Subject: Correct The Record Sunday February 8, 2015 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 14:25:21 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Sunday February 8, 2015 Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*New York Times: “Economic Plan Is a Quandary for Hillary Clinton’s
Campaign”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/us/politics/economic-plan-is-a-quandary-for-hillary-clintons-campaign.html?_r=0>*

“With advice from more than 200 policy experts, Hillary Rodham Clinton is
trying to answer what has emerged as a central question of her early
presidential campaign strategy: how to address the anger about income
inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy.”

*Washington Post: “Clinton builds a different campaign for 2016. Will she
be different, too?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-builds-a-different-campaign-for-2016-will-she-be-different-too/2015/02/07/280e5aac-aee7-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html>*

“There are clear indications, however, that she is determined to put
together a campaign organization that is markedly different from the one
she had in 2008, designed to avoid both the tactical and strategic mistakes
that contributed to her undoing against Barack Obama and the debilitating
infighting that plagued the inner circle of what became for a time a
dysfunctional campaign.”

*Bloomberg: “New Hampshire Poll: Jeb Bush Grabs Narrow Lead”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-08/bloomberg-politics-saint-anselm-new-hampshire-poll-jeb-bush-grabs-narrow-lead>*

“The poll also shows former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dominating
her potential Democratic rivals. Clinton, who won the state’s presidential
primary in 2008, is the first choice of 56 percent of Democratic primary
voters.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Sen. Paul Criticizes Libya
Intervention as ‘Hillary’s War’”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/07/sen-paul-criticizes-libya-intervention-as-hillarys-war/>*

“Mr. Paul said Hillary Clinton was to blame for what he described as
foreign-policy failures, previewing lines of attack for a potential general
election match-up.”

*MSNBC: “Bernie Sanders steps up: I am not Hillary, ‘trust me’”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-stuck-between-elizabeth-warren-and-hillary-clinton>*

“The Independent senator from Vermont is actively considering a
presidential run in 2016, and hopes to tap into progressive grassroots
networks like this one for a potential underdog challenge to
all-but-declared Democratic frontrunner Clinton.”

*Bloomberg View: Albert Hunt: “Obama's Legacy Will Be Set by Foreign
Policy”
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-08/obama-s-legacy-will-be-set-by-foreign-policy>*

“There are two widely divergent views of how all this could play out. The
American exceptionalists say Obama is too passive, and the next president,
whether Hillary Clinton or a Republican, will have a better appreciation of
the need for U.S. global leadership and push a more assertive foreign
policy.”

*Articles:*

*New York Times: “Economic Plan Is a Quandary for Hillary Clinton’s
Campaign”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/us/politics/economic-plan-is-a-quandary-for-hillary-clintons-campaign.html?_r=0>*

By Amy Chozick

February 7, 2015

With advice from more than 200 policy experts, Hillary Rodham Clinton is
trying to answer what has emerged as a central question of her early
presidential campaign strategy: how to address the anger about income
inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy.

Mrs. Clinton has not had to wade into domestic policy since before she
became secretary of state in 2009, and she has spent the past few months
engaged in policy discussions with economists on the left and closer to the
Democratic Party’s center who are grappling with the discontent set off by
the gap between rich and poor. Sorting through the often divergent advice
to develop an economic plan could affect the timing and planning of the
official announcement of her campaign.

Although people close to Mrs. Clinton say she has not yet settled on a
specific platform, she is expected to embrace several principles. They
include standard Democratic initiatives like raising the minimum wage,
investing in infrastructure, closing corporate tax loopholes and cutting
taxes for the middle class. Other ideas are newer, such as providing
incentives to corporations to increase profit-sharing with employees and
changing labor laws to give workers more collective bargaining power.

Behind many of these proposals is a philosophy, endorsed by Mrs. Clinton’s
closest economic advisers and often referred to as inclusive capitalism,
that contends that a majority of Americans do not want to punish the rich;
they just want to feel that they, too, have a chance to succeed. It also
calls for corporations to put less emphasis on short-term profits that
increase shareholder value and to invest more in employees, the environment
and communities.

Whether Mrs. Clinton’s approach will be enough to satisfy the unease over
growing economic disparity is unclear. In a Gallup poll conducted last
month, 67 percent of Americans said they were dissatisfied with the way
income and wealth are distributed in the United States. In the 2008
Democratic presidential primary, Mrs. Clinton’s economic message — summed
up by a frequent refrain, “If you work hard, you play by the rules, you
ought to be able to get ahead” — resonated with white, working-class
voters, who overwhelmingly supported her over Barack Obama.

But in the years since, Mrs. Clinton has come under criticism for
delivering speeches to Wall Street banks at more than $200,000 each,
roughly four times the median annual household income in the United States,
and for comments she made about her family’s financial situation, including
a lament about being “dead broke” after leaving the White House. And she
must convince a middle class that feels frustrated and left behind that she
understands its struggles, even as she relies heavily on the financial
industry and corporate interests to fund her candidacy.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said she had “a record of
bringing people together to solve big problems, while also putting a real
premium on accountability.”

Asked whether creating an economic message could affect the timeline for
her presidential campaign, Mr. Merrill said, “There’s no red X on a
calendar somewhere, but make no mistake: If she runs, she will present
solutions to our toughest challenges.”

Mrs. Clinton’s economic plan would be more populist and reliant on the
government than the centrist approach of trade agreements, welfare reform
and deficit reduction associated with her husband, former President Bill
Clinton.

“It’s not enough to address upward mobility without addressing inequality,”
said Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary in the Clinton
administration who is among those talking with Mrs. Clinton. “The
challenge, though, is to address inequality without embracing a politics of
envy.”

The debate is extending beyond the Democratic Party as Republicans wade
into the issues. “If Americans are working harder than ever, earning less
than they once did, our government and our leaders should step up, offer a
plan, fix what’s wrong,” former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida said in a speech
in Detroit last week as he laid the groundwork for his potential 2016
candidacy.

Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state when some major economic debates took
hold on Capitol Hill, and as a result, her economic views are still not
broadly known. Her approach to poverty was forged in the 1970s, when she
went door to door while working for the Children’s Defense Fund, leaving
her a committed advocate for early childhood education, equal pay for women
and paid leave.

But later experiences complicated her worldview. Many of the advocates who
knew Mrs. Clinton as a champion for the poor and working-class women felt
betrayed in 1996 when, as first lady, she supported Mr. Clinton’s overhaul
of the welfare system, which gave states more power to remove people from
welfare rolls and pledged to cut federal spending on assistance for the
poor by nearly $55 billion over six years. She was more skeptical about the
North American Free Trade Agreement, which Mr. Clinton signed into law in
1993 and which has also been accused of hurting American workers.

After being elected in New York to the United States Senate in 2000, Mrs.
Clinton had another constituency to represent: Wall Street. In 2001, she
supported bankruptcy legislation that some Democrats — most notably
Elizabeth Warren, now senator from Massachusetts — argued hurt working
families and single mothers, and they accused her of doing the bidding of
the financial industry. Mrs. Clinton has said she worked to improve the
bill.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Mrs. Clinton angered some of her Wall
Street donors when she came out early in support of the regulation of
derivatives and other complicated financial products and called for
eliminating the “carried interest” loophole that allowed some financiers to
avoid paying millions in income taxes. She also said that as president, she
would create a cabinet-level position to fight poverty.

When the housing market collapsed, Mrs. Clinton, who had returned to the
Senate full time after Mr. Obama defeated her, proposed legislation similar
to a New Deal-era program that would allow the government to help
homeowners refinance their mortgages. She voted in favor of the Emergency
Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which led to the Troubled Asset Relief
Program and the multibillion-dollar bailout for automakers.

Last month, Mrs. Clinton reiterated her support for the 2010 Dodd-Frank
financial regulation law. “Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong,”
she wrote on Twitter.

As she dives back into domestic policy, Mrs. Clinton faces an economy in
which, even amid steady job growth, weekly earnings for low- and
middle-income workers have remained virtually unchanged for 15 years.

“Where has the money gone?” asked Robert B. Reich, a secretary of labor
during the Clinton administration. “That is the topic that is embarrassing
for people to talk about, particularly in Washington, because even
mentioning it creates the potential charge of class warfare.”

Mr. Reich, who recently sent Mrs. Clinton a five-page memo laying out his
ideas, said candidates in both parties needed to abandon the politically
safe discussion of upward mobility for the poor and middle class that
dominated the 1990s, and instead take on the stickier issue of income
distribution.

“Upward mobility, equal opportunity — those are safe phrases and safe
aspirations,” he said in an interview. “I don’t want to minimize their
importance, but they obscure the real issue.”

Mr. Reich is one of some 200 economists and academics who have offered Mrs.
Clinton ideas and guidance as she settles on an economic doctrine. Several
of Mr. Clinton’s former advisers, including Alan S. Blinder, Robert E.
Rubin and Mr. Summers, maintain influence. But Mrs. Clinton has cast a wide
net that also includes Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics
who has written extensively about inequality; Alan B. Krueger, a professor
at Princeton and co-author of “Inequality in America”; and Peter R. Orszag,
a former director of the Office of Management and Budget under President
Obama. Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist who focuses on retirement
issues, is also playing a prominent role.

Last month in Washington, a 17-person commission convened by the Center for
American Progress, a liberal think tank with close ties to Mrs. Clinton,
presented a 166-page report on “inclusive prosperity,” which is among the
numerous economic blueprints Mrs. Clinton has reviewed. For some, the
solutions proposed by the committee, of which Mr. Summers was co-chairman,
did not go far enough.

Dean Baker, an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and
Policy Research, has pushed the idea of a government fee on the sale or
purchase of certain financial assets, which he believes could hold Wall
Street accountable while funding social services. “Clinton people didn’t
want to go near it,” Mr. Baker said.

Mrs. Clinton has not commented on the financial transaction tax or on
profit-sharing.

She has expressed support for many of the proposals Mr. Obama laid out in
his State of the Union address last month, signaling that they could help
shape her agenda. In a post on Twitter, she said the speech had “pointed
way to an economy that works for all. Now we need to step up & deliver for
the middle class.”

Mrs. Clinton frequently talks about the economic success of the Clinton
administration, under which median family income, adjusted for inflation,
increased to $56,080 in 1999 from $48,884 in 1993, compared with a decline
to $51,017 in 2012 from $55,987 in 2000, according to census data. But she
has acknowledged that a globalized economy calls for new ideas, and many
are urging her to go beyond her comfort zone and address the deeper
frustrations of those who have not shared in that economy’s benefits.

“Long-term answers about education and skills that help change mobility
don’t get at the current frustrations and aggravations,” said Austan D.
Goolsbee, an economic adviser to Mr. Obama and a professor at the
University of Chicago.

“People want to answer the question, ‘Are we going to be O.K.?’ ” Mr.
Goolsbee said. “And then the natural question is, ‘Whose fault was that,
and let’s go find those people.’ ”

*Washington Post: “Clinton builds a different campaign for 2016. Will she
be different, too?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-builds-a-different-campaign-for-2016-will-she-be-different-too/2015/02/07/280e5aac-aee7-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html>*

By Dan Balz

February 7, 2015

No one can say what kind of candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton will be once
she starts actively campaigning later this year. Last summer’s book tour
and later public appearances highlighted the degree to which she is both
rusty as a candidate and still grappling with the message for a 2016
campaign.

There are clear indications, however, that she is determined to put
together a campaign organization that is markedly different from the one
she had in 2008, designed to avoid both the tactical and strategic mistakes
that contributed to her undoing against Barack Obama and the debilitating
infighting that plagued the inner circle of what became for a time a
dysfunctional campaign.

The upper most tier of Clinton’s new team speaks to the changes between
2008 and a 2016 campaign. In John Podesta, designated as the likely
chairman, Clinton has something she lacked eight years ago. Podesta is
someone who can speak to her almost as a peer. He should be able to offer
unvarnished and critical counsel from the perspective of someone who has
been White House chief of staff in her husband’s administration and a now a
top adviser to Obama. In contrast to many of the people in the upper ranks
of the 2008 campaign, Podesta likely will not be timid about speaking
frankly to her.

Beyond quiet advice to the candidate, there is an even more important role
that Podesta could play in a Clinton 2016 campaign. Because of his stature,
personality and long-standing relationship with the Clintons, he can speak
authoritatively for the candidate, internally and externally. He brings
order — to the extent that anyone can — to an operation that otherwise
could be plagued by freelancing among the Clintons’ vast and extended
network. He has the opportunity to draw clearer lines of authority and
enforce the rules.

In Robby Mook, the designated campaign manager, Clinton has a trusted young
strategist who earned her confidence in 2008 by helping to pull off
victories in Nevada, Ohio and Indiana. Mook is far younger than Podesta,
but he has something that Podesta doesn’t have: fluency in how modern
campaigns are run.

Other members of the senior team recruited so far have long, collective
experience in presidential campaigns and White House operations, and they
have been both allies and rivals.

Joel Benenson, the designated chief strategist, and media adviser designate
Jim Margolis were key players in the Obama campaign that defeated Clinton
in 2008. Others from Obama’s team are expected to play other key roles.
Communications director designate Jennifer Palmieri has top-level White
House experience. Communications strategist Mandy Grunwald has been part of
Clinton world dating back to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign.

Clinton has been reluctant to begin rigorous campaign activity this spring,
given the absence of any serious competition for the Democratic nomination
at this point. She has often remarked that her husband didn’t announce his
candidacy until the fall of 1991. But her team has been warned by veterans
of the Obama campaigns not to take the absence of stiff competition for the
nomination as an excuse to start slowly. The advice has been pointed: don’t
waste 2015. Clinton appears to be taking that advice to heart.

Even in the eight years since she first ran for president, Clinton campaign
operations have changed dramatically, particularly in the areas of data,
analytics, targeting, digital, social media and organizing. These are
enormously challenging — and time consuming — aspects of a presidential
campaign.

Obama’s reelection campaign spent most of 2011 trying to build the
political, financial and especially the technological infrastructure
necessary to wage a general election — and needed every bit of that time
and more to work out many of the bugs. And they weren’t starting from
scratch, as Clinton will be doing. They had spent the years after the 2008
campaign testing, experimenting and refining their operation.

Mechanics are one thing, but candidate performance is another. Clinton may
be building a different campaign operation, but will she be a different
candidate in 2016 — and does she need to be?

She is in an unusual — and possibly unusually difficult — position. The
lack of competition for the nomination may seem like a gift at this point,
leaving her plenty of time to think through issues, outline a message and
let Republicans fight among themselves. But she is not exactly like an
incumbent running for reelection. She has never won her party’s nomination,
nor faced a Republican presidential nominee in the heat of a general
election.

Enough questions remain from her last campaign that she cannot long afford
to take for granted her position atop the Democratic field.

How, for example, does Clinton demonstrate to voters in Iowa, where she
stumbled in 2008 and where activists expect serious courtship, that she
will be a better and more accessible candidate this time?

She is reluctant to begin too early, but is she prepared eventually to
travel more extensively there than before? That will be an early sign of
the kind of candidate she intends to be this time. Before a formal
announcement, is another listening tour, which she used when she began her
campaign for Senate in 2000, the way to make those connections?

How does she engage the media, which long has been a quarrelsome issue for
her? She did numerous interviews during her book tour, but as a candidate
in 2008 she was far less accessible. Her relations with the traveling press
corps in 2008 were often difficult. Today’s press corps is larger, more
encompassing and more intrusive today than eight years ago.

Here’s another small but potentially knotty issue: What does she do about
debates with other candidates, to the extent there are others? At this
point it’s far too early to worry about, but at some point it could become
relevant. Does she debate? When and against whom? Could she go through the
nomination process without ever debating — and would that put her at a
disadvantage against the Republican nominee in a fall campaign?

Clinton has many assets as she gets ready for the campaign that everyone
now expects her to run — but vulnerabilities and liabilities as well. Her
new team has the experience to help her get ready and to weather whatever
unexpected problems arise. She is sending signals that she accepts that
this campaign must be different than the last. But the answer to what kind
of candidate she will be rests squarely on her shoulders — and remains to
be answered.

*Bloomberg: “New Hampshire Poll: Jeb Bush Grabs Narrow Lead”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-08/bloomberg-politics-saint-anselm-new-hampshire-poll-jeb-bush-grabs-narrow-lead>*

By Michael C. Bender and Lisa Lerer

February 8, 2015, 9:01 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Hillary Clinton owns a dominating lead among Democrats.

Jeb Bush has taken a slight lead over other potential Republican
presidential candidates in a new Bloomberg Politics/Saint Anselm New
Hampshire poll, even though his party’s voters have doubts about his famous
last name and his positions on immigration and education.

Even if Bush should overcome those doubts to prevail in what is shaping up
as one of the most wide-open Republican primaries in the state's recent
history, the poll suggests that he is deeply unpopular with likely
general-election voters. It's a worrisome sign for his campaign in a
battleground state that both parties have targeted during the past several
presidential elections.

The poll also shows former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dominating
her potential Democratic rivals. Clinton, who won the state’s presidential
primary in 2008, is the first choice of 56 percent of Democratic primary
voters. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has said she isn't
running, is second at 15 percent, while Vice President Joe Biden and
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont both have 8 percent.

The poll, taken Jan. 31-Feb. 5 by Washington-based Purple Insights,
surveyed 400 Republican primary voters and 400 Democratic primary voters
almost exactly a year out from the 2016 New Hampshire primary. It has a
margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

Mitt Romney's decision to forgo a third presidential bid clearly upended
the Republican contest, with candidates now scrambling to pick up his
supporters. Romney, who won the Granite State's 2012 primary on his way to
winning the nomination, led a Bloomberg Politics/Saint Anselm poll in
November by 19 percentage points; Bush now leads with just 16 percent.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is second with 13 percent, Wisconsin Governor
Scott Walker is at 12 percent, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie,
coming off a controversy-filled overseas trip, is at 10 percent.

New Hampshire, which traditionally holds the second presidential nominating
contest after Iowa, presents a complicated electorate for Bush. The state's
Republican voters rejected his brother, George W. Bush, in 2000 in favor of
John McCain. His father, George H.W. Bush, lost the state’s primary in 1980
but won it in 1988 on his way to the White House.

In a snapshot of potential problems facing the former Florida governor,
nearly three out of five Republican primary voters said his strength as a
potential candidate was based on his family connections to politics, while
just 31 percent said it was due to his unique qualities and achievements.
When Democrats were asked the same question about Clinton, only 21 percent
cited her family connections as her main strength.

Nancy Clark, a real estate broker based in Gilford, N.H., said she’s
supporting Bush—at least for now. “I'm just wondering about how people are
going to feel about having three Bushes in the White House,” Clark said in
an interview after the poll was taken. “I'm definitely open. I just want a
Republican in the White House, so it's who is going to be able to pull that
off.”

Bush acknowledged during a speech in Detroit last week that he must present
himself to voters in a way that distinguishes him from his father or
brother. But the poll shows trouble spots beyond family history. As in
Iowa, Republican primary voters are suspicious of Bush's support for
immigration reform and the national educational standards known as Common
Core.

One in five Republican primary voters said Bush's support of Common Core
was a “deal-killer” that would prevent them from supporting him. His
support for letting undocumented immigrants remain in the country was a
deal-killer for 41 percent.

And the issue may make it hard for Bush to expand his support. Almost half
of the Republicans who didn't pick Bush as their first or second choice
said his immigration positions were a deal-killer for them.

Still, 14 percent of Republican primary voters named him as their second
choice, while no other Republican candidate broke single digits.

Rounding out the rest of potential Republican candidates: Former Arkansas
Governor Mike Huckabee and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson each scored 6
percent; Senator Marco Rubio of Florida was at 5 percent; Louisiana
Governor Bobby Jindal, Senator Ted Cruz, and businessman Donald Trump were
all at 3 percent; former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Ohio
Governor John Kasich had 2 percent; and former Texas Governor Rick Perry
and businesswoman Carly Fiorina were both at 1 percent.

Not a single Republican voter named Indiana Governor Mike Pence as first or
second choice, the same result as last month's Bloomberg Politics/Des
Moines Register Iowa Poll.

While GOP voters may be ready to support Bush, general-election voters
appear more dubious. His unfavorability rating from a sample of 503
general-election voters was 50 percent, compared to 35 percent favorable.
Clinton, by contrast, had a 54 percent favorable rating and a 42 percent
unfavorable score.

Of the 21 possible Democratic and Republican presidential candidates named,
only Trump's unfavorable rating was higher than Bush's, at 66 percent.

More conservative Republicans such as Huckabee and Cruz had lower
unfavorable ratings among general-election voters (45 and 33 percent,
respectively) than Bush. But nearly all the Republicans were generally
viewed unfavorably. Among the party's 15 potential presidential candidates
tested, 11 had unfavorable ratings that exceed their favorability, unlike
any of the six possible contenders in the Democratic poll. Christie's
favorable rating was 40 percent positive, 46 percent negative.

Paul, known for his libertarian leanings, and Kasich had evenly split
favorable/unfavorable ratings of 40 percent and 12 percent, respectively.
Walker and Carson were the only two Republicans in the poll viewed more
favorably than unfavorably by general-election voters. The general-election
sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

The poll suggests that Walker has the most room to grow in New Hampshire.
Despite strong showings in recent polls, the Wisconsin governor remains
relatively unknown—just 54 percent of GOP primary voters expressed an
opinion about him. That opinion was overwhelmingly positive, with those
with a favorable view of him outnumbering those with a negative view by
better than 4 to 1.

Paul also has reason for optimism. He was second in the Republican poll,
the same position he held in November. Paul's favorability rating among
Republican primary voters is down three points at 63 percent, but it is the
highest among the 15 potential GOP candidates named in the poll.

“Rand Paul, in some ways, is the turtle here while the others are popping
up and down,” said Purple Insights' Doug Usher.

Bush’s favorability was 61 percent and Christie’s was 59 percent, up 9
percentage points since November. Still, 29 percent of Republicans said
they have an unfavorable view of Christie, tied with Huckabee for
second-worst. Trump was the most disliked Republican included in the
survey, with 53 percent of Republican primary voters expressing a negative
opinion of him.

Like Walker, Rubio is relatively unknown in the state but well-liked among
those who had an opinion: 52 percent think favorably of him, while just 14
percent have an unfavorable view.

While there were danger signs for Bush, there were also positives.

Republicans said the former governor would be far better than Walker, Paul,
or Christie when it comes to combating terrorism—a top issue for the
party's voters—and would be a stronger candidate against Clinton in the
general election. By a narrower margin, they also said he would be the best
of the four at creating jobs. Paul had a slight advantage when voters were
asked who understands people like them, and who had a more positive vision
for the future.

“Jeb Bush is out of the gate and in the lead, and those are very good
things,” Usher said. “To the extent that he’s banking on some notion of
inevitability, I think it’s a disconcerting poll.”

Walker's fast rise—he vaulted to the top of the Bloomberg Politics/Des
Moines Register Iowa Poll on the strength of his speech at the Iowa Freedom
Summit in January—is likely to attract more attention, both from curious
voters and from rivals eager to start attacking a frontrunner. He wasn’t
included in the November poll, but he probably wouldn’t have registered
much support at that point, Usher said.

“He may be the horse that pops up on the carousel right now,” Usher said.
“If you take a look at 2012 on the Republican side, there were a whole
bunch of horses that popped up and down on the carousel. So his
sustainability is impossible to predict at this point.”

In New Hampshire, 69 percent of Republican voters said Walker’s fight
against public-employee unions were either a very or somewhat convincing
reason to back him for president. Similar majorities said the same about
his three statewide victories in a Democratic-leaning state, and the fact
that he is a fresh face who can bring new ideas to Washington.

There are potential pitfalls for Walker, too. Nearly a third of Republican
voters said they wouldn't vote for Walker because of the numerous
campaign-finance scandals facing him, including one that has been called a
“criminal scheme” by prosecutors. Walker has denied wrongdoing and has not
been charged with a crime.

About one-fifth said they wouldn't support him because he wouldn't know how
to get things done in Washington, while 28 percent cited his lack of
foreign policy experience as a reason not to vote for him.

“There's been too many Bushes and Clintons and it's time for change,” said
Richard Kaufman, a retired professor in Dover, N.H. who participated in the
poll. “I'm not necessarily settled on Walker, but I think he's one of the
new people.

“At this point,” Kaufman said, “I think it's just wait and see who throws
their hat into the ring.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Sen. Paul Criticizes Libya
Intervention as ‘Hillary’s War’”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/07/sen-paul-criticizes-libya-intervention-as-hillarys-war/>*

By Byron Tau

February 7, 2015, 1:46 p.m. EST

MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa—Calling it “Hillary’s war,” Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.)
told voters in this politically potent state that the U.S. intervention in
Libya has been an “utter disaster” that empowered radical Islamist groups.

Mr. Paul, on a swing through the state that holds the first nominating
contest of the presidential election, argued that U.S. foreign policy in
Libya, Syria and elsewhere had helped create threats such as Islamic State,
among other groups.

Mr. Paul said Hillary Clinton was to blame for what he described as
foreign-policy failures, previewing lines of attack for a potential general
election match-up. Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state under
President Barack Obama until 2013 and was a proponent of interventions
during popular uprisings against the ruling regimes in Libya and Syria.

“Hillary’s war in Libya has been an utter disaster,” Mr. Paul said
Saturday, speaking to a small group of voters and activists. “There are now
jihadists roaming all across Libya. It’s a jihadist wonderland.”

Under Mr. Obama, the U.S. government was part of an international coalition
to oust Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from power in 2011. In Syria, the
U.S. has expressed support for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad and has
provided both humanitarian and lethal aid to some Syrian opposition groups.

In the aftermath of Mr. Gadhafi’s ouster, Islamist groups operating in
Libya staged an attack in 2012 on the United States consulate in Benghazi,
killing four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens. Mr.
Paul said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to provide adequate security for the
U.S. mission to that country which, he said, “should forever preclude her
from being considered for the presidency.”

A request to Mrs. Clinton for comment on Mr. Paul’s remarks wasn’t
immediately answered.

The administration has reiterated its support for the 2011 intervention in
Libya, congratulating the country for holding elections last year. “The
United States was proud to support the Libyan people in the darkest days of
their revolution and through their efforts to end the Gadhafi regime,” Mr.
Obama said in a 2014 statement.

Mr. Paul called the former secretary of state the “biggest cheerleader” for
intervention in Syria and Libya and said that those policies had empowered
radical Islamic groups in both countries.

“Gadhafi was a secular dictator,” the senator said. “Not the kind of guy
that we want to have representing us in country, but he was secular. He
didn’t like radical Islam, and he kept them down because they were a threat
to him. What happened when we toppled the secular dictator? Chaos. More
radical Islam.”

In Syria, Mr. Paul said that Islamic State — a militant group operating in
Syria and Iraq that is also known as ISIS — was essentially created by the
U.S. aid program under the Obama administration.

“I think we have to do something about ISIS, he said. “But, you know why
we’re doing something and why we have to be there again? Because of a
failed foreign policy that got us involved in a Syrian Civil War . . . . By
supporting the Islamic rebels, ISIS grew stronger and stronger and
stronger. And now we have to go back.”

Mr. Paul, a libertarian-leaning senator, has broken sharply with the more
hawkish wing of his party, prompting a major foreign policy debate within
Republican circles about American military power and the role of the United
States in the world.

*MSNBC: “Bernie Sanders steps up: I am not Hillary, ‘trust me’”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-stuck-between-elizabeth-warren-and-hillary-clinton>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

February 7, 2015, 4:53 p.m. EST

HARRISBURG, Penn. – Organizers with Keystone Progress invited Hillary
Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders to speak at
the annual conference here this weekend. Sanders showed up.

The Independent senator from Vermont is actively considering a presidential
run in 2016, and hopes to tap into progressive grassroots networks like
this one for a potential underdog challenge to all-but-declared Democratic
frontrunner Clinton.

The desire for an alternative to Clinton was clear among the 800
rank-and-file activists, labor organizers, and local elected officials
here. But he’s stuck between Clinton on one hand and Warren on the other,
who so far tops many progressives’ fantasy draft presidential ticket.

“Hillary Clinton doesn’t come up in our conversations as being a
progressive,” said Franklin Country Democratic Party Chair Sheri Morgan,
who was manning the Progressive Democrats of America booth offering “Run,
Bernie, Run” swag.

Sanders himself promised “real differences” with Clinton in an interview
with msnbc’s Steve Kornacki before his keynote speech Saturday. “Trust me,
there will be a real clash of ideas,” he said.

Maria Payan, who volunteered for both Obama presidential campaigns, ran up
to Sanders as he left the interview and pressed a check into his hand. “I
want to help with your campaign anyway I can,” she said.

Payan said she likes Warren too, and the idea of woman president, but like
others here, preferred Sanders at the top of a progressive dream ticket
since she thought Sanders has more experience in government. “People are
looking that alternative,” she explained

Sanders will need a lot more checks if he hopes to imitate Obama – at least
$50 million worth, according to his advisors – but he’s been slow to build
a fundraising or political operation. Two staffers accompanied Sanders to
the event, his Senate communications director and the director of his PAC,
and collected names and contact info from supporters.

In the absence of a formal campaign infrastructure, he’s found allies in
existing local groups, like the the Iowa Citizen Action Network in the key
presidential state and Keystone Progress here. Sanders trails Clinton by
well over 50 percentage points in early polls, garnering an average of just
3.4% in recent surveys. Warren, who has repeatedly said she is not running
for president, has more support at 11%.

And it’s still unclear whether Sanders has the stomach for a run. He
despises what he calls the “game” aspects of politics, like fundraising and
building a personality cult. “What is politics? What is serious politics?”
he asked Saturday. “It’s about having a serious debate about issues, not
gossip, not personality.”

Peter Deutsch, a retired Penn State physics professor, also liked the idea
of a Sanders-Warren ticket. “To put it bluntly, no one is challenging the
establishment, specifically Hillary Clinton,” he said.

Inside the ballroom at the Hilton, where Sanders would receive four
standing ovations during his speech, Keystone Progress chairman Ritchie
Tabachnick called Sanders “the voice of the American conscious.”

In his Brooklyn brogue, the senator gave a version of the stump speech he’s
been testing out on recent visits to Iowa and New Hampshire. It gets gloomy
at times. “Now, I know that you think the situation is bad. In fact it’s
worse than you think,” he said.

Nonetheless, the crowd encouraged him to press on when his time is up,
whooping at every rhetorical barb against the Koch Brothers, and gasping at
statistics about the accumulation of wealth in the top 1%.

Billionaires and “counterrevolutionaries,” he explained, have “psychiatric
issues” – they’re “addicted to money.” “We all know people who are addicted
to alcohol or drugs; these people are addicted to money,” Sanders said.

The result is a “philosophical war being waged against the middle-class and
working families.”

The solution is a “political revolution,” but one that looks backwards, not
forward, to a time when “one person could work 40 hours a week and make
enough to take care for the entire family.”

Sanders’ agenda, which he’ll lay out in more detail Monday at the Brookings
Institution in Washington, may not be particularly radical, but his
rhetoric is, and it’s a message these activists seemed eager to hear.

“I like Bernie Sanders, I think he’s sexy,” said Maggie Henry, an organic
farmer who says her Western Pennsylvania business was destroyed by nearby
fracking.

Bob Pyle, a pastor in the Brethren Chuck in Snyder, voted for Ron Paul in
the Republican primary in both 2008 and 2012, before voting for Obama and
in general, said he likes Sanders because he’s anti-establishment and
anti-war.

Sanders’ most immediate challenge in presidential politics, however, is not
the Koch Brothers, but Warren, who has so far sucked up much of the
organizational energy on the left despite giving zero indication that she’s
running for president.

Advisors to Sanders think progressives will ultimately come around to
Sanders if and when Warren doesn’t run. Michael Morrill, the executive
director of Keystone Progress, agreed, “People will coalesce around a
progressive candidate, whoever that is.”

But activists hoping to draft Warren don’t have any immediate plans to
cease their efforts and throw their support behind Sanders in the event
that Warren doesn’t get in. Jim Dean, a fellow Vermonter, warmly introduced
Sanders before the keynote address, but he runs a group, Democracy for
America, that’s trying to draft Warren. His brother, former Gov. Howard
Dean, supports Clinton and hosted a fundraiser for the pro-Clinton super
PAC Ready for Hillary last week.

“I’d love for Sanders to run,” Dean said in an interview. But members of
his group, which has long branded itself as representing the “Warren-wing
of the Democratic party,” voted overwhelming to support Warren in 2016.

Would DFA support Sanders if it becomes clear Warren isn’t running? “We’re
not spending a lot of time gaming out what we’re going to do 8 months or
whatever from now,” he replied, noting that about as many DFA members voted
for Clinton as voted for Sanders.

When Rick Smith started his progressive talk radio show ten years ago, his
very first guest was then-Rep. Bernie Sanders. Now, Smith’s show is aired
on affiliates on across Pennsylvania, and he says Sanders “has been right
about everything” since they first talked.

“Warren says that she’s going to stay out and that’s the right choice,”
Smith said. “Bernie is the right guy at the right time.”

But without prompting, Smith continued, “Can he win. Eh.”

*Bloomberg View: Albert Hunt: “Obama's Legacy Will Be Set by Foreign
Policy”
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-08/obama-s-legacy-will-be-set-by-foreign-policy>*

By Albert Hunt

February 8, 2015, 11:11 a.m. EST

There's been a lot of handwringing over whether President Barack Obama's
tone and message in the January State of the Union address and last week's
budget were too confrontational, dashing hopes for legislative and
legacy-bolstering achievements.

The reality: Congressional Republicans and the White House will score a few
accomplishments this year because it's in the interests of both sides,
regardless of the tone or specific proposals they embrace now.

As for the history books, the final quarter of this presidency -- like most
of its predecessors -- will be enhanced or tarnished by foreign policy, an
area where Obama has limited control.

There are many opportunities and problems confronting the president,
including the prospect of completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade
pact, which could be central to U.S. economic involvement with Asia. But
the big three issues that might keep the president awake at night are Iran,
the so-called Islamic State and Russia.

"The president faces geopolitical challenges greater than any in our
lifetime,” says Fred Kempe, president of the Atlantic Council, an
international affairs research organization.

It’s impossible to exaggerate the importance and implications of whether a
deal is reached this spring to curb Iran's nuclear weapons capacity. “It’s
the core, centerpiece,” says Sandy Berger, the former national security
advisor to President Bill Clinton.

If a deal is cut, it almost certainly will be opposed by the Israelis and
many members of Congress, including some Democrats. The president will take
the issue to the country, and warn that the alternative probably is war. In
a private session with Senate Democrats last month, Obama pointedly said
that if Congress undercut any agreement he would demand a vote on an
"interdiction" of Iran. This president’s history of rallying the public
isn’t very encouraging: Consider, for example, his lack of success on gun
control.

There would be other grave consequences to the failure to reach an
agreement. It’s questionable whether the U.S. could keep together the
coalition imposing sanctions on Iran. Faced with the certainty that the
Iranians would proceed with the development of nuclear weapons, the
Israelis might want to strike if the U.S. doesn’t. A war with Iran would
make the Iraq conflict seem like a Little League game.

Regarding the Islamic State, there have been mildly encouraging
developments. Kurds retook the city of Kobani; the U.S. airstrikes have
taken a toll, and some funding from black market oil has been eliminated.
But, Richard Perle, a prominent neoconservative national security expert,
says the picture remains bleak.

“They still are running a territory the size of England and France put
together and with any victories they achieve, there may be Muslims all over
the world wildly inspired by them and creating problems in as many as 30
countries,” he said.

With less than two years left in office, it would be virtually impossible
for the administration to achieve the objective, enunciated by Defense
Secretary-designate Ashton Carter, of a “lasting defeat” of the Islamic
State.

The best case is that by the end of this administration the few Arab
nations in the anti-Islamic State coalition have held together, and aren't
torn apart by the Sunni-Shiite schism. In addition, the U.S. could
intensify the strikes, possibly with a small group of advisers on the
ground. If the enemy is in retreat, that would be an accomplishment.

On Russia, President Vladimir Putin is showing no sign of backing down in
Ukraine, despite biting economic sanctions. And, he’s threatening to put
pressure on Moldova and Azerbaijan. The need is to contain him on Ukraine
and deter him elsewhere.

If oil prices remain at low levels, some American strategists speculate
that economic conditions will pinch Putin so hard that he’ll need to seek
relief. But the pressure could also push him to be more bellicose.
Moreover, Ukraine is an even worse economic basket case than Russia,
probably requiring tens of billions in assistance.

There are two widely divergent views of how all this could play out. The
American exceptionalists say Obama is too passive, and the next president,
whether Hillary Clinton or a Republican, will have a better appreciation of
the need for U.S. global leadership and push a more assertive foreign
policy.

 The other view is that America's days as a global empire are numbered. In
a new book, "America in the Shadow of Empires," the political scientist
David Coates argues that the U.S. is overextended militarily, imposing an
additional burden on a fraying domestic economy and that a "measured and
moderate" rollback of foreign entanglements is essential.

Obama's final two years will be about trying to find a path between those
two positions.

 *Calendar:*

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

·  February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at
Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire
<http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html>
)

·  March 3 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton honored by EMILY’s List (AP
<http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=SUjRlg8K>)

·  March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton
Foundation (WSJ
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/>
)

·  March 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to keynote Irish American Hall of
Fame (NYT <https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/562349766731108352>)

·  March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp
Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>)

·  March 23 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton to keynote award ceremony for
the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting (Syracuse
<http://newhouse.syr.edu/news-events/news/former-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-newhouse-school-s>
)