Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday September 10, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:06:00 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday September 10, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> worked to simplify the info provided
by lenders, so students could easily understand their loans:
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-on-college-affordability/ …
<http://t.co/QCTO8fGW1t> [9/10/14, 1:19 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/509752956317483010>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> worked with the Mexican President to
successfully expand renewable energy #HRC365
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash>
http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/02/184236.htm …
<http://t.co/KnunfYgv7x> [9/9/14, 5:30 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/509453720048775168>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> successfully pushed for income-based
student loan repayments, helping make college more affordable:
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-on-college-affordability/ …
<http://t.co/QCTO8fGW1t> [9/10/14, 12:21 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/509738329001046017>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: NEW RECORD ANALYSIS: Hillary Clinton
on College Affordability:
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-on-college-affordability/ …
<http://t.co/5Ns0csaY6P> [9/10/14, 11:44 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/509729257367805952>]

*Headlines:*

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers come back down to earth”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-come-back-down-earth>*

“Clinton allies say the former secretary of state is still strong, despite
the drop in favorability rating. ‘Despite the fact that Republicans are
resorting to misinformed and blatantly false attacks on Hillary Clinton’s
record, poll after poll demonstrates that she continues to be one of the
most admired leaders not only in America, but across the globe,’ said
Adrienne Elrod of the pro-Clinton group rapid response group Correct the
Record.”

*Mother Jones: “How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the
World”
<http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron>*

“The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of
Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department
worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the
globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy
supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their
energy resources as a cudgel.”

*MSNBC blog: The Maddow Blog: “Benghazi creeps back into spotlight”
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/benghazi-creeps-back-spotlight>*

“Here’s a handpicked member of Gowdy’s panel, using the Benghazi
investigation to help a local Republican Party, at an event in which that
member referred to the president as an ‘enemy.’”

*Huffington Post blog: Bill Schneider, senior fellow and resident scholar
at Third Way: “Will the 2016 Presidential Race Be the ‘We Told You So’
Election?”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-schneider/will-the-2016-presidentia_b_5790826.html>*

“While Romney would easily defeat Obama if there were a rematch right now,
he would not do so well against Clinton.”

*Brookings: “Obama, ISIS, and What a New War Means for 2016”
<http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/09/10-obama-foreign-policy-speech-galston>*

“If Secretary Clinton presents herself as a candidate for her party’s
nomination, she will be able to run as the heir of a foreign policy that
has moved sharply in her direction, and as the leader of a party whose
major factions are in alignment.”

*Bloomberg View: Francis Berry: “Hillary's Biggest Foe Is History”
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-10/hillary-s-biggest-foe-is-history>*

“If Hillary Clinton runs for the White House and wins, she would make
history -- not only as the first female president, but also as the first
Democratic candidate since before the Civil War to win the presidency after
a failed first run for the office.”

*Huffington Post opinion: Peter Rosenstein: “The Inevitability of Hillary”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/the-inevitability-of-hill_b_5798352.html>*

“There is an overwhelming feeling one gets from people in all walks of life
and all political stripes that her time has arrived.”

*Talking Points Memo: “No Fan Of Hillary, Bill Maher Says He Could Vote GOP
In 2016” <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bill-maher-rand-paul-2016>*

“Because of his lukewarm feelings toward Clinton, a huge favorite to claim
the Democratic nomination in 2016, the HBO host said he's open to
‘considering the Republican product.’”

*Articles:*

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers come back down to earth”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-come-back-down-earth>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

September 9, 2014 11:47 a.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings continue to tumble as she renters
the political fray, with 43% of respondents now saying they view her
positively, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, down from
a high of 60% in 2009.

But Clinton remains one of only two politicians polled whose favorability
rating tops their unfavorable numbers (the other being her husband, former
president Bill Clinton).  Forty-one percent of respondents hold a negative
view of the former first lady and potential 2016 presidential candidate,
slightly fewer than those who hold positive views.

Clinton’s numbers were likely destined to fall back to earth as she
reentered domestic partisan politics. In recent months, she’s increasingly
weighed in on hot-button issues like gun control, which is likely to blunt
her support among non-Democrats who may have liked her as secretary of
state or as a private citizen, but would never support her as a
presidential candidate.

George W. Bush’s ratings, for instance, have climbed since he left office.

Her husband remains the most popular political figure surveyed, with 56% of
respondents holding positive views of the former president and just 21%
expressing a negative opinion.

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who is also eyeing a presidential bid,
breaks even with the same number holding favorable and unfavorable views.
Among other potential GOP presidential contenders, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
has a net negative four point rating, Mitt Romney is down seven points, and
Jeb Bush is down 11 points.

There is somewhat more intensity against Clinton than for her, with 26%
saying they hold “very negative” views of Clinton and 21% holding “very
positive” views of the former first lady.

Clinton allies say the former secretary of state is still strong, despite
the drop in favorability rating. “Despite the fact that Republicans are
resorting to misinformed and blatantly false attacks on Hillary Clinton’s
record, poll after poll demonstrates that she continues to be one of the
most admired leaders not only in America, but across the globe,” said
Adrienne Elrod of the pro-Clinton group rapid response group Correct the
Record.

*Mother Jones: “How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the
World”
<http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron>*

By Mariah Blake

September/ October 2014

ONE ICY MORNING in February 2012, Hillary Clinton's plane touched down in
the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce
blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the
stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a
motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled
with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing
everything from Syria's bloody civil war to their joint search for loose
nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria
had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron
millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged.
Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into
the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and
"Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly
for a fracking moratorium.

Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance.
According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on
these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people."
But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania,
thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project,
and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again
Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia,
Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State
Department's lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar
held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian
officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian
national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of
natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania's parliament voted down its
proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria's eased its moratorium.

The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of
Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department
worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the
globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy
supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their
energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting
fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and
earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant
environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables,
and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials—some with
deep ties to industry—also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative
shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose
interests the program actually serves.

GEOLOGISTS HAVE LONG KNOWN that there were huge quantities of natural gas
locked in shale rock. But tapping it wasn't economically viable until the
late 1990s, when a Texas wildcatter named George Mitchell hit on a novel
extraction method that involved drilling wells sideways from the initial
borehole, then blasting them full of water, chemicals, and sand to break up
the shale—a variation of a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or
fracking. Besides dislodging a bounty of natural gas, Mitchell's
breakthrough ignited an energy revolution. Between 2006 and 2008, domestic
gas reserves jumped 35 percent. The United States later vaulted past Russia
to become the world's largest natural gas producer. As a result, prices
dropped to record lows, and America began to wean itself from coal, along
with oil and gas imports, which lessened its dependence on the Middle East.
The surging global gas supply also helped shrink Russia's economic clout:
Profits for Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, plummeted by more
than 60 percent between 2008 and 2009 alone.

Clinton, who was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, believed
that shale gas could help rewrite global energy politics. "This is a moment
of profound change," she later told a crowd at Georgetown University.
"Countries that used to depend on others for their energy are now
producers. How will this shape world events? Who will benefit, and who will
not?…The answers to these questions are being written right now, and we
intend to play a major role." Clinton tapped a lawyer named David Goldwyn
as her special envoy for international energy affairs; his charge was "to
elevate energy diplomacy as a key function of US foreign policy."

Goldwyn had a long history of promoting drilling overseas—both as a
Department of Energy official under Bill Clinton and as a representative of
the oil industry. From 2005 to 2009 he directed the US-Libya Business
Association, an organization funded primarily by US oil companies—including
Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Marathon—clamoring to tap Libya's abundant
supply. Goldwyn lobbied Congress for pro-Libyan policies and even battled
legislation that would have allowed families of the Lockerbie bombing
victims to sue the Libyan government for its alleged role in the attack.

According to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, one of Goldwyn's
first acts at the State Department was gathering oil and gas industry
executives "to discuss the potential international impact of shale gas."
Clinton then sent a cable to US diplomats, asking them to collect
information on the potential for fracking in their host countries. These
efforts eventually gave rise to the Global Shale Gas Initiative, which
aimed to help other nations develop their shale potential. Clinton promised
it would do so "in a way that is as environmentally respectful as possible."

But environmental groups were barely consulted, while industry played a
crucial role. When Goldwyn unveiled the initiative in April 2010, it was at
a meeting of the United States Energy Association, a trade organization
representing Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips, all of which were
pursuing fracking overseas. Among their top targets was Poland, which
preliminary studies suggested had abundant shale gas. The day after
Goldwyn's announcement, the US Embassy in Warsaw helped organize a shale
gas conference, underwritten by these same companies (plus the oil field
services company Halliburton) and attended by officials from the
departments of State and Energy.

In some cases, Clinton personally promoted shale gas. During a 2010
gathering of foreign ministers in Washington, DC, she spoke about America's
plans to help spread fracking abroad. "I know that in some places [it] is
controversial," she said, "but natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel
available for power generation today." She later traveled to Poland for a
series of meetings with officials, after which she announced that the
country had joined the Global Shale Gas Initiative.

That August, delegates from 17 countries descended on Washington for the
State Department's first shale gas conference. The media was barred from
attending, and officials refused to reveal basic information, including
which countries took part. When Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) inquired about
industry involvement, the department would say only that there had been "a
limited industry presence." (State Department officials have since been
more forthcoming with Mother Jones: In addition to a number of US
government agencies, they say attendees heard from energy firms, including
Devon, Chesapeake, and Halliburton.)

During the cursory press conference that followed, Goldwyn, a short,
bespectacled man with a shock of dark hair, argued that other nations could
avoid the environmental damage sometimes associated with fracking by
following America's lead and adopting "an umbrella of laws and
regulations." A reporter suggested that US production had actually
"outpaced the ability to effectively oversee the safety" and asked how we
could be sure the same wouldn't happen elsewhere. Goldwyn replied that
attendees had heard about safety issues from energy companies and the
Groundwater Protection Council, a nonprofit organization that receives
industry funding and opposes federal regulation of fracking wastewater
disposal.

Goldwyn and the delegates then boarded a bus to Pennsylvania for an
industry-sponsored luncheon and tour of some shale fields. Paul Hueper,
director of energy programs at the State Department's Bureau of Energy
Resources, says the tour was organized independently and that energy firms
were only invited to the conference itself to share best practices. "We are
very firm on this," he insisted. "We do not shill for industry."

WHILE THE MEETING helped stir up interest, it wasn't until 2011 that global
fracking fever set in for real. That spring, the US Energy Information
Administration (EIA) released its initial estimate of global shale gas,
which found that 32 countries had viable shale basins and put global
recoverable shale gas at 6,600 trillion cubic feet—enough to supply the
world for more than 50 years at current rates of consumption. This was a
rich opportunity for big oil and gas companies, which had largely missed
out on the US fracking boom and were under pressure from Wall Street to
shore up their dwindling reserves. "They're desperate," says Antoine Simon,
who coordinates the shale gas campaign at Friends of the Earth Europe.
"It's the last push to continue their fossil fuel development."

The industry began fighting hard for access to shale fields abroad, and
promoting gas as the fuel of choice for slashing carbon emissions. In
Europe, lobbyists circulated a report claiming that the European Union
could save 900 billion euros if it invested in gas rather than renewable
energy to meet its 2050 climate targets. This rankled environmentalists,
who argue fracking may do little to ease global warming, given that wells
and pipelines leak large quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
They also fear it could crowd out investment in renewables.

By early 2011, the State Department was laying plans to launch a new bureau
to integrate energy into every aspect of foreign policy—an idea Goldwyn had
long been advocating. In 2005, he and a Chevron executive named Jan Kalicki
had published a book called Energy and Security: Toward a New Foreign
Policy Strategy, which argued that energy independence was unattainable in
the near term and urged Washington to shift its focus to energy security—by
boosting global fossil fuel production and stifling unrest that might upset
energy markets. Goldwyn and his ideas had played a key role in shaping the
bureau, so some observers were surprised when he quietly stepped down just
before its launch.

When I approached Goldwyn following a recent speaking engagement in
Washington, DC, to ask about his time at the State Department and why he
left, he ducked out a side door, and Kalicki blocked the corridor to keep
me from following. Goldwyn later said via email that he had simply chosen
"to return to the private sector."

Around the time of his departure, WikiLeaks released a slew of diplomatic
cables, including one describing a 2009 meeting during which Goldwyn and
Canadian officials discussed development of the Alberta oil sands—a project
benefiting some of the same firms behind the US-Libya Business Association.
The cable said that Goldwyn had coached his Canadian counterparts on
improving "oil sands messaging" and helped alleviate their concerns about
getting oil sands crude to US markets. This embarrassed the State
Department, which is reviewing the controversial Keystone XL pipeline
proposal to transport crude oil from Canada and is under fire from
environmentalists.

After leaving State, Goldwyn took a job with Sutherland, a law and lobbying
firm that touts his "deep understanding" of pipeline issues, and launched
his own company, Goldwyn Global Strategies.

In late 2011, Clinton finally unveiled the new Bureau of Energy Resources,
with 63 employees and a multimillion-dollar budget. She also promised to
instruct US embassies around the globe to step up their work on energy
issues and "pursue more outreach to private-sector energy" firms, some of
which had generously supported both her and President Barack Obama's
political campaigns. (One Chevron executive bundled large sums for
Clinton's 2008 presidential bid, for example.)

As part of its expanded energy mandate, the State Department hosted
conferences on fracking from Thailand to Botswana. It sent US experts to
work alongside foreign officials as they developed shale gas programs. And
it arranged for dozens of foreign delegations to visit the United States to
attend workshops and meet with industry consultants—as well as with
environmental groups, in some cases.

US oil giants, meanwhile, were snapping up natural gas leases in far-flung
places. By 2012, Chevron had large shale concessions in Argentina,
Australia, Canada, China, and South Africa, as well as in Eastern Europe,
which was in the midst of a claim-staking spree; Poland alone had granted
more than 100 shale concessions covering nearly a third of its territory.
When the nation lit its first shale gas flare atop a Halliburton-drilled
well that fall, the state-owned gas company ran full-page ads in the
country's largest newspapers showing a spindly rig rising above the hills
in the tiny village of Lubocino, alongside the tagline: "Don't put out the
flame of hope." Politicians promised that Poland would soon break free of
its nemesis, Russia, which supplies the lion's share of its gas. "After
years of dependence on our large neighbor, today we can say that my
generation will see the day when we will be independent in the area of
natural gas," Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared. "And we will be setting
terms."

But shale was not the godsend that industry leaders and foreign governments
had hoped it would be. For one, new research from the US Geological Survey
suggested that the EIA assessments had grossly overestimated shale
deposits: The recoverable shale gas estimate for Poland shrank from 187
trillion cubic feet to 1.3 trillion cubic feet, a 99 percent drop.
Geological conditions and other factors in Europe and Asia also made
fracking more arduous and expensive; one industry study estimated that
drilling shale gas in Poland would cost three times what it does in the
United States.

By 2013, US oil giants were abandoning their Polish shale plays. "The
expectations for global shale gas were extremely high," says the State
Department's Hueper. "But the geological limitations and aboveground
challenges are immense. A handful of countries have the potential for a
boom, but there may never be a global shale gas revolution."

The politics of fracking overseas were also fraught. According to Susan
Sakmar, a visiting law professor at the University of Houston who has
studied fracking regulation, the United States is one of the only nations
where individual landowners own the mineral rights. "In most, perhaps all,
other countries of the world, the underground resources belong to the crown
or the government," she explains. The fact that property owners didn't
stand to profit from drilling on their land ignited public outrage in some
parts of the world, especially Eastern Europe. US officials speculate that
Russia also had a hand in fomenting protests there. "The perception among
diplomats in the region was that Russia was protecting its interests," says
Mark Gitenstein, the former US ambassador to Romania. "It didn't want shale
gas for obvious reasons."

Faced with these obstacles, US and European energy companies launched a
lobbying blitz targeting the European Union. They formed faux grassroots
organizations, plied lawmakers with industry-funded studies, and hosted
lavish dinners and conferences for regulators. The website for one industry
confab—which, according to Friends of the Earth Europe, featured
presentations from Exxon Mobil, Total, and Halliburton—warned that failure
to develop shale gas "will have damaging consequences on European energy
security and prosperity" and urged European governments to "allow shale gas
exploration to advance" so they could "fully understand the scale of the
opportunity."

US lobbying shops also jumped into the fray. Covington & Burling, a major
Washington firm, hired several former senior EU policymakers—including a
top energy official who, according to the New York Times, arrived with a
not-yet-public draft of the European Commission's fracking regulations.

In June 2013, Covington staffer Jean De Ruyt, a former Belgian diplomat and
adviser to the European Commission, hosted an event at the firm's Brussels
office. Executives from Chevron and other oil and gas behemoths attended,
as did Kurt Vandenberghe, then one of the commission's top environmental
regulators. These strategies appeared to pay off: The commission's recently
released framework for regulating fracking includes recommendations for
governments but not firm requirements. "They chose the weakest option they
had," says Simon of Friends of the Earth Europe. "People at the highest
level of the commission are in the industry's pocket."

Goldwyn was also busy promoting fracking overseas—this time on behalf of
industry. Between January and October 2012, his firm organized a series of
workshops on fracking for officials in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, and Ukraine, all of them funded by Chevron. The events were closed
to the public—when Romanian journalist Vlad Ursulean tried to attend the
Romanian gathering, he says Goldwyn personally saw to it that he was
escorted out.

Goldwyn told Mother Jones that the workshops featured presentations on
technical aspects of fracking by academics from the Colorado School of
Mines and Penn State University. Chevron, he maintains, had "no editorial
input." But all of these countries—except Bulgaria, which was in the midst
of anti-fracking protests—would later grant Chevron major shale concessions.

In some cases, the State Department had a direct hand in negotiating the
deals. Gitenstein, then the ambassador to Romania, met with Chevron
executives and Romanian officials and pressed them to hand over millions of
acres of shale concessions. "The Romanians were just sitting on the leases,
and Chevron was upset. So I intervened," says Gitenstein, whose State
Department tenure has been bookended by stints at Mayer Brown, a law and
lobbying firm that has represented Chevron. "This is traditionally what
ambassadors do on behalf of American companies." In the end, Romania signed
a 30-year deal with Chevron, which helped set off massive, nationwide
protests.

When the government began weighing a fracking ban, it didn't sit well with
Gitenstein, who went on Romanian television and warned that, without
fracking, the nation could be stuck paying five times what America does for
natural gas. He added that US shale prospectors had "obtained great
successes—without consequences for the environment, I dare say." The
proposed moratorium soon died.

A FEW WEEKS LATER, Chevron was preparing to build its first fracking rig
near Pungesti, a tiny farming village in northeastern Romania. According to
a memo from the prime minister's office, a Romanian official met with
Chevron executives and an embassy-based US Commerce Department employee to
craft a PR strategy for the project. They agreed to organize a kickoff
event at Victoria Palace in Bucharest. As a spokesman, they would tap
Damian Draghici, a charismatic Romanian lawmaker who was a "recognized
personality among the Roma minority," which had a "considerable presence"
around Chevron's planned drilling sites. "It was really extraordinary—the
level of collaboration between these players," says Ursulean, who has
written extensively about Chevron's activities in Romania. "It was as if
they were all branches of the same company."

The strategy did little to soothe the public's ire. When Chevron finally
did attempt to install the rig in late 2013, residents—including elderly
villagers who arrived in horse-drawn carts—blockaded the planned drilling
sites. The Romanian Orthodox Church rallied behind them, with one local
priest likening Chevron to enemy "invaders." Soon, anti-fracking protests
were cropping up from Poland to the United Kingdom. But Chevron didn't back
down. Along with other American energy firms, it lobbied to insert language
in a proposed US-EU trade agreement allowing US companies to haul European
governments before international arbitration panels for any actions
threatening their investments. Chevron argued this was necessary to protect
shareholders against "arbitrary" and "unfair" treatment by local
authorities. But environmental groups say it would stymie fracking
regulation and point to a $250 million lawsuit Delaware-based Lone Pine
Resources has filed against the Canadian province of Quebec for temporarily
banning fracking near a key source of drinking water. The case hinges on a
similar trade provision.

Despite the public outcry in Europe, the State Department has stayed the
course. Clinton's successor as secretary of state, John Kerry, views
natural gas as a key part of his push against climate change. Under Kerry,
State has ramped up investment in its shale gas initiative and is planning
to expand it to 30 more countries, from Cambodia to Papua New Guinea.

Following the Crimea crisis, the Obama administration has also been
pressing Eastern European countries to fast-track their fracking
initiatives so as to be less dependent on Russia. During an April visit to
Ukraine, which has granted concessions to Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell,
Vice President Joe Biden announced that the United States would bring in
technical experts to speed up its shale gas development. "We stand ready to
assist you," promised Biden, whose son Hunter has since joined the board of
a Ukrainian energy company. "Imagine where you'd be today if you were able
to tell Russia: 'Keep your gas.' It would be a very different world."

*MSNBC blog: The Maddow Blog: “Benghazi creeps back into spotlight”
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/benghazi-creeps-back-spotlight>*

By Steve Benen

September 10, 2014, 10:30 a.m. EDT

The deadly attack on a U.S. outpost in Benghazi two years ago has been
investigated by seven congressional committees, each of which concluded
that the conspiracy theorists are wrong. House Republicans nevertheless
concluded that it’s time for an eighth committee to launch a probe, which
its chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), insists won’t be the least bit
political.

And yet, consider what Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) said over the weekend.

“U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Grantville) addressed the Benghazi
investigation and terrorist organization ISIS among other topics
Saturday morning
at the Cobb County GOP breakfast at its headquarters. […]

“‘I’m not going to stand here and confirm or deny anything,’ Westmoreland
told the crowd. ‘Our job is to figure out the truth.’

“Westmoreland spent much of his speech criticizing Democrats. ‘I think our
enemy stands on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,’ Westmoreland said to loud
applause.”

Oh good, we’re reached the point at which elected lawmakers publicly
describe the president of the United States as an enemy.”

According to the report in the Marietta Daily Journal, Westmoreland went on
to say that “it’s hard” for congressional Democrats “to be bipartisan.”

Said the guy who considers the president his “enemy.”

Remember, Westmoreland isn’t just some random conservative – the Georgia
Republican was one of only seven House Republicans to be named to the new
GOP Benghazi committee. In May, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said Westmoreland
has “no business” joining the select committee, calling it “inappropriate”
for the far-right lawmaker to serve on the panel while also overseeing
political strategy for the National Republican Campaign Committee.

With the benefit of hindsight, Lewis’ concerns appear well grounded.

Igor Bobic added, “Admission for the Marietta, Georgia, event was $10. The
Cobb County GOP touted the event as a ‘very unusual breakfast’ where its
supporters would receive an ‘update on the Benghazi investigation.’”

Trey Gowdy recently said he hopes to avoid a media “circus” with his
investigation. “If you take the approach ‘Are we doing this to learn more
and better ourselves as a people? And be respectful of their sacrifice?’
then you won’t let it become a circus,” he said.

And yet, here’s a handpicked member of Gowdy’s panel, using the Benghazi
investigation to help a local Republican Party, at an event in which that
member referred to the president as an “enemy.”

As for the larger context, with Gowdy’s committee poised to hold its first
hearing next week, msnbc’s Alex Seitz-Wald noted last week, “After several
mercifully Benghazi-free months, the 2012 attack on the diplomatic compound
in Libya is about to be thrust back into the spotlight around its September
11 anniversary.”

Fox News, naturally, is getting increasingly invested, repackaging old news
as new fodder, while again pushing discredited theories.

*Huffington Post blog: Bill Schneider, senior fellow and resident scholar
at Third Way: “Will the 2016 Presidential Race Be the ‘We Told You So’
Election?”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-schneider/will-the-2016-presidentia_b_5790826.html>*

By Bill Schneider

September 9, 2014, 10:50 a.m. EDT

It would be the "We told you so" election: Mitt Romney versus Hillary
Clinton in 2016. The campaign would look like an effort to roll back the
calendar and say, "Let's get it right this time."

There's plenty of buyers' remorse in the electorate right now. At a time
when the world is beset by crises, President Obama's legendary coolness
makes him seem weak and detached. The president's careless statements have
only amplified that impression, including remarks that "we don't have a
strategy yet" for dealing with ISIS and our goal is to reduce Islamic
extremism to "a manageable problem." A recent CNN poll offered voters a
redo of the 2012 election. The result: Romney would now beat Obama by a
decisive margin (53 percent to 44 percent).

Romney encouraged the speculation in a backhanded way when he told a radio
talk show host there's "one in a million" chance he will run in 2016:
"Let's say all the guys that were running [for the Republican nomination]
came together and said, 'Hey, we've decided we can't do it, you must do
it.' That's the one in a million we're thinking about."

Romney's comment stirred some excitement among Republicans. They are keenly
aware of the country's buyers' remorse. A USA Today poll of Iowa Republican
caucus participants raised a lot of eyebrows last month when it showed
Romney, at 35 percent, far ahead of all the other contenders. That's partly
name recognition and partly Republicans' desire for a do-over. It also
reflects the fact that no other Republican contender has caught fire. In
three different national polls of Republicans this summer, no potential
contender got more than 13 percent support (Romney's name was not offered).

The Republican Party establishment is worried. All their potential
standard-bearers -- Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Rick Perry --
have significant problems. That's why the party elite is fantasizing about
either Romney or Jeb Bush. At the same time, Tea Party activists and
evangelicals are warning the party not to nominate another establishment
candidate like John McCain or Mitt Romney.

"The Republican base will not tolerate another candidate foisted upon us as
a guy who can win," said Gary Bauer, a leading figure in the religious
right.

It has become rare for a party to renominate the candidate who lost the
previous election. It didn't work for Democrats with Adlai Stevenson (1952
and 1956) or for Republicans with Thomas Dewey (1944 and 1948). Both got a
smaller share of the vote the second time. Democrats nominated William
Jennings Bryan three times (1896, 1900, and 1908). Bryan's share of the
vote went down each time. Bryan was a populist. So in 1904, Democrats took
a different tack and nominated a conservative, Alton B. Parker. That didn't
work either. Parker did worse than Bryan.

It did work when Republicans nominated Richard Nixon a second time in 1968.
But Nixon had to wait eight years. In between, Republicans suffered the
catastrophe of Barry Goldwater's candidacy in 1964. Given the fact that
Nixon lost in 1960 by what is still the closest vote in U.S. history (a
popular vote margin of 0.2 percent), renominating Nixon did not look like
such a big risk.

Romney seems aware of the risk the party would take by renominating him. "I
have looked at what happens to anybody in this country who loses as the
nominee of their party," Romney has said. "They become a loser for life."
But he lost to Obama, and widespread dissatisfaction with President Obama
is causing Republicans to fantasize about bringing Romney back to life.

"In many ways, it looks like 2016 will be a referendum on Obama in the same
way 2008 was a referendum on [George W.] Bush," Romney's former chief
strategist told Politico.

That would certainly be the case if Vice President Joe Biden were the
Democratic nominee. But Hillary Clinton? She also lost to Obama. Democrats,
too, are longing to go back to the future and redo the 2008 primaries.

Clinton loyally served in the Obama administration for four years. That
leads many Republicans to believe she would represent a third term for
Obama. But the fierce 2008 primary campaign established Clinton's identity.
She has her own distinctive record, plus that of her husband, to run on.
President Clinton's economic record stands in sharp contrast to Obama's.

While Romney would easily defeat Obama if there were a rematch right now,
he would not do so well against Clinton. The CNN poll shows Clinton leading
Romney by an even larger margin, 55 percent to 42 percent. That's pretty
good evidence that voters do not see the prospect of a Clinton presidency
as a "third term for Obama."

*Brookings: “Obama, ISIS, and What a New War Means for 2016”
<http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/09/10-obama-foreign-policy-speech-galston>*

By William A Galston

September 10, 2014, 12:00 p.m. EDT

As President Obama prepares to address the nation this evening, Americans
with some grey in their hair have seen this movie before.

In May 1977, President Jimmy Carter gave a speech at Notre Dame rejecting
what he termed the “inordinate fear of communism.”  Less than three years
later, he confessed that the invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 had
taught him more about the Soviet Union than he had learned previously in
his entire presidency, and he initiated tough new anti-Soviet policies,
including a covert campaign to arm the Afghan resistance.

In October 2011, President Barack Obama announced the full withdrawal of
American troops from Iraq by year’s end.  “The tide of war is receding,” he
declared, and “America’s war in Iraq is over.”  Tonight, Mr. Obama will
announce his strategy for defeating a fanatical army that has seized a
large swath of Iraqi territory.

The rise of ISIS is to the Obama presidency what the invasion of
Afghanistan was to the Carter presidency: the refutation of a central
premise of the administration’s foreign policy.

Mr. Obama’s pivot back to the Middle East has domestic political
consequences as well.  Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), an undeclared candidate
for his party’s presidential nomination, has had the wind in his sails as
he has advocated a libertarian-tinged policy of restraint abroad.  ISIS’
beheading of two Americans has moved Republican sentiment back toward its
longstanding hawkishness, boosting the prospects of neo-Reaganites such as
Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio and complicating Sen. Paul’s path.

As for the Democrats, there was restive grumbling among liberals as former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became more open about her disagreements
with Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, notably on Syria.  But now, as the
president toughens his stance in the Middle East, the breach is narrowing.
If Secretary Clinton presents herself as a candidate for her party’s
nomination, she will be able to run as the heir of a foreign policy that
has moved sharply in her direction, and as the leader of a party whose
major factions are in alignment.

It is likely that the 2016 presidential election will focus on the economy
rather than foreign policy.  Still, Americans know that presidents have the
power to place their sons and daughters in harm’s way.  That is why the
reverberations from tonight’s speech are likely to be long-lasting.

*Bloomberg View: Francis Berry: “Hillary's Biggest Foe Is History”
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-10/hillary-s-biggest-foe-is-history>*

By Francis Barry

September 10, 2014, 11:07 a.m. EDT

If Hillary Clinton runs for the White House and wins, she would make
history -- not only as the first female president, but also as the first
Democratic candidate since before the Civil War to win the presidency after
a failed first run for the office.

Hubert Humphrey (1968), George McGovern (1972) and Al Gore (2000) all ran
for president at least once before securing the Democratic Party’s
presidential nomination -- and all lost in general elections.

Lyndon Johnson won the presidency in 1964 after losing out on the party’s
nomination at the 1960 convention, but he was a sitting president in 1964,
not an aspirant. The last non-incumbent Democrat to come back from a losing
bid to win the presidency was James Buchanan (the bachelor president) in
1856, four years after a divided convention denied him the nomination,
settling instead on a compromise candidate, Franklin Pierce.

Does this bit of trivia doom Clinton’s chances in 2016? Of course not. But
it does tell us something about Democratic presidential voters in general:
They tend to like fresh faces. Six of the last seven non-incumbent
Democrats to be nominated for president (Barack Obama, John Kerry, Bill
Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter) have been
first-time candidates, as were John Kennedy, Adlai Stevenson and Franklin
Roosevelt.

On the Republican side, the situation is reversed: Since 1944, only four
Republicans have won the party’s nomination without having previously
sought it, and each either held national office (Richard Nixon in 1960 and
Gerald Ford in 1976) or had national name recognition (war hero Dwight
Eisenhower in 1952 and presidential scion George W. Bush in 2000). All
other Republican nominees -- Thomas Dewey, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan,
George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney -- won the party’s
nomination on their second or third try.

Republican voters, it would seem, aren’t as eager as Democrats to take
chances on newcomers. That makes sense: They’re more conservative. In 2016,
however, there will be no Republican candidate holding national office.
Only one rumored candidate, Jeb Bush, is a national name, and he will not
have as clear a path to the nomination as his brother did in 2000, given
his vulnerabilities with the party’s base.

At least two possible contenders have previously sought the White House
(Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry), but both have real weaknesses and could
join the list of Republicans who have run multiple times (Steve Forbes, Pat
Buchanan, Ron Paul and others) without winning the nomination.

If Bush runs, some first-time aspirants may take a pass on the race. They
should think twice. Republican and Democratic primary voters could flip
roles in the 2016 primaries, with Republicans voting for fresh blood. If
they do, it would be the first time since Wendell Willkie in 1940 that
Republicans nominate a first-time candidate who is not a national figure.

No matter who wins the nomination, first-time Republican candidates will
have an opportunity to introduce themselves to voters, gaining a
familiarity that -- if history is any guide -- will be helpful to them in
2020 or 2024. As with the Democrats, there is no reason to think that
Republican voters won’t return to their usual modus operandi in future
elections.

So a word of advice to the increasingly long list of potential first-time
Republican presidential candidates: Run. And to those eyeing a primary run
against Clinton: In the Democratic Party, patience can sometimes be a
virtue.

*Huffington Post opinion: Peter Rosenstein: “The Inevitability of Hillary”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/the-inevitability-of-hill_b_5798352.html>*

By Peter Rosenstein

September 10, 2014, 12:40 p.m. EDT

One can only imagine the sound, something like air being let out of a
helium balloon, should Hillary Rodham Clinton announce in the beginning of
2015 that she isn't running for President. Most can't for a moment fathom
that scenario playing out.

One who can't is the new host of Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, who said on
his inaugural show, "She's running". Maybe he's connected to her by a soup
can like in the Progresso commercial. The only luminary on the Meet the
Press panel who thought she wouldn't run was Joe Scarborough and he often
likes to be obstinate.

The press has had a love-hate relationship with Hillary since she first
appeared on the scene giving the graduation speech at Wellesley in 1969.
But love her or hate her, they can't get enough of her. Whether on TV or in
print they know that talking about her will get them airtime or a front
page story. Since she was a young woman what Hillary says gets attention.

There is an overwhelming feeling one gets from people in all walks of life
and all political stripes that her time has arrived. She will finally
overcome the haters and doubters because enough people recognize she is the
real thing. Her in-depth understanding of both the United States and the
world will leave no one questioning that she is the right person, as a TV
ad once claimed, "to answer that 3am phone call".

Hillary wrote a sobering piece on the state of the world in her Washington
Post review of Henry Kissinger's new book, World Order. While complimenting
Kissinger she made clear it was on his understanding of the world as it is
today, very different from when he was Secretary of State. She wrote, "It's
no wonder so many Americans express uncertainty and even fear about our
role and our future in the world. In his new book, "World Order," Henry
Kissinger explains the historic scope of this challenge". She continued,
"His analysis, despite some differences over specific policies, largely
fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over
the past six years to build a global architecture of security and
cooperation for the 21st century." Hillary presents herself as one who
won't back away from the challenges the United States faces and understands
that as the only remaining superpower in the world we can't allow the new
isolationists in our country to keep the United States from acting to
protect our homeland and make the world a safer place. She clearly defines
what she means by acting when she describes her view of 'Smart Power". She
makes clear it is not always rushing in with troops but using all the
levers a President has at her disposal with military action being the last
resort. But one understands she wouldn't shy away from using military force
when necessary.

A few days before the review appeared in the Washington Post Hillary
keynoted Senator Harry Reid's (D-NV) energy conference in Las Vegas. One
can often judge the correctness of her ideas by those who attack them.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) chastised her for correctly saying, "Climate
Change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges
we face as a nation and world and the data is unforgiving no matter what
the deniers try to assert." Paul, who shows a lack of understanding of
global and world issues, attacked her for this on Fox news saying, "I don't
think we really want a Commander in Chief that's battling climate change
instead of terrorism." Paul, one of the leading lights of today's
Republican Party doesn't understand what the role of President is which may
be because he can't actually see himself in the role. One in which as the
saying goes, 'you must be able to walk and chew gum at the same time'.

All we need do is read the headlines of the past few weeks from ISIS, to
Israel, to Syria, to the drought in California, to Ferguson, MO, to the
Ebola epidemic; to understand that our next President will have to focus on
a myriad of issues at the same time, all of them usually presenting as a
crisis. We need someone who not only understands that but is up to the
challenge. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated she is ready on both counts.

Over the next few months Hillary will do what she has said all along she
needs to do before announcing and that is bring into focus her vision for
the future which she will do in a series of speeches and appearances across
the nation.

She will stand side-by-side with Democratic candidates who are running in
2014 and will shine a light on them. The pundits must be careful not to
judge the result of the vote for a candidate she stands with purely based
on her having been there. Hillary will help to draw attention to them but
we know in the end people vote for the person they trust and trust has
always been difficult to transfer. Bill Clinton managed to make a
difference for President Obama in 2012 with his brilliant Convention speech
but in the end it was Barack Obama who had to make the case for himself.

The Republican Party already understands when Hillary is the candidate in
2016 she will make that winning case for herself. She will share her vision
for a better future for America and show that she has the wealth of
knowledge and experience to make it a reality. There isn't anyone in the
Republican Party that has even been hinted at as a potential nominee that
can match her in the scope of her experience or brain power.

As we move toward early 2015 it appears that a Hillary Rodham Clinton
candidacy for President is becoming inevitable.

*Talking Points Memo: “No Fan Of Hillary, Bill Maher Says He Could Vote GOP
In 2016” <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bill-maher-rand-paul-2016>*

By Tom Kludt

September 10, 2014 9:51 a.m. EDT

Bill Maher made a hefty donation to bolster President Obama's re-election
bid in 2012, but the liberal comedian says he's open to going the other way
the next time around. And there's one Republican in particular who
intrigues him.

“Rand Paul is an interesting candidate to me. Rand Paul could possibly get
my vote,” Maher told The Hill.

Maher has never hidden his affinity for the Paul clan. He told The Hill
that he admired the Kentucky senator's father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX),
for having "the guts to say we should end the American empire, pull the
troops home, stop getting involved in every foreign entanglement."

Earlier this month, Maher told Syracuse.com that he has admiration for Rand
Paul for occasionally going "against his own tribe."

Maher donated $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC in 2012, but he told The
Hill that he won't do the same for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

"First of all, I’m not as big a fan of Hillary as I am of Obama," he said.
"So we’ll see who’s running. I’m not even committing to being for Hillary.”

Because of his lukewarm feelings toward Clinton, a huge favorite to claim
the Democratic nomination in 2016, the HBO host said he's open to
"considering the Republican product."