FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG SITE

OCCUPY REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE

OCCUPY THE ROAD TO POTUS

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Clinton World Hints at Ditching Old Baggage for Hillary Run










Clinton World Hints at Ditching Old Baggage for Hillary Run

PHOTO: Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton's first major print interview since leaving the Obama administration seven months ago leaves two inescapable impressions: She is running in 2016, and this campaign won't look anything like her failed 2008 run.
The former secretary of state's official line in her interview with New York magazine was that she's happily enjoying her unofficial life, even as she casually mulls the prospect of a presidential run. 

"I'm not in any hurry," she told the magazine. "I think it's a serious decision, not to be made lightly, but it's also not one that has to be made soon." 

 
At the same time, however, her aides suggest in the article, "Hillary in Midair," that a 2016 presidential run is going to feature a more organized, less stodgy Clinton than the candidate who came just shy of the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. 

Clinton, they say, has learned from her mistakes, and will bring a sense of discipline to a presidential run that her 2008 campaign lacked.
The former first lady and New York senator insists that she's in no hurry to make a decision, although Clinton acknowledges that she's seriously mulling a run. 

 
But according to a few trusty unnamed friends quoted in the article published Sunday, a 2016 presidential run is a done deal. 

"She's running, but she doesn't know it yet," said one Clinton-world source who declined to be named in the magazine's cover story. 

"She's going to run for president; it's a foregone conclusion," another added.
Clinton's post-State Department life features lots of quality time with her peripatetic husband, she says. 

"We get to be at home together a lot more now than we used to in the last few years," Hillary Clinton, 65, told the magazine. "We have a great time; we laugh at our dogs; we watch stupid movies; we take long walks; we go for a swim."
But a few lines later, another aide emphasized the former president's relative absence in Hillary Clinton's professional life during her time at the State Department. A time, by the way, that they view as a model of her management style. 

"I could probably count on one hand the times she came to a meeting and either invoked his name or suggested something that Bill had said," Tom Nides, Clinton's hire at the State Department to be deputy secretary of state for management and resources, told the magazine. "I probably did it more about my wife telling me what to do." 

Of course, all that harks back to combating the persistent complaints that Bill Clinton's influence helped tank Clinton's 2008 operation. 

And for others, the complaints go back even further to Bill Clinton's entire presidency, which many liberals see as a golden age of moderate Democratic politics, but also a series of close calls and scandals that probably could have been avoided. 

It's a problem for Hillary Clinton that New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd warned in a recent column might not go away. 

"The closer [Clinton] gets to running the world once more, the more you are reminded of all the things that bugged you the last time around," Dowd wrote in August. 

As her aides tell it, Hillary Clinton is the organized one, determined to learn from the mistakes of her past. And Bill Clinton might be the mastermind politician, but his "loosey-goosey" ways won't influence her 2016 campaign.
"She doesn't operate that way," a former State Department advisor told New York magazine. "I mean, she has all sorts of creative ideas, but that's not how she operates. She is much more systematic." 

The Clinton of 2016 will be the Clinton of her selfie-taking Twitter account and of "Texts from Hillary" fame. It will be all about running her empire in a way that, save for the swirling controversy over the deadly Benghazi, Libya, terror attack, is like her time at the State Department: drama free and flying above it all. 

A drama-free world might be the aspiration, except, of course, for the drama.
To see why, look no further than the lingering irritation over Clinton's close aide Huma Abedin and her husband, disgraced former N.Y. congressman Anthony Weiner. 

Although Weiner's self-destructing New York City mayoral campaign is all-but over, Abedin has been reportedly urged to separate herself from Weiner's unsavory headline-grabbing aura, or leave Clinton's orbit. 

"Huma has a choice to make," a close associate of Clinton's told the magazine. "Does she go with Anthony, or does she go with Hillary?" 

And a Hillary and Chelsea Clinton takeover of the Clinton Foundation has already unearthed some griping among staffers who are nostalgic for a simpler time when being influential was mostly a function of your proximity to Bill Clinton. 

"It's all people jockeying for position," a person with close ties to the foundation told New York magazine. "This is an operation that runs on proximity to people. Now there are three people. How does all that work?" 

As if to emphasize the threat of chaos that seems to always hover on the perimeter of Clinton-world, a far less flattering New Republic story was published on the heels of Hillary Clinton's interview with New York, magazine.
The article, "Scandal at Clinton Inc," highlights the oversized role of Doug Band, a former body man to President Bill Clinton, whose constant maneuvering has raised questions about Band's role in creating a transactional, glitzy culture rife with moneyed associates who have come to define Clinton world. 

And then there's the managing of the myriad of voices all purporting to speak for the Clintons. 

For now, the strategy seems to continue to be: let everyone have their say and if things get out of hand, knock it down. That seems to be the case with the Ready for Hillary super PAC, which formed as an unofficial cheerleading group for a prospective 2016 Clinton campaign. 

While some of Hillary Clinton's friends and donors have taken the group into the fold, a Clinton aide, following the aforementioned playbook, stands poised to maintain distance between Hillary Clinton and the group. 

"There is nothing they are doing that couldn't have waited a year," a Clinton aide told New York magazine of the super PAC. "Not a single f**king thing."

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

The GOP presidential bench is awful


Daily Kos



News, Community, Action

U.S. President George W. Bush (R) and his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, REUTERS/Jim Young
Sorry Jeb, there's no escape.
From the New York Post:
They cite the cool reception Christie has been getting recently from Republican establishment types outside of his home turf in the Northeast, and the fact that many fund-raisers are now looking to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as the party’s savior.
Chris Christie, a bombastic fat guy from Jersey collapses under a cloud of scandal. Scott Walker, bland, dry, lifeless and dull, attempts a redux of Tim Pawlenty but with bald spot. Some guy in Ohio nobody knows and looks like a milk delivery man from 1972. Some tiny doofus from Louisiana in a cheap suit that's too big for his 5'9", 140-pound frame. Then there are a murderer's row of crazy people, most of them not even close to having the chops to wage a national presidential campaign. 
 
On the other side, the most famous and admired woman in the entire world.
This is the state of affairs in the 2016 presidential campaign, a situation so lopsidedly in favor of Democrats that it is breathtaking to see. I can't ever remember an upcoming election in which the two sides were so clearly uneven.
Please read below the fold for more on this story.

Hillary Clinton, a global icon, first lady, senator, secretary of state, is outclassing her opponents in just about every category of presidential candidate measurement. Fame? Check. Money? Check. Natural constituency? Check. Qualified? Check. If there were any weakness in her, it could be her ability to manage the sprawling Clinton apparatus. A weakness one Senator Barack Obama exploited with dexterity and agility. But learning from mistakes and bouncing back has always been a Clinton family hallmark. Furthermore, there is no candidate among the Democrats who is a campaigner of the first order like Barack Obama, a man of exceptional ability on the hustings. With one of the toughest, historic national political brawls under her belt, Hillary Clinton has emerged a championship caliber heavyweight. It's so overwhelming, one would think it wise to probably slim down a notch, drop in class, and practice the fundamentals. Taking size for granted didn't do much for Goliath.

If you're a Republican, however, this situation cannot possibly look good. So who can you turn to in a clutch? Who can Republicans call on to retake control of the nation's capitol and steer the ship of government their way? Who among them has the experience, character, and record of accomplishment that will give them the ability to challenge the stench of certain defeat?

The Bush Family!

The name Bush is synonymous with failed wars, wrecked economies, huge deficits, underwater cities, financial crashes, high gas prices, government corruption and corporate malfeasance. That's the best they can do. A Bush.
Far be it from me to predict the 2016 election this far out. But I will say this: If you are a Republican and you were counting on having a "good bench" out there for 2016, I suggest you start looking around. This bench looks terrible considering what they are up against.

Originally posted to Triple-B in the Building on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 07:49 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Tags

Saturday, February 8, 2014

Hillary's question: not if, but how


Yahoo News


Hillary's question: not if, but how

Yahoo News
 
 
465736125SG020_Hillary_Clin
.
View photo
Former U.S. Seceratary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at the 10th National Automobile Dealers Association Convention on January 27, 2013. (Photo by Sean Gardner/Getty Images)
 
 
 
Let’s be clear about this much: no matter what the soothsayers on cable TV tell you, Hillary Clinton is no more likely to clear the Democratic field and avoid a primary in 2016 than Dennis Rodman is to become her secretary of state. Walter Mondale couldn’t pull that off in 1984, and Al Gore couldn’t do it in 2000, and the conditions for Washington-anointed frontrunners have only gotten exponentially harder since then.

Somewhere out there is a guy you’ve barely heard of – name of O’Malley or Schweitzer or Hickenlooper – whose idea of fun is spending every night of the month on a different couch in Iowa. At this point in 2002, remember, most people thought Howard Dean was a brand of sausage.

The good news for Clinton is that if she decides to run (and I’m inclined to believe she hasn’t yet), she’ll start out with a huge national fundraising apparatus and the loyalty of party regulars. The bad news, of course, is that this is exactly the kind of thing that makes her vulnerable to another grassroots rebellion. In modern presidential politics, every day is Bastille Day.

So if you’re Clinton, the question you have to be asking isn’t whether to run so much as how.  How do you run against the status quo you personify – or, at the very least, make yourself something more than the default choice of the establishment?

Part of this conundrum is tactical; Clinton is now a celebrated stateswoman, and it’s not clear how you preserve that stature while still running a less conventional kind of campaign in the early primary states. (The last former secretary of state to run for president was Alexander Haig in 1988, and it’s safe to say he isn’t the model Clinton wakes up emulating.) But the deeper question, if you’re Hillary Clinton, is less about the atmospherics of a campaign than about its animating idea.

The mainstream of the party has now veered back toward its more populist and pacifist instincts, venting its suspicion of the emerging military-digital complex, along with outright contempt for the wealthy and for conservatives generally. That’s not where Clinton is. She maintains close relationships on Wall Street, where executives are not so secretly pining for her return to the arena, and she’s advocated a firmer American hand around the world, most recently in Syria. Her worldview reflects the governing establishment of both parties more faithfully than it does the Democratic base.

This is exactly what most analysts think tripped her up last time, and there will be pressure for Clinton not to make the same mistake twice. The easiest way to break free of the status quo label and avoid a serious challenge, some Democrats will tell her, is to become something more like this cycle’s Barack Obama – to break from her allies inside the big banks and the Pentagon and to channel the fury that’s been building since the Bush years.

If anyone could get away with this kind of ideological feint, it would be Clinton. Wall Street is so desperate for a champion in power right now that the executives who support her would probably stand by and applaud while Clinton burned them in effigy, just so long as it got her to the White House. No Democrat in Washington is going to mind terribly if Clinton puts on a John Edwards mask and starts railing against the rich, if that’s what she thinks she needs to do.

Except that isn’t necessarily what she needs to do. For one thing, Democrats have a different set of complaints about Washington than they had six years ago, and it isn’t only about populism. Back then, they hoped that a younger, less embattled voice, emanating from a charismatic new protagonist, could shake the system free from paralyzing partisanship. Increasingly, though, they seem to have concluded that while Obama has their best interests at heart, he simply doesn’t know how to leverage power and has never really mastered Washington. (As I wrote last week, Obama’s aides did little to change that perception when they basically admitted, in the run up to his State of the Union address, that he had mostly given up on legislating altogether.)

In other words, the party (and, to a large extent, the country) may now be coming back around to Clinton’s rationale in 2008, which sounded pretty tinny at the time – that only a seasoned veteran of Washington’s dysfunction could hope reform it.

And as Mitt Romney could surely tell you, ideology really isn’t the currency of modern campaigns; authenticity is. Nothing screams “status quo” more loudly than a candidate who will say whatever she has to. This was Clinton’s real downfall in 2008. Her very first bumper sticker proclaimed that she was “in it to win it,” as if simply getting Democrats back to the White House was a compelling end in itself. It wasn’t.

Should she ultimately run again, Clinton might actually do herself a greater service by holding her ground. When we talked about Clinton, David Axelrod, the strategist who spent a career running campaigns against the establishment before guiding Obama to the White House, told me: “The quickest way to authenticate yourself, and the hardest thing to do, is to be willing to put yourself at risk by standing up for things you believe, even if it means taking positions every once in a while that people don’t see as the smart political move.” Which could mean that the real way to prove you’re not just a projection of the status quo isn’t necessarily to mouth tired condemnations of the establishment, but rather to speak hard truth to the partisans who indict it.

Clinton could tell the Democratic voters of Iowa and New Hampshire that, yes, inequality is a defining problem for the society, and yes, America risks becoming a surveillance state resented around the world. But the answers don’t lie in demonizing her financiers or the intelligence agencies she knows well, or even in ridding the earth of Republicans. The answers lie in tossing out the outdated orthodoxies of the last century and wrestling more thoughtfully with the technological moment, as Bill Clinton started to do in 1992.

As Joe Trippi, who was the architect of Dean’s anti-establishment insurgency, puts it: “She’s almost the perfect person who can argue that both ideologies are obsolete and that you need someone who understands the old system to put forward some ideas that are new.”

Cautious Clinton advisers will say that the political moment is sure to shift before 2016, so she doesn’t have to figure any of this out now. And that would probably be true for another candidate. But like it or not, Clinton is already at the center of a fast-cohering machine, much of it directed by people who barely know her. By the times she gets into the race, if she does, she will inherit a disorderly army of fundraisers, self-proclaimed strategists and professional climbers. It will be too late, then, to consider what the rationale for her campaign ought to be, beyond keeping a lot of powerful Democrats in power a bit longer.
 
If you’re Hillary Clinton, you’ve already been down that path. You know where it ends.

Follow Matt Bai on Twitter.