months after Shalala's
inauguration as Miami's fifth president. It has not won a title since, and
the program is beginning to emerge from a cloud that hung over it for years
after a former booster and convicted Ponzi scheme architect went public
with tales of lavish spending on athletes in violation of NCAA rules.

The NCAA investigation ended last year, but not before Shalala - who was
complimentary of the NCAA for much of the process, until it became known
that investigators working the case were breaking their association's own
rules - lashed out at the governing body for college sports and demanded
that Miami be treated more fairly.

"Her leadership throughout this chapter was amazing," football coach Al
Golden said when the investigation ended last year.

Shalala is a 1962 graduate of Western College for Women, got her doctorate
in 1970 from Syracuse and holds more than 50 honorary degrees.