Subject: Correct The Record Saturday August 30, 2014 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:54:40 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Saturday August 30, 2014 Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*The New York Times: “Hillary Clinton’s Gay Rights Evolution”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/fashion/hillary-clinton-gay-rights-evolution.html>*

“Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton believed in the 1990s, most activists
interviewed said she had emerged as a forceful advocate at the State
Department, devising policies to help gays and lesbians abroad and in the
Foreign Service. And her speech in Geneva marked a major turning point in a
movement that is increasingly focused on discrimination in countries where
same-sex relationships are illegal.”

*Ottawa Citizen: “Hillary Clinton speaking in Ottawa Oct. 6”
<http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/hillary-clinton-speaking-in-ottawa-oct-6>*

“The consensus frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2016 – and
perhaps the next president of the United States – will be in OttawaOct. 6 for
a luncheon speech at the Ottawa Convention Centre, the Citizen has learned.”

*Business Insider: “Hillary Clinton Had A Surprise Interview With Big
Republican Cisco CEO John Chambers”
<http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-surprise-visit-at-cisco-2014-8>*

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed up as a surprise guest at
Cisco's huge internal sales conference that took place this week. She was
interviewed on stage by CEO John Chambers.”

*Politico: “No escaping Bill Clinton, Barack Obama in Arkansas”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/bill-clinton-barack-obama-arkansas-110457.html>*

“Bill Clinton hasn’t called Arkansas home in over 20 years, and Barack
Obama has never lived here. But they’re casting huge shadows on this
state’s race for governor.”

*The Daily Beast: “Special Ops Commander Swears: I Won't Be Hillary's VP”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/29/special-ops-commander-swears-i-won-t-be-hillary-s-vp.html>*

“Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill responded Thursday with one word to an
emailed query: ‘Rumors.’”

*MSNBC: “Paul and Clinton blur partisan lines on foreign policy”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/paul-and-clinton-blur-partisan-lines-foreign-policy>*

“After a decade in which Republicans championed an aggressive unilateral
foreign policy under President Bush and Democrats rallied behind a more
measured international approach under President Obama, the battle lines are
getting blurry as presidential season approaches.”

*CNN: “Rand Paul: If 'Hillary Clinton worked for Bill Clinton, she'd
probably have been fired'”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/29/rand-paul-if-hillary-clinton-worked-for-bill-clinton-shed-probably-have-been-fired/>*

“Sen. Rand Paul on Friday defended his criticism of Hillary Clinton over
the 2012 attack against a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.”

*Time: “Rand Paul: Bill Would Fire Hillary”
<http://time.com/3224432/rand-paul-bill-clinton-would-fire-hillary-clinton/>*

“Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is positioning himself as the GOP’s ace Clinton
critic.”

*Salon column: Paul Rosenberg: “Don’t do it, Hillary! Joining forces with
neocons could doom Democrats”
<http://www.salon.com/2014/08/30/dont_do_it_hillary_joining_forces_with_neocons_could_doom_democrats/http:/www.salon.com/2014/08/30/dont_do_it_hillary_joining_forces_with_neocons_could_doom_democrats/>*

[Subtitle:] "Clinton's Iraq vote kept her from the presidency in 2008.
Staying hawkish could harm the party for decades. Ask LBJ"

*Articles:*

*The New York Times: “Hillary Clinton’s Gay Rights Evolution”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/fashion/hillary-clinton-gay-rights-evolution.html>
                 *

By Amy Chozick

August 29, 2014

EAST HAMPTON, N.Y. — The crowd of supporters stretched around Main Street
on a busy Saturday in August, hundreds of Hamptonites curving past the
Ralph Lauren and Tiffany & Co. stores, waiting patiently to greet Hillary
Rodham Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton had taken a break from her beach vacation to sign copies of
her latest memoir, “Hard Choices.” Her presence transformed BookHampton,
the bookseller the Clintons frequent on their working summer vacations,
into a sort of pre-campaign event with Secret Service agents, and
well-wishers including Martha Stewart and Howard Dean.

The shores of Long Island are not exactly a proxy for the enthusiasm Mrs.
Clinton may find on a nationwide presidential campaign. But among the many
gay couples in the crowd, a refrain emerged.

“You literally brought tears to my eyes when you said gay rights are human
rights and human rights are gay rights,” said a stylish man in white jeans
who greeted the former first lady with his partner in tow.

It’s a sentiment often expressed as gay voters mull what Mrs. Clinton’s
potential 2016 presidential campaign would mean for gay rights. In her four
years at the State Department, she prioritized international gay rights,
including a 2011 speech in Geneva in which she urged countries to accept
gays and lesbians. In the year and a half since she left her post, she has
made gay rights a focus. Last fall she accepted an award at the Elton John
AIDS Foundation gala in New York; the singer praised Mrs. Clinton’s efforts
for human rights.

In June, at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Mrs. Clinton denounced Russia’s
treatment of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people. In March
2013, she released a video endorsing same-sex marriage both “personally and
as a matter of policy and law.”

The efforts have endeared Mrs. Clinton to many gays and lesbians who are
raising money toward her potential run. But others look back on the
policies of the Clinton Administration and question why it took Mrs.
Clinton so long to get on board.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 measure
President Clinton signed into law that barred federal recognition of
same-sex marriages, are widely viewed as among the most significant
setbacks the gay rights movement has encountered.

“She wasn’t at the back of the pack, but was she out in front with a
banner? No,” said Tom Sheridan, a lobbyist who works on H.I.V.-AIDS policy.
The Economist put it more bluntly, calling her “belated conversion” to
support same-sex marriage “cautious to the point of cowardice.”

So far, Mrs. Clinton does not have an easy answer as to where she stood in
the 1990s. An interview with NPR’s Terry Gross in June to promote “Hard
Choices” turned awkward when the Defense of Marriage Act came up. Ms. Gross
pressed Mrs. Clinton on whether she supported same-sex marriage as first
lady but backed Mr. Clinton’s policies for political expediency.

“For me, marriage had always been a matter left to the states,” Mrs.
Clinton said. As for whether she supported same-sex marriage when she was
in the White House, she said, “I think I’m an American, and I think we have
all evolved.”

For some gays and lesbians, the exchange opened old wounds.

“She was not just another evolving American,” the author Andrew Sullivan
wrote on his website, The Dish. “She was the second most powerful person in
an administration in a critical era for gay rights.” In Slate, Mark Joseph
Stern wrote that her “apparent position on gay marriage — leave it to the
states — is about as progressive as Dick Cheney’s circa 2004.”

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton declined to comment for this article, but
pointed to a CNN interview in which she said that marriage “should be
available to everyone regardless of who they love.”

To a generation of younger gay men in particular, Mrs. Clinton’s appeal
extends to a more primal connection. Her ability to come back after a
bruising defeat by Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries appealed
to gay men, many of whom had also weathered setbacks.

“We get her like we get our moms,” said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for Human
Rights Campaign, an advocacy group. “We’ve seen the travails she’s been
through and the fact that she’s not just a survivor but a conqueror.”

Richard Socarides, a Democratic strategist, gay rights advocate and White
House adviser to Mr. Clinton, said, “People see her as a survivor and
someone who despite her many, many gifts and blessings, survived some
personal and political setbacks and persevered in the face of them.” That,
he added, “is very appealing to gay Americans because it’s a shared
experience.”

When it came to choosing a Halloween costume after the contentious 2008
Democratic presidential primaries, the decision for Robby Browne, a real
estate broker in New York, was simple: a blond wig and an orange Calvin
Klein pantsuit like the one Mrs. Clinton wore when she endorsed Mr. Obama
at the Democratic convention. Mr. Brown, who is among Mrs. Clinton’s
prominent gay donors, had told the former first lady he planned to dress
like her.

“Without skipping a beat, she said, ‘Be sure to shake a lot of hands,’ ” he
recalled.

Ready for Hillary, an independent group that aims to build grass-roots
support for Mrs. Clinton, has signed up tens of thousands of supporters and
sold “Out and Ready for Hillary” rainbow T-shirts at booths at 28 gay pride
festivals and on college campuses nationwide.

For Mr. Browne, 66, Mr. Clinton’s 1992 campaign was a major break from the
Reagan and Bush years.

“When the Clintons came along and said the word ‘gays’ at the ’92
convention, I felt like I existed,” said Mr. Browne, who lost his brother
to AIDS.

The gay rights movement has made major strides since Mr. Clinton signed the
Defense of Marriage Act. While gay activists said there was still much work
to be done on making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, safeguarding
against workplace discrimination and advancing transgender issues, they
were hopeful that by 2016 both parties’ nominees would accept, if not
wholeheartedly endorse, same-sex marriage. Next year, the Supreme Court is
expected to decide the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage bans that
exist in 31 states.

The year 1996 “is ancient history,” said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic
strategist.

That means Democrats can no longer rely on the built-in support of gay
voters. Such voters still skew liberal, but polls show they are not without
ideological diversity. Republicans see an opening with leaders like Senator
Rob Portman of Ohio, whose son is gay. “I find it difficult to see all
these Democrats celebrating Hillary Clinton coming to the marriage equality
game as late as she did, when Republicans came to the marriage equality
game late, too,” said Gregory T. Angelo, executive director of Log Cabin
Republicans.

Freedom to Marry, a nonpartisan group, is working to recruit young
Republicans who support same-sex marriage to become delegates and help “get
anti-gay language out of the platform in 2016,” said Evan Wolfson, its
president.

Chad Griffin, the president of Human Rights Campaign and a former Clinton
aide, said, “It’s going to be difficult for any candidate, Democrat or
Republican, to not support full equality in 2016.”

Activists said the gay-rights movement has a tendency to embrace
supporters, rather than cast judgment about when a politician got on board.
After all, in the 2008 primary season neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama
supported same-sex marriage. They mostly split the gay vote.

“The L.G.B.T. community is, in some respects, very forgiving,” said Sarah
Kate Ellis, president of Glaad, a nonprofit organization (formerly known as
the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) that does not endorse
candidates. “We’ve seen our own family and friends evolve around us so it’s
not out of context to see a politician evolve as well.”

Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton believed in the 1990s, most activists
interviewed said she had emerged as a forceful advocate at the State
Department, devising policies to help gays and lesbians abroad and in the
Foreign Service. And her speech in Geneva marked a major turning point in a
movement that is increasingly focused on discrimination in countries where
same-sex relationships are illegal.

“In one fell swoop, she changed the entire global playing field for gay
rights,” said Mr. Socarides, the Democratic strategist.

The speech also sent a message to activists in the United States. Mrs.
Clinton “might not be as quick as others but once she’s there, she’s
committed,” said David B. Mixner, an author and Democratic donor. “I think
she’s grown into a forceful advocate for L.G.B.T. rights, especially
internationally.”

Others said there was a collective yearning among gays for a female
president that has little to do with Mrs. Clinton’s superficial Liza-appeal.

Mr. Mixner noted that it was often lesbians and straight women who
supported gay men through the AIDS epidemic. “There’s a very strong bond
between the feminist community and the gay rights community,” he said.
“It’s a real symbiotic relationship and it diminishes it to say we’re
supporting her in some Judy Garland way.”

*Ottawa Citizen: “Hillary Clinton speaking in Ottawa Oct. 6”
<http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/hillary-clinton-speaking-in-ottawa-oct-6>*

By Jason Fekete

August 29, 2014, 7:32 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton is coming to Ottawa.

The consensus frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2016 – and
perhaps the next president of the United States – will be in OttawaOct. 6 for
a luncheon speech at the Ottawa Convention Centre, the Citizen has learned.

Clinton will arrive in the nation’s capital at a time of what many
observers say is a strained Canada-U.S. relationship over issues such as
the proposed Keystone XL pipeline; bilateral trade irritants; how to
respond to the Israel-Gaza conflict; and delays in U.S. funding for a new
Detroit-Windsor bridge.

The event is organized by Canada 2020, an Ottawa-based think-tank that has
been working for six months to bring Clinton to the capital.

Clinton will deliver a speech and participate in a moderated
question-and-answer session; the specific topic of the speech hasn’t been
finalized.

“I think it’s no secret that she’s certainly interested in being a
Democratic candidate, but hasn’t confirmed that yet,” said Tim Barber,
co-founder of Canada 2020 and founding partner of Bluesky Strategy Group.

“We think that her perspective and, frankly, her world view, fits with our
orientation . . . I do think that she’s one of the most recognizable people
on the planet,” he said.

Tickets for the Ottawa event will cost $5,000 for a table of 10, with
organizers hoping to attract at least 1,000 people to see the former U.S.
secretary of state, senator and first lady.

Clinton has been delivering speeches around Canada and the U.S. in recent
months to promote her new book, Hard Choices, including stops in Vancouver,
Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and Edmonton.

Canada 2020 hopes her Ottawa speech will build on issues she has discussed
over the past few months, such as foreign affairs (including conflicts in
Syria and Gaza, and the crisis between Russia and Ukraine); energy and
environment in North America; and the Canada-U.S. relationship.

She has also discussed the importance of having more women participate in
the global workforce and in politics.

As well, Clinton has addressed the sticky issue of the TransCanada Keystone
XL pipeline, which would transport 830,000 barrels of oil a day from
Alberta’s oilsands and North Dakota’s Bakken formation to refineries on the
U.S. Gulf Coast.

Speaking to a business crowd in Toronto in June, she said the pipeline
shouldn’t be seen as a proxy for the relationship between Canada and the
United States, noting that “it is, after all, one pipeline.”

“A lot of people are wondering how she would handle Canada-U.S. in a
different way from the Obama administration,” Barber said. “I think that
she will give a little flash of what that could look like.”

Canada 2020 won’t disclose how much Clinton is being paid for the Ottawa
appearance, but she has regularly charged hundreds of thousands of dollars
per outing.

For instance, Clinton was paid $300,000 US for a speech at the University
of California Los Angeles (UCLA) in March.

The University at Buffalo, meanwhile, paid $275,000 for Clinton to speak
last fall, according to a copy of the school’s contract with the Harry
Walker Agency (which represents Clinton), recently released in the U.S.
through freedom-of-information laws.

Clinton has donated the speaking fees to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea
Clinton Foundation, the family’s non-profit organization that “works to
improve global health, strengthen economies, promote health and wellness,
and protect the environment.”

The contract with the University at Buffalo stipulated a handful of other
requirements for the speech, including that she be the only person on stage
during her remarks and that “a presidential glass panel teleprompter and a
qualified operator” be provided if requested. Clinton’s office also had
“final approval” on the moderator and the introducer, according to the
contract.

One of the most recognizable people in the world, Clinton has been slowly
distancing herself from the Obama administration on some foreign policy as
she prepares for what is expected to be a run at the Democratic
presidential nomination two years from now.

“Bringing in someone of this calibre into a major G7 capital I think is a
really fun, cool thing to do,” Barber said. “If she could announce her
candidacy, that would be good, too,” he quipped.

Canada 2020 is a registered not-for-profit organization that operates on
donations and bills itself as “progressive.” It’s paying for the event by
selling tables, and through corporate sponsorships.

Clinton has been to Ottawa before, during her time as secretary of state,
for meetings with other G8 foreign ministers – including in 2010, when she
was at odds with Prime Minister Stephen Harper over the Conservative
government’s refusal to fund abortions as part of its initiative on
maternal and child health.

Luncheon details:

The Oct. 6 luncheon runs from 12:30 p.m. to 3 p.m., with Hillary Clinton
expected to be on stage for about one hour for the speech, and Q and A.

Big dollars for big speakers: payments to some prominent speakers

Hillary Clinton: Paid $300,000 US for a speech at the University of
California Los Angeles (UCLA) in March and $275,000 to speak at the
University at Buffalo last fall (the money went to the Clinton family’s
philanthropic organization).

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton: Paid $250,000 in 2012 for speech at
UCLA. In 2013, was paid $500,000 to speak at a 90th birthday gala for
former Israeli president Shimon Peres (following controversy, the money was
donated to an Israeli charity instead of the Clinton Foundation as
initially planned). It’s estimated that Bill Clinton has earned more than
$100 million delivering speeches.

Justin Trudeau, leader of federal Liberals: Had charged up to $20,000 for
speeches to a variety of groups until 2012 (before he became leader),
including one to the Grace Foundation in New Brunswick. The charity
complained it lost $21,000 at an event for which Trudeau was paid $20,000
(Trudeau offered to repay the speaking fee). Does not charge speaking fees
now.

Chris Hadfield, astronaut and first Canadian commander of the International
Space Station: Fees are “$20,001 or more” as listed by Speakers’ Spotlight
agency.

Clara Hughes, six-time Olympic medalist and mental health advocate: Fees
are $10,001 to $20,000 as listed by Speakers’ Spotlight.

Ezra Levant, broadcaster on Sun TV, author: Fees are $5,001 to $10,000 as
listed by Speakers’ Spotlight.

Evan Solomon, journalist, host of CBC’s Power & Politics: Fees are $5,001
to $10,000 as listed by Speakers’ Spotlight.

*Business Insider: “Hillary Clinton Had A Surprise Interview With Big
Republican Cisco CEO John Chambers”
<http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-surprise-visit-at-cisco-2014-8>*

By Julie Bort

August 29, 2014, 5:55 p.m. EDT

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed up as a surprise guest at
Cisco's huge internal sales conference that took place this week.

She was interviewed on stage by CEO John Chambers.

That's a politically interesting combination. Chambers is a Republican who
endorsed Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential campaign. But that same year,
he also said he was a fan of Hillary's hubby, Bill. He told Arik Hesseldahl
at AllThingsD that year:

"I’m a strong Republican, but I think President Clinton got it right with
business and knocked the ball out of the park."

Clinton's speech and interview was not taped, a source close to the company
told us. So we can't listen on the conversation now that it's over. Cisco
would not even officially confirm her visit.

But it was all over Twitter.

That same day, Clinton also gave an official, public appearance in the
Valley. She spoke at the OpenSDx Summit sponsored by startup Nexenta
Systems. At that appearance she was asked about one of Chambers' favorite
political subjects: bringing corporate offshore money back to the U.S.
(known as repatriation).

At that conference she was asked about a plan floated by Chambers and
others to create an infrastructure bank where companies can invest offshore
cash, reports The Wall Street Journal's Rachael King.

Clinton said she hasn't looked into that idea but noted, “It doesn’t do our
economy any good to have this money parked somewhere else in the world.”

She's been lately talking to a lot of tech companies. In July she visited
Google, Facebook, and Twitter, she tweeted.

Still, if she runs for president and gets John Chambers' endorsement, that
would be something of a coup.

*Politico: “No escaping Bill Clinton, Barack Obama in Arkansas”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/bill-clinton-barack-obama-arkansas-110457.html>*

By Josh Gerstein

August 30, 2014, 7:07 a.m. EDT

PINE BLUFF, Ark. — Bill Clinton hasn’t called Arkansas home in over 20
years, and Barack Obama has never lived here. But they’re casting huge
shadows on this state’s race for governor.

The Democratic nominee, Mike Ross, cut his teeth in politics as a driver
for Clinton in a gubernatorial contest three decades ago. Now, Ross is
trying to distance himself from the highly unpopular current president
without alienating the African-American community any Democrat needs to win
here.

The GOP hopeful, Asa Hutchinson, hopes to ride into office on a wave of
anti-Washington, anti-Obama sentiment. But he faces his own challenge: he
led the highly unpopular impeachment of the only president Arkansas has
ever sent to the White House.

While both former congressmen insist the race will be decided on local
issues, Hutchinson acknowledges that he hopes to tap into anti-Washington
anger.

“The political climate is in our favor this year,” he said in an interview
earlier this month. “There’s a lot of frustration with Washington. They see
my race as an opportunity to say we need a governor that’s going to fight
for us against intrusive EPA regulations… or intrusion on second amendment
rights. That’s part of their frustration with Washington. They want a
strong governor.”

Hutchinson said he hears “a lot” of dissatisfaction with Obama and his
administration. “That frustration is an undercurrent in the politics of
Arkansas.”

“Obama is just poison down here,” said Ouachita Baptist University
political science professor Hal Bass. “There’s a visceral antipathy for him
that I confess I don’t fully understand.”

When the Republican Governors Association began running TV ads tying Ross
to Obama’s health care plan, he responded with spots in which he appears on
camera to declare: “I voted against Obamacare.”

Asked about his thoughts on Obama, Ross was terse.

“I don’t have a relationship with him,” Ross said. “I’m a conservative,
pro-business, pro-gun, God-fearing Arkansas Democrat.”

Ross’s message, especially on Obamacare, may have been necessary to
preserve Ross’s chances of winning moderate voters, but two
African-American officials from different parts of the state said this
month that their offices fielded calls from constituents who said they were
put off by the ads’ message.

Another prominent African-American Democrat, state career education
director Bill Walker, Jr., said criticizing the president would probably
help Ross’s standing with many white voters, but not with African-Americans.

“In Arkansas, it’s a double-edged sword,” Walker added, before predicting
that the black community will swing behind Ross as the election nears.

At the same time, Ross said he’s a “huge advocate” of some measures to
expand health coverage, such as Arkansas’s private-insurance-based Medicaid
expansion known as the “private option.”

“The overwhelming number of folks in my district were against the
Affordable Care Act,” Ross said. “I said there were good parts and bad
parts.”

Ross said his Obamacare-related ads were needed to combat a flood of
negative spots from Hutchinson and allies. “They’ve spent about $4 million
trying to tie me to Nancy Pelosi… People in Arkansas are laughing at that,”
he said, noting that in 2011 he voted for Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) over
Pelosi for speaker.

Another challenge Ross faces: since he’s less known in the state, the TV
ads trying to trash and rehabilitate him are the first introduction many
voters are getting to him. Hutchinson is more widely known, but it’s not so
clear whether he’s widely liked. He’s had the exposure of running for
statewide office three times, but each time he’s lost, most recently in the
2006 governor’s race when Democrat Mike Beebe trounced him 56 percent to 41
percent.

Most recent polls show Hutchinson leading Ross by a few percentage points,
roughly 46 percent to 41 percent, with many voters yet to tune in to the
race. One Rasmussen poll out this week showed the two men effectively tied.

“All these national folks who couldn’t find Arkansas with a road map were
writing stories saying Arkansas has gone red and Ross can’t win,” Ross
said. But, “a year ago Asa was at 46 percent and he’s still at 46 percent…
People are still getting to know me. Asa hasn’t moved. He’s still stuck.”

If there’s a ceiling on Hutchinson’s support, part of the reason could be
his role in the effort to bring down Clinton during his second term in the
White House.

Clinton is still revered by many in the state. “I miss Bill” is festooned
on a swath of merchandise at the Clinton Presidential Library store. It’s a
sentiment which conjured up one worldview during the Bush years, but is
taking on a different hue as Obama struggles with sagging poll numbers and
Hillary Clinton publicly mulls a run for the White House.

Asked about Clinton, Hutchinson chooses his words carefully, making no
mention of his role as a manager of the impeachment case the House brought
against the president in 1998 over alleged false statements in connection
with the Monica Lewinsky affair.

“I think President Clinton is a strong presence in Arkansas. He’s popular.
His library is an amazing asset for our state and an attraction. I’m sure
his support for Mike Ross is helpful to him. He’s certainly raised him
money,” the Republican candidate said.

One indication that the Clinton brand remains strong in Arkansas: Hillary
Clinton is relatively popular here even as she is pilloried by
conservatives across the country. A poll last year found her leading a
generic Republican presidential candidate. A survey released last week by
Public Policy Polling found her trailing the most-discussed Republican
possibilities by a few points — a relatively strong showing in a
conservative state where the GOP is fueling anti-Obama sentiment.

“In this environment, to me, that’s pretty respectable,” said Janine Parry,
a University of Arkansas political science professor.

Ross said he has “no idea” if Hutchinson’s role in impeachment will be a
liability, but that the move was not popular in the state.

“No, it wasn’t. President Clinton is the only president Arkansas ever had.
Most of us are very proud of him and the job he did leading this country,”
Ross said. He said he hopes Clinton will play a major role in turning out
Democratic base this fall.

Hutchinson says he doesn’t believe much of the Clinton magic will transfer
to his opponent.

“Arkansas has never been a coattail state,” the former congressman said.
“Voters in Arkansas distinguish [Clinton’s] popularity versus my race for
governor. He’s popular. He’s raised money. Beyond that I think the
coattail’s very limited.”

There are also signs that the tactic of triangulation that Clinton famously
perfected in the 1980s and rode all the way to the White House may be
losing its effect.

“Back in the day, the name of the game was grab the center and hold to it
tight,” Bass said Ouachita Baptist University professor Hal Bass. “I think
polarization has made that tactic, that approach, far more
problematical….Clearly, you cannot run as a liberal Democrat in Arkansas
and have a chance of winning. The question is how much can you lean to the
right without alienating your liberal constituency. I think [Ross] is
trapped in that dilemma.”

Earlier this month, both candidates for governor visited a
workforce-development conference organized by the Delta Regional Authority,
a little known federal agency which tries to boost economic activity in the
impoverished Mississippi delta region across eight states. The meeting was
held at the University of Arkansas Pine Bluff, which was created after the
Civil War as a teachers’ college for African-Americans and still has a
mostly black student body.

While Ross lacks some of Clinton’s natural political charm, the Democratic
hopeful does seem to have picked up the ex-president’s wonkiness and gift
for detail.

When a woman at the delta conference asked why state prison inmates don’t
grow their own food to save money, Ross responded that they do. He then
proceeded to break the situation down by meat.

“Almost all the food that’s consumed in the prison system is grown by the
inmates,” Ross said. “Everything from beef and pork….I’m not sure if
they’re still doing chickens. Someone told me it’s cheaper to buy chicken
than it is to grow it. I’m not sure about that.”

Hutchinson got a polite reception from the same audience as he laid out an
eight-point economic plan and discussed the need for job training.

“Surrounding states are lowering their tax rates, reducing the burden of
regulation, providing incentives…..we’ve got to do all of that,” he
declared.

However, when it came time for the question-and-answer period, no one had a
question for the former Congressman, save for a local reporter asking
whether Arkansas students may be so far behind educationally that they
can’t be trained for open jobs.

Hutchinson later said that it wasn’t his typical crowd. He also noted that
he voted in 2000 to set up the Delta Regional Authority — the kind of
alphabet-soup federal agency the Tea Party often rails against. In showing
up this month and highlighting his vote for the DRA, Hutchinson was subtly
distinguishing himself from the Republican Senate candidate on the ballot
in Arkansas this fall, Rep. Tom Cotton. He voted to eliminate the agency.

Unmentioned was that the legislation creating the DRA was signed into law
by Clinton, who would have been out of office at the time if Hutchinson’s
impeachment drive had succeeded.

“Arkansas politics is always complicated,” the GOP candidate observed.

*The Daily Beast: “Special Ops Commander Swears: I Won't Be Hillary's VP”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/29/special-ops-commander-swears-i-won-t-be-hillary-s-vp.html>*

By Kimberly Dozier

August 29, 2014

[Subtitle:] He commanded the bin Laden raid—and expanded U.S. commandos’
global footprint. Now Adm. Bill McRaven is leaving the military. He
promises—promises—that politics won’t be next.

Admiral Bill McRaven left command of U.S. special operations this week as a
somewhat bewildered man – surprised, stymied, and in some cases burned by
the fame and notoriety that launched his three years there, as the military
commander of the 2011 raid that killed terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

His fame and the public respect for his role was such that multiple special
operations officials say he was even approached as a possible vice
presidential candidate for the as-yet-undeclared Hillary Clinton
presidential campaign – something he openly denies ever happened. But the
rumors persist throughout special operations circles even as he accepted a
top post with the University of Texas.

"I am not running with Hillary," he said forcefully when last asked this
past spring – a statement reiterated by his spokesman this summer.

Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill responded Thursday with one word to an
emailed query: "Rumors."

McRaven’s fame is due in part to the raid and the San-Antonio native’s own
Texas-sized frame, southern drawl and knack for working a room of a dozen
or two thousand – and also to the larger role his troops have played as
special operations has quietly expanded its presence to fight Islamic
militants worldwide.

They are the go-to force for the Obama White House, with hundreds deployed
in the past few months to work with Iraqi and Kurdish forces fighting the
onslaught of the militant Islamic State – a mission that could expand to
Syria, depending on what the president decides after deliberations with his
national security team Thursday.

"Admiral McRaven has led a community transitioning from its essential role
in the post-9/11 wars to confronting the next generation of challenges –
dynamic, dispersed, and networked," said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at
the four-star Navy SEAL admiral's change of command with U.S. Army Ranger
Gen. Joseph Votel.

In most ways, McRaven was exactly the right man for the job of running U.S.
Special Operations Command. His counterterrorism credentials were ideal for
the mop-up operations of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, at least as
the operation was then perceived before the near-meteoric rise of Islamic
extremist groups in Africa, Syria and Iraq.

In other ways, he was miscast, the consummate action man, combat commander
and blunt speaker wedging himself into a role that required the political
skills of an ambassador with the emotional intelligence of a psychologist,
and sometimes, the underhandedness of a spy.

He had set for himself the tall task of shaking up how special operations
does business, trying to streamline everything from the way the command
speaks to Capitol Hill to the way its top commander speaks to his far-flung
officers overseas.

He ran straight into the buzz saw of Congressional egos, interagency earls
defending their fiefdoms against his alleged overreach, and even the
naysayers in his own ranks who quietly fought against his initiatives,
poisoning them with a phone call to key Congressional or Pentagon staffers.
Sometimes, the calls pointed out areas McRaven's team was genuinely pushing
legal bounds, but more often, they were simply pointing out areas where the
four-star SEAL’s plans might steal influence from another organization, or
rob a lawmaker of jobs in his district by moving a large facility.

"I'm real pleased with where we are," McRaven said in May in answer to a
Daily Beast question at a special operations conference in Tampa. "When you
ask about my checklist and if we have achieved what I hoped we would
achieve three years ago when I came to command, I would say we're very,
very close to where I hoped we would be."

But he would not be drawn on answering a question of U.S. strategy in
Afghanistan –a marked change from his openness answering the same question
from the same reporter in his first year of command. Then, in 2012, he said
he thought special operations forces and intelligence would be last out, as
they had been first in. The story quickly filed went viral in Washington,
and officials close to McRaven say he spent that afternoon on the phone
explaining to senior administration officials that he was not prejudging
President Barack Obama's Afghan war policy.

This time, he simply said, "I'm not going to address Afghanistan now,"
bunting the question with a diplomatic and opaque "We wish the Afghans
well...and we will have to see where the future lies."

He similarly toned down his openness with "telling the special operations
story” –his early catch phrase – in hopes of dispelling some of the stories
about allegedly lawless operations by cowboy operators outside the bounds
of U.S. law or diplomatic policy.

It didn't help when his special operations teams in Afghanistan were
repeatedly accused by Afghan President Hamid Karzai of killing civilians in
what Karzai called "night raids," accidentally or on purpose. Those charges
that continued even as special operations commanders issued new rules that
kept even the most elite troops outside targeted compounds while Afghan
forces went inside and carried out the mission.

McRaven's own reputation took a bashing early own when the administration
got slammed for telling the story of the Bin Laden raid, accused by
Republican critics of using the operation for political gain. They blamed
him as the source for a slew of articles detailing the raid, and claimed
he'd ordered his officers to cooperate with the producer and scriptwriter
of the film Zero Dark Thirty – charges they never proved.

The admiral said openly that he was simply trying to use the raid to
convince administration leaders and legislators that special operations was
the way ahead, especially in a time of trimmed budgets and a war weary
public that was tired of watching all-out combat on cable news.

In retrospect, McRaven conceded privately to friends that maybe he was too
open, said too much, appeared too often and even trusted some members of
his own team too much, according to current and former U.S. special
operations officers who worked on or were briefed on his initiatives. They
spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss
the comments publicly.

Those on the receiving end of McRaven's entreaties say he was tireless in
making repeated trips to Congress and the Pentagon to explain his
initiatives and how he thought they would add to, not compete with or
subtract from the current national security structure.

That personal touch worked, at times. The Defense Secretary and Joint
Chiefs signed off on his proposal to allow him more latitude to speak
directly to his own special operations commanders in the field - something
now-retired Adm. Eric Olsen has complained publicly he was not allowed to
do during his time running the special operations enterprise.

Now, when the new special operations commander Gen. Joe Votel wants to
speak to the Central Command's special operations chief Maj. Gen. Michael
Nagata about what is happening in Syria or Iraq, and perhaps share with
Nagata what he's hearing from the special operations commander in Europe
about al-Qaida's movements, he can simply pick up the phone and call him.

Before McRaven's initiative, the admiral would have had to instead share
his concerns with the conventional commander in the region and hope it got
passed on – a bureaucratic wall that hampered information sharing, and
McRaven said kept him from sharing with his folks in the field emerging
patterns he saw in terrorism or narco-trafficking.

McRaven also won the right from the Pentagon to move his forces between
70-90 countries where U.S. special operators work daily – as long as the
U.S. ambassador and the conventional U.S. military commander in the region
agree to it.

Where he lost was in his plan to create a special operations hub in
Washington, meant to liaise with the different federal agencies like the
CIA and FBI, and Congress. It was briefly known as "SOCOM NCR" or Special
Operations Command, North Capital Region. He told those setting it up to
push the envelop, as he thought he had limited political capital to spend
from the bin Laden raid.

Multiple special operations officials, current and former, say his staff
did as they were told, pushing the bounds of statute and budget just as
they had built such joint operations centers in war zones. Some
Congressional staffers say they overstepped the legal limits of what they
were allowed to do with money already apportioned for other projects.

McRaven also explained openly that the new office would ultimately replace
a similar multi-million-dollar operation in Tampa, an upsetting development
for the late congressman Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla.

"The ideas were good, but they were half-baked," one senior staffer
explained. "Every time we came back with a hard question, like how are you
going to fund this over time, they would change the plan again," as if they
were learning the Congressional funding process by doing, he said.

Congress ultimately blocked funding for SOCOM NCR until it got more
answers, and the special operations legislative affairs office quietly
withdrew the program from consideration this year, along with other
initiatives that would have allowed Special Operations Command to spend
money for foreign training without going through a lengthy State Department
approval process.

The legislative hangover from SOCOM NCR unfortunately colored the fight
over another McRaven initiative: to push more physical therapy and physical
training to special operators. U.S. special operations officials who work
on the programs said the idea is not just to keep them physically fit but
to get them to come to a facility that also offers counseling.

But committees overseeing the program accused McRaven's shop of
misappropriating about $10 million to fund the Human Performance Program
that was supposed to be spent on something else. So they temporarily nixed
that spending until the command could explain itself and re-apply for the
money in the next year.

In a letter obtained by The Daily Beast, McRaven wrote his community that
"regretfully" he had to give the order to "reduce the scope of the
program," meaning many newly-hired contractors would have to be laid off
until the issue could be resolved.

But from the public's point of view, these messy battles inside Congress
over how to spend money or coordinate operations with the interagency
matter little.

They remember high profile special operations successes like the
land-and-sea raid this year that nabbed Libyan militant Ahmed Abu Khatala,
one of the alleged perpetrators of the 2012 Benghazi attacks, and another
raid that grabbed a long-time al Qaeda member in Tripoli earlier this year.

And they remember the 2012 Navy SEAL raid that rescued two aid workers from
pirate-militants in Somalia, the SEALs parachuting in and hiking to the
militant hideout where they were being held.

They even remember the raids that went awry as a worthwhile swing for the
fences, like the SEAL raid this year that tried, but failed to capture a
key Somali militant. The SEALs met fierce resistance, but what ultimately
drove them to retreat was the presence of too many woman and children in
the seaside compound, risking too many civilian casualties.

Perhaps that partly explains why McRaven's star power is such that his
commencement speech to the University of Texas – where he will now take the
helm as chancellor – went viral. And it surely explains why those rumors of
a Hillary Clinton vice presidential run persist, no matter how many times
he or his spokesman deny it.

McRaven declined requests through his staff to be interviewed, but the
UT-Austin grad has told friends he wants to embrace his new job, and also
to take the next several months to review his past three years. In the
past, when he has identified flaws, or perceived weaknesses or sins against
teammates, those close to him say he has worked hard to fix them.

For instance, when a near-crippling parachute accident kept him from the
kind of operational missions the SEALs he was commanding were leading, he
fixed that by going along on what his fellow operators considered missions
far too dangerous for a commander of his rank. He didn't want to ask them
to do something he hadn't or wasn't willing to do.

McRaven's successor Votel is in many senses, his opposite. Wiry and more
grey man than charismatic, Votel is known for his no-nonsense, rather
closed demeanor. Those who have watched him expect the Minnesotan's time to
be marked by the same number of raids and operations, but fewer sweeping
McRaven-style initiatives.

Those close to Votel say he would like to return special operations to the
shadows – a goal lauded by some who treasure the organization's former
anonymity even as it is impractical in an age where even goat herders in
remote villages have camera phones.

But Votel has made a start, so unknown that even legislators he's
previously testified before on the Senate armed services committee got his
name wrong in his confirmation hearing. It's not the kind of mistake they
would've made with his predecessor.

*MSNBC: “Paul and Clinton blur partisan lines on foreign policy”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/paul-and-clinton-blur-partisan-lines-foreign-policy>*

By Benjy Sarlin

August 30, 2014, 9:41 a.m. EDT

Things might get weird in 2016 when it comes to foreign policy.

After a decade in which Republicans championed an aggressive unilateral
foreign policy under President Bush and Democrats rallied behind a more
measured international approach under President Obama, the battle lines are
getting blurry as presidential season approaches.

On the Republican side, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has long been out of step
with the party’s hawkish wing, favoring a policy of “non-interventionism”
that includes, with some hedging, ending all foreign aid and aggressively
scaling back American military involvement abroad. While he’s smoothed some
of the harsher edges of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s, policy
vision (which is less friendly to Israel and a lot more friendly to
dictators), it still would represent a massive shift from the more active
approach favored by every modern president.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has been distancing herself from
the White House. Almost every break with the administration so far puts her
further to Obama’s right, alarming some liberal doves who fear she hasn’t
learned from a 2008 primary loss fueled by anger over her vote to authorize
the Iraq War.

Paul has made clear in recent weeks that the foreign policy debate will be
at the center of his likely presidential campaign, in Sunday show
appearances, op-eds and statements criticizing America’s increased
involvement in the Middle East. On Thursday, he published an op-ed in The
Wall Street Journal accusing officials like Clinton, who supported backing
moderate Syrian rebels in their war against dictator Bashar al-Assad, of
indirectly encouraging the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS).

The reactions from politicians and commentators to each of these
developments, in particular Paul’s op-ed, scrambled partisan lines.

“Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be – The
Rand Paul Doctrine: Blame America. Retreat from the World,” a spokesman for
the Democratic National Committee, Michael Czin, said in a statement.

The “blame America” and “retreat” lines recalled similar attacks leveled
against Democrats like John Kerry throughout the Bush era. As if Democrats
needed a reminder, former Senator Rick Santorum, an old Bush ally, e-mailed
supporters a statement that sounded many of the same notes.

“Senator Paul is wrong, and his policies are wrong for America’s security
and prosperity,” Santorum wrote. “We cannot defend liberty at home by
ignoring threats abroad. This is not the time for neo-isolationism and
reckless retreats.”

The DNC’s reaction made some liberal commentators deeply uncomfortable.
Vox’s Ezra Klein decried it as “brain-dead patriotism-baiting that
Democrats used to loathe” and noted that elements of Paul’s arguments about
ISIS were reflected in Obama’s own skepticism towards military engagement
in Syria. Klein, along with a number of other progressive columnists and
former White House advisor David Axelrod, delivered a rebuke to Clinton as
well after she criticized Obama’s foreign policy from the right in an
interview with The Atlantic.

Czin noted to msnbc that there are major substantive differences between
Paul and Democrats in 2004. He’s right: Kerry, now Secretary of State, was
far from an anti-interventionist and devoted his Senate career to
cultivating an active foreign policy. No prominent Democratic leaders have
supported eliminating foreign aid, nor do they share Paul’s intense
skepticism of international institutions.

The broad dynamics of the Clinton and Paul kerfuffles suggest that the
general election would be fought on a bizarre role reversal, however.
Clinton, possibly with help from prominent Republican hawks, would attack
Paul hard from the right. Paul, perhaps with support from some progressive
doves, would attack from the left. There’s no modern precedent to tell us
what might happen next.

*CNN: “Rand Paul: If 'Hillary Clinton worked for Bill Clinton, she'd
probably have been fired'”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/29/rand-paul-if-hillary-clinton-worked-for-bill-clinton-shed-probably-have-been-fired/>*

By Ashley Killough

August 29, 2014, 6:28 p.m. EDT

Sen. Rand Paul on Friday defended his criticism of Hillary Clinton over the
2012 attack against a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The Kentucky Republican, rebutting claims that Benghazi criticism is
"politically motivated," said Clinton's handling of the attack was a
legitimate topic of discussion as she considers a presidential bid.

"There will be discussion over the next four years whether or not Hillary
Clinton is fit to lead this country," he said at a Dallas event hosted by
the conservative group Americans for Prosperity. "Is Hillary Clinton fit to
be commander in chief?"

The audience fired off a robust round of 'no's.

The first-term senator went on to compare Benghazi to the 1993 mission in
Mogadishu, Somalia, in which 18 U.S. military members were killed. Two
months after the tragedy, President Bill Clinton announced the resignation
of Les Aspin, then secretary of the defense. Aspin had taken heat for
denying security requests for U.S. forces in the region just a month before
the attack.

"He ignored the request and he resigned ultimately in disgrace," Paul said.
"I think had Hillary Clinton worked for Bill Clinton, she'd probably have
been fired."

Paul has been hounding Clinton over foreign policy and Benghazi for the
past year, and he frequently brings up the former secretary of state as he
lays his own groundwork for a possible presidential campaign.

In an interview earlier this summer, Clinton was asked about Paul's
attacks, specifically about a separate claim he has made, saying Bill
Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky could be a liability if Hillary
Clinton runs for president.

"He can talk about whatever he wants to talk about," Clinton responded.
"And if he decides to run, he'll be fair game too."

*Time: “Rand Paul: Bill Would Fire Hillary”
<http://time.com/3224432/rand-paul-bill-clinton-would-fire-hillary-clinton/>*

By Zeke J. Miller

August 29, 2014

[Subtitle:] In a speech Friday, the likely 2016 Presidential hopeful also
took a jab at Barack Obama

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is positioning himself as the GOP’s ace Clinton
critic.

Speaking to the conservative Americans for Prosperity conference in Dallas
Friday, the Republican 2016 hopeful escalated his verbal assault on former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s fitness for service, arguing that even
her husband, former President Bill Clinton, would have fired her for her
handling of the Benghazi attacks.

Launching on an extended attack of Clinton’s record, Paul said Clinton had
repeatedly minimized the threat to the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before
the September 11, 2012 attack and didn’t act on calls to increase security
at the diplomatic facility. Comparing it to the 42nd president’s handling
of the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia, Paul said “If Hillary Clinton
worked for Bill Clinton she probably would have been fired.”

It was hardly Paul’s first volley at Clinton. In a Wall Street Journal
op-ed this week the non-interventionist lawmaker said the nation was
“lucky” that Clinton’s push for President Barack Obama to arm Syrian rebels
went unheeded. “Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before
asking some important questions,” he said. Paul has also used the Clintons’
treatment of Monica Lewinsky to argue that Democrats are engaging in
“hypocrisy” when they suggest Republicans for waging a “war on women.”

Paul is betting that he can distinguish himself from a crowded Republican
field by proving he has the capacity and the will to take the fight to the
powerful Clinton clan, a tactic that reliably draws loud cheers of support
from Republican audiences.

Paul also criticized President Barack Obama’s statement Thursday that he
has yet to develop a strategy for American military airstrikes in Syria.

“If the president has no strategy, maybe it’s time for a new president,”
Paul said.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence addressed the gathering on
Friday, with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz slated to speak on Saturday.

*Salon column: Paul Rosenberg: “Don’t do it, Hillary! Joining forces with
neocons could doom Democrats”
<http://www.salon.com/2014/08/30/dont_do_it_hillary_joining_forces_with_neocons_could_doom_democrats/http:/www.salon.com/2014/08/30/dont_do_it_hillary_joining_forces_with_neocons_could_doom_democrats/>*

By Paul Rosenberg

August 30, 2014, 9:45 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Clinton's Iraq vote kept her from the presidency in 2008.
Staying hawkish could harm the party for decades. Ask LBJ

Has Hillary Clinton forgotten why she’s not president?  In light of her
headline-making Atlantic interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, in which she
seemingly echoed the neocons’ “who lost Syria/who lost Iraq” line, it would
seem that she has. There are numerous folks around to remind her how
foolish such saber-rattling is in terms of foreign policy effectiveness,
but  given how smart Clinton is, she has to already know this herself — as
the Atlantic’s own James Fallows noted in a typically savvy and
well-crafted piece just a few days later:

Of course everyone including Clinton “knows” that you should only do
something when it’s smart and not when it’s stupid. In her books and
speeches, she is most impressive when showing commanding knowledge of the
complexities and contradictions of negotiating with the Russians and
Chinese, and why you can’t just “be tough” in dealings with them….

But in this interview — assuming it’s not “out of context” — she is often
making the broad, lazy “do something” points and avoiding the harder ones.
She appears to disdain the president for exactly the kind of slogan —
“don’t do stupid shit” — that her husband would have been proud of for its
apparent simplicity but potential breadth and depth. (Remember “It’s the
economy, stupid”?)

But the problem isn’t  just that Clinton was acting deliberately stupid in
foreign policy terms, for whatever reason. She was also acting deeply
foolish in terms of domestic politics as well. Even if she can’t actually
lose the Democratic nomination this time, such belligerent hawkishness
could utterly wreck the Democratic Party, just as Lyndon Johnson wrecked it
with his pursuit of the Vietnam War.

Of course it’s not popular to blame LBJ in that regard, but it’s impossible
to ignore. Johnson won one of the most lopsided landslides in history in
1964, running as an anti-war candidate, and then, thanks to pursuing a war
he didn’t even want, was driven out of office four years later, to be
followed by 46 years now, in which Democrats have controlled the White
House and both houses of Congress for a total of just eight years. Yes,
it’s always been fashionable to blame anti-war forces for the wreckage
Johnson wrought, but Johnson, as president, was the one who set it all in
motion — by embracing a moral crusade that he didn’t even believe in.  The
question is — why?  And what does this tell us about Hillary?

The most comprehensive answer I know to these questions comes from Robert
Mann’s 2001 book, “A Grand Delusion: America’s Descent Into Vietnam.” Mann,
a professor at LSU’s Manship School of Mass Communication, is a former
Senate staffer, and his book is the only account of the Vietnam War to
focus substantially on the role of the Senate, beginning in the Truman
administration, as the “loss of China” and the unexpected outbreak of the
Korean War suddenly thrust the Democrats into the minority for the first
time in 20 years. Not only were Kennedy and Johnson both shaped by their
Senate experiences in the aftermath of this loss, so were many other key
actors as well — but none as much as Johnson, who unexpectedly became
Senate minority leader in 1952.

The quickest way I can summarize Mann’s main thrust is to quote from my own
Denver Post review of the book:

[Mann’s] approach illuminates a fundamental axis of power, because the
Senate long has been the primary counterweight to the presidency in foreign
affairs. If it proved an especially weak counterweight in preventing the
war’s often secretive and deceptive escalation, Mann’s treatment of the
early Cold War era makes it clear just how strong Senate influence was in
establishing the basic parameters that later led to presidential secrecy
and duplicity.

…. A majority of Senate Republicans, still isolationist at least as far as
Europe was concerned, voted against NATO and the Marshall Plan, but
enthusiastically rallied around Joe McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade
against the Truman Administration, especially after the Korean War began.

The opportunistic hypocrisy of their posturing crippled Truman’s
congressional support in 1950, and captured both houses of Congress when
Eisenhower swept into office two years later. But it left Eisenhower boxed
in with no practical alternative but to continue Truman’s containment
policies he and other Republicans had so mercilessly attacked.

The Truman-Eisenhower prelude takes up almost a third of the book, but it
is time extremely well spent. Lyndon Johnson’s Senate leadership was
defined by the struggle to reverse Democratic losses stemming from alleged
softness toward communism, particularly in Asia. John Mansfield’s Senate
leadership was shaped in reaction to Johnson’s style, as well as in
deference to his role as President and party leader. By following the story
through this formative period we gain unique insight into later behavior,
such as the obsessive blindness that repeatedly prevented John F. Kennedy
and Johnson from heeding the growing chorus of warning voices from Vietnam
itself, from inside their administrations and from Capitol Hill.

But that’s only a brief summary. The real story has different layers of
moving parts. Mansfield, for example, was so knowledgeable, Mann notes, he
had been teaching Asian history as early as 1933, and in 1954, he saw
everything wrong with the direction in which America eventually headed:

In his most prescient of moments, Mansfield warned that sending the
American military to enter China would involve the nation “in every sense”
in a “nibbling war.” “The terrain of the Indochinese conflict – the flooded
deltas, the thousands of scattered villages, the jungles – is made to order
for the nibbling of mechanized forces,” he said. “The French have been
nibbled and chewed for years.”

The heart of the problem, Mansfield believed, was that Eisenhower continued
to apply military solutions to a political problem.… Mansfield faulted the
administration for having placed too much emphasis on the military power of
Western nations. “Asian freedom,” he insisted, “must be defended primarily
by Asians. A people whether in Asia or in the Americas, can preserve their
independence only if they have it in the first place and if they are
willing to fight to keep it.”

This reveals what I’m really afraid of — not so much that Clinton will
swagger into quicksand over her head, like Johnson did, but more likely
that she, like Mansfield, could nonetheless end up trapped into doing
something that she could once have foreseen as folly.

Having been so concerned with Clinton’s reckless talk, I decided to do the
sensible thing, and see if Mann saw things similarly. Unfortunately, he did.

In an interview, Mann first reaffirmed some major themes of his book. “The
Truman and Democratic Party, in general, and congressional Democrats, in
particular, took huge beatings at the polls in 1950 and 1952 and most of
their problems involved the advance of Communism — particularly in Asia —
and national security,” he said. “The public was persuaded — first by
Joseph McCarthy and then by Eisenhower and Nixon — that they were weak on
both.” As a result, Republicans won control of both the White House and
Congress for the first time in 20 years.

“Democrats paid dearly,” Mann said. “Their defeat was catastrophic and the
painful memories of it were long lasting for some leaders, particularly
Lyndon Johnson. Future presidents Johnson, Kennedy, and Nixon were all in
Congress at the time and the lesson was abundantly clear — don’t be weak on
national security and don’t allow an inch of Asian soil to fall to the
Communists.”

Mann pointed to the tapes of LBJ’s phone conversations with Georgia Sen.
Richard Russell in 1964 and 1965. “It’s clear that Johnson is persuaded
that he might lose his presidency unless he takes the strongest stance
possible on fighting Communism in Southeast Asia,” he said. But it was a
deeply misguided form of “political realism.”

“What Johnson didn’t realize is that the public had much shorter memories
than the politicians,” Mann observed. “For Johnson, the electoral
punishment the Democrats took in 1952 was severe and personal” — which is
rather the opposite of realism. “Among his many mistakes in Vietnam was
assuming the public still cared deeply about fighting Communism in Asia,”
Mann continued. “It’s always perplexed me that Johnson forgot that by 1952
the public was already tired of fighting in Korea. In fact, one of the
reasons the Democrats lost the 1952 elections was that Eisenhower promised
to go to Korea and end the war,” which, of course, he did.

Of course, there is one line of counter-argument which Mann’s own book
would support — that the Republicans  were unsurpassed in opportunistically
switching positions, while keeping their moral outrage intact. Eisenhower,
after all, didn’t have Nixon accusing him of treason when he made peace —
just as Nixon didn’t have Nixon calling himself a traitor when he went to
China. Just to underscore how convoluted and opportunistic the Republicans
were during this era, consider Mann’s account of how a leading Republican
senator — and presidential hopeful — responded to the 1950 elections:

The 1950 elections only confirmed [Ohio Senator Robert] Taft’s  decision to
strike an even more partisan, hard-line position against Truman and the new
82nd Congress…

Taft wasted no time. In January, he launched his renewed campaign against
Truman by embracing the nationalistic “Fortress America” sentiments of
former Pres. Herbert Hoover, who had only recently advocated a drastic
reduction of America’s military commitments around the world, especially in
Europe and Asia. “We Americans alone,” Hoover said, “with sea and air
power, can so control the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that there can be no
possible invasion of the Western Hemisphere by Communist  armies.”

Taft, of course, had long held that the Far East was “more important to our
future peace than is Europe.” He demonstrated just how much he agreed with
Hoover when he formally opposed Truman’s plans to implement the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949. Taft voted against NATO and
now he stood adamantly opposed to Truman’s plan to send four divisions to
protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union. In early January 1951, Taft
told the Senate that the US should “commit no American troops to the
European continent at this time.” When Illinois Democrat Paul Douglas
reminded Taft that the fall of Western Europe would leave the Continent’s
industrial potential in Soviet hands, Taft replied that, in that event, the
United States could destroy those industrial facilities with bombs. Taft’s
extraordinary logic was too much for J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, who
interrupted to say that it was “a very shocking thing for Europeans to
realize that we are willing to contemplate their destruction.”

Those who may think that today’s neocons are unprecedentedly unhinged
should take note. If Republicans could make such whack-job “policy” work
for them even then, the argument might go, then perhaps Clinton isn’t so
crazy after all?  But that sort of thinking ignores the Democrats’ real
advantages — most notably the deep popularity of their domestic political
agenda. Even in 1952, Democrats still won slightly more House votes than
Republicans did, and they quickly retook Congress. Eisenhower embraced the
New Deal programs that earlier GOP candidates had opposed, and even Richard
Nixon, two decades later, signed so many Democratic domestic bills that
he’s often held up as a secret liberal — not because he was, but because he
had to go along, in order to survive and focus on what mattered to him
most. In the long run, Nixon was able to start bending politics in a whole
new direction — but only because Johnson, acting out of fear, had opened
the door for him by fracturing his own party.

And that’s what Clinton could be doing once again — only she would be
undermining an emerging majority that hasn’t even gelled yet, rather than
one that’s been around for a generation.

“I think you could argue that Clinton is still operating from a mindset
that once influenced many Democrats to support war in Iraq and
Afghanistan,” Mann said. “They got beat up badly in the early 1990s for
opposing GHW Bush in Iraq and they vowed never to be caught being weak on
terrorism (and use of military force) again. After 9-11, there was nothing
to be gained, and everything to be lost, by appearing weak on
terrorism/Iraq.”

But isn’t ISIS really evil? Well, yes, they are. Maybe even evil enough to
make it clear how over the top some earlier claims of absolute evil were.
And certainly evil enough to be at war with half a dozen other Muslim
outfits. Which bring us to another lesson Mann points out.

“Another key lesson from my book is the mistake of looking at communism as
a monolithic worldwide force,” Mann said “There were Soviet Communists,
Chinese Communists, Vietnamese Communists, Yugoslavian Communists, etc.
Fulbright spent a lot of time talking about how we needed to take a more
sophisticated, nuanced approach to the communists. Some of his colleagues
and Johnson thought he was crazy.”

And now? “Fulbright’s lesson applies to terrorists and the Muslim world,”
Mann pointed out. “Not every radical Muslim is an enemy of the U.S. Not
every terrorist is out to attack the U.S. Not every Muslim is radical and
violent, etc. We never seem to have the capacity for any kind of
sophisticated, informed assessment of the world around us. Like George W.
Bush, you’re either with us or with the people who want to destroy us.”
That sort of mindset is what created most of the enemies we’re facing in
the first place.

In his article, Fallows made a very similar point:

Yeah, we should have “done something” in Syria to prevent the rise of ISIS.
But the U.S. did a hell of a lot of somethings in Iraq over the past
decade, with a lot more leverage that it could possibly have had in Syria.
And the result of the somethings in Iraq was … ? A long story in the NYT
tells us that the current leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the caliph
himself, drew his political formation from America’s own efforts to “do
something” in Iraq….

Here’s the dirtiest of dirty little secrets — and it’s not really a secret,
it’s just something no one ever talks about: The entire jihadi mess we’re
facing now all descends from the brilliant idea of “giving the Soviets
their own Vietnam” in Afghanistan. How’s that for learning a lesson from
Vietnam? Well, that’s the lesson that Jimmy Carter’s crew learned — and
Ronald Reagan’s gang was only too happy to double down on.

“Finally,” Mann told me, “is the unwillingness to learn much if anything
about our foes. We failed to learn about Vietnam, its people, culture and
history. We refused to understand that we were fighting a nationalist
insurgency that cared more about independence (mostly from China hegemony)
than it did about Communism.”  Tragically, Mann quotes Kennedy on several
occasions clearly seeing this — at a time when we were still merely
assisting the French.

“Ho took help from the Communists because they were willing to help him
fight for independence,” Mann continued. “He eventually became a committed
Communist, I believe, but I don’t think he started out as one. He tried to
get us to help him, because he actually thought we were serious about self
determination.”

Something very similar happened when we missed the opportunity to fully
support the Arab Spring. If we don’t have the courage of our own
convictions, it’s folly to expect others to believe in them for us. That
goes for voters here in America, too.

*Calendar:*

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

·  September 4 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton speaks at the National Clean
Energy Summit (Solar Novis Today
<http://www.solarnovus.com/hillary-rodham-clinto-to-deliver-keynote-at-national-clean-energy-summit-7-0_N7646.html>
)

·  September 9 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DSCC at
her Washington home (DSCC
<https://d1ly3598e1hx6r.cloudfront.net/sites/dscc/files/uploads/9.9.14%20HRC%20Dinner.pdf>
)

·  September 14 – Indianola, IA: Sec. Clinton headlines Sen. Harkin’s Steak
Fry (LA Times
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-tom-harkin-clinton-steak-fry-20140818-story.html>
)

·  September 19 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DNC with
Pres. Obama (CNN
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/27/politics/obama-clinton-dnc/index.html>)

·  October 2 – Miami Beach, FL: Sec. Clinton keynotes the CREW Network
Convention & Marketplace (CREW Network
<http://events.crewnetwork.org/2014convention/>)

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