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

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Rand Paul’s Extreme GOP Makeover


The Daily Beast




Photo by Doug Mills/The New York Times, via Redux
03.05.14

Rand Paul’s Extreme GOP Makeover

 
Libertarian, conservative, neither? The only thing clear about the senator is that he has the potential to revolutionize the backward-looking Republican Party if he runs for president.
 
When Rand Paul spoke to a packed ballroom of conservative activists at CPAC last year, he tagged the Obama administration as “completely out of control.” But he saved some of his harshest criticism for his own party, calling the GOP of old “stale and moss covered,” and insisting that the Republican Party has to change.

One year later, Paul is again speaking to CPAC, but this time he’s more than the “Stand with Rand” senator who had just filibustered an Obama nominee for 13 hours to protest drone policy.  He is now the de facto head of the libertarian wing of the party, still pushing the GOP to broaden its message and its membership, and serious enough about running for president that his allies are working to change the Kentucky law that would bar him from running for president and his Senate seat simultaneously in 2016.

If things go Rand Paul’s way, national Republicans will follow the lead of Nathan Haney, the executive director of the Jefferson County, Kentucky Republican Party, who held an event last week for the local GOP to meet minority and low-income voters in Louisville,  a city that has not had a Republican mayor in more than 50 years.

“We’re tired of losing,” says Haney.  Although Republicans dominate the federal offices in Kentucky, Democrats have held one or both houses of the state legislature for nearly a century, while just two Republicans have occupied the governor’s mansion since 1947. “At some point you have to look in the mirror and say what is it that we’re doing wrong?”

That bit of soul searching, rare for Republicans at the national level, has come to Jefferson County though the example of the state’s junior senator, Paul.  “What we have found in the time that he’s been a senator is that Senator Paul has made it his goal to grow the party, nationwide and at the local level,” Haney said, pointing to Paul’s trips to inner-city Detroit, as well as historically black colleges across the country and poverty-ridden areas of Kentucky where Republicans rarely make inroads.

But beyond his itineraries, Paul has also used his three years of votes and visibility in the U.S. Senate, including a 13-hour filibuster, to blow up the checklist of exactly what it means to be a conservative Republican.

While Paul has been aggressively pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and almost rabidly small government, he has also staked out positions on privacy, intervention overseas, and mandatory drug sentencing that defy both his party’s current instincts and its leaders in Washington.

“At some point you have to look in the mirror and say what is it that we’re doing wrong?”

And while Paul has loudly championed the Tea Party movement since his 2010 campaign for Senate, he alone last week called on Tea Party darling Ted Nugent to apologize for a vile rant against President Obama.

The next day, Paul attended the Tea Party’s fifth anniversary celebration in Washington to urge activists to hold strong against federal spending but also to make their message respectful of the president and to take it beyond their own political base. “We have to reach out to more people, more than just those of us here,” he told the activists.

The result of all of Paul’s machinations is not only a senator who defies easy classification, but also a 2016 presidential contender, far more mainstream than his father, with the potential to reshape partisan coalitions and revolutionize the Republican Party.

In a Candidate Paul, voters would get an ACLU-aligned constitutional conservative who wants to rebrand his party and reach past traditional Republican voters while he does it.  If the electorate two years from now is looking for a change from the Clinton years, the Bush years, and a GOP that seems to be looking backwards,  Paul is about as new a concept as voters will find.

“My party is a bit lost in the wilderness right now,” said Patrick Griffin, a past adviser to numerous GOP presidential campaigns who is now a managing director for Purple Strategies.  The firm’s latest Purple Poll (PDF) of likely New Hampshire primary voters that showed Mitt Romney winning a hypothetical primary in 2016.  Second to Romney was Rand Paul.

“New Hampshire takes personal freedom very seriously.  It’s on our license plates, ‘Live free or die,’” Griffin said of Paul’s potential appeal in New Hampshire.  At the moment, Griffin predicts Paul will be “one of the first flavors of the month” for the run-up to the presidential election.  Beyond that, Griffin said, “What we’re seeing is establishment versus social conservatives.  If he is able to straddle both sides of that, people start to say that’s different, that’s interesting.”

So far, Paul is faring well in early polls, with a CBS national poll showing him leading the Republican feild along with Jeb Bush, and a PPP Iowa caucus poll with him polling second to Mike Huckabee, who won there in 2008.  While Huckabee ran away with the social conservative votes in the PPP poll, Paul and Bush lead among moderates, 20 and 19 percent, respectively.

If South Carolina Republicans look for a more overtly religious conservative than Paul has ever been, a strong showing in Florida would become crucial.
“It is the most-wide open I have ever seen it,” said Alex Patton, a Florida-based GOP consultant, of early Republican inclinations.  “I think there is no one answer. The Republican tribes are pretty well fractured right now.”

Patton described early support for all possible candidates essentially frozen until Bush decides on a potential run, and added that money for Florida’s pricey media markets, along with momentum from earlier GOP primary wins, will be the ingredients for success in Florida.

“As far as Rand Paul goes, there is little to no appetite for pure libertarianism here,” Patton said. “It’s all about the economy right now.  Voters aren’t going to want hear about anything other than jobs and the economy.”

No matter the specific message, Marc Hetherington, a Vanderbilt University professor of political science who studies voter polarization, said that Republican results in the 2014 midterm elections could affect candidates like Paul in 2016 that are pushing to broaden the party past its traditional base.

“He might have some appeal for expanding Republican constituencies in the general election, but that actually might hurt him in the primaries,” Hetherington said.  “It seems to me the most obvious thing in the world that Republicans need to reach out to more minorities, but you can easily delude yourself into thinking otherwise if you just won the last election.”

But for Haney, the self-described “tired of losing” Jefferson County Republican in Kentucky, the bigger-is-better message for the Republican Party is essential for the party’s future and Rand Paul is delivering it.

“With Senator Paul, you may not agree with him— and a lot of the folks he talks to in Detroit and here in Louisville they don’t all agree with him,” Haney said.  “But at least they know where he stands and they know he’s genuine about trying to help.  And that right there, that transcends any divide.”

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.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Are Hillary Clinton's Presidential Ambitions Clouding Her Morals?





Whether or not Clinton has formally announced her candidacy, her silence on Iran speaks louder than words

 
 
Hillary Clinton. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America)




Asked in an interview this week about her presidential ambitions, Hillary Clinton gave an answer that qualified as a howler even by Clinton standards: "I'm not thinking about it."

Clinton is widely considered the presumptive Democratic nominee for president in 2016. Given the atavistic chaos that afflicts the Republicans, many view her as the virtual president-elect. Time magazine ran a cover story this month headlined "Can Anyone Stop Hillary?" The New York Times Magazine followed with a cover story of its own, the latest in a stream of media coverage of the juggernaut that is Clinton's unannounced presidential campaign.

One of the surest signs that Clinton is running for the presidency is her refusal to take a position on the greatest geopolitical question now facing the United States. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are engaged in a high-stakes effort to end 35 years of hostility between the United States and Iran. Debate about this initiative is intense in Washington. No one, however, knows the opinion of the woman who was Kerry's immediate predecessor and is evidently seeking to govern the United States beginning in 2017.

Kerry has asserted that negotiations with Iran are "one of those hinge points in history," and argued that they give the United States "a chance to address peacefully one of the most pressing national security concerns that the world faces." Senator Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate Committee on Intelligence, has warned that those who seek to block reconciliation are on a "march toward war."

Sentiments are just as strong on the other side. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has denounced negotiation with Iran as a "historic mistake" that is making the world "a more dangerous place". His partners in Washington vigorously echo that view. One of them, Senator Mark Kirk, has accused Obama of behaving "like Neville Chamberlain" and charged that he is setting the stage for "a large and bloody conflict in the Middle East involving Iranian nuclear weapons".

This is the most far-reaching foreign policy debate that has broken out in Washington in more than a generation. The stakes for the United States, Iran, the Middle East and the world are huge. American politicians are falling over one another to press their views. Clinton is the glaring exception.

Throughout her career, Clinton has stayed well within the Washington paradigm on foreign policy issues. Like many American politicians who came of age during the Cold War, she takes an us-versus-them view of the world. She has never dissented from the Washington chorus that portrays Iran as an irredeemable font of evil. Had she remained on the job as secretary of state rather than resigning and paving the way for Kerry, the United States would certainly not have made an effort to engage Iran.

Now that a preliminary agreement has been struck and international inspectors are monitoring Iran's retreat from its nuclear program, it is reasonable for Americans to expect their leaders to say whether they favor or oppose this process. That is especially true of Clinton, who until a year ago was the global face of US foreign policy. Yet her silence has been deafening.

Clinton has a habit of not taking any position until it is clear which position will be most politically beneficial. "No doubt we will find out HRC's true convictions just as soon as her focus groups report in or her major donors tell her what to think," Stephen Walt wrote in his Foreign Policy blog.

Here lies the dilemma. A strong statement by Clinton in favor of reconciliation would be a game-changer in Washington. She would be giving a centrist, establishment endorsement of her former boss's most important foreign policy initiative. That would provide political cover for moderate Democrats terrified of antagonizing the Netanyahu government and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is leading the anti-reconciliation campaign in Washington.

Such a statement, however, would risk outraging pro-Netanyahu groups and individuals who have been among Clinton's key supporters since her days as a Senator from New York. Having spent years painstakingly laying the ground for a presidential campaign, she does not want to risk a misstep that would alienate major campaign contributors.

Clinton's choice is clear. If she opposes détente with Iran, she will look like a warmonger who prefers confrontation to diplomacy. If she supports it, she will alienate a vital part of the base she is relying on to finance her presidential campaign. With this in mind, she has chosen to remain silent on the central foreign policy issue of the age. It is a classic act of political cowardice – the kind that often leads to victory at the polls.

Stephen Kinzer

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Chris Christie's Top Aide Linked To Traffic Jam Payback Against Democratic Mayor

Litter on the Road to Potus



 
 

politics

 
chris christie traffic

WASHINGTON -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's (R) deputy chief of staff was directly involved in a mean-spirited effort to create "traffic problems" for a mayor who declined to endorse the governor's reelection bid, according to newly released emails.



"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Anne Kelly wrote in an email on Aug. 13. 

"Got it," replied David Wildstein, who was then one of Christie's top aides at the Port Authority, which is run jointly by New York and New Jersey.

A month later Wildstein did indeed create the traffic problems that Christie's office requested. He closed down two of Fort Lee's access lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge, the busiest bridge in the country. The closures came on Sept. 9, the first day of school in Fort Lee, leading to massive traffic jams as bridge traffic backed up into local streets. As a result, police and emergency vehicles were delayed in responding to reports of a missing child and a cardiac arrest.

The closures came just weeks after Fort Lee's mayor, Democrat Mark Sokolich, had declined to endorse Christie's reelection bid.

For weeks, Christie has been denying any involvement in the lane closures and refuting the idea that political retribution was at play. He has stood by his aides' explanations that the lanes were closed as part of a traffic study, even though Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye, who was appointed by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), said he was never made aware of the study's existence.

But the new emails, provided by Wildstein in response to a subpoena from state lawmakers, bring Christie and his inner circle closer to the scandal.

The emails point to clear political motives for the closures, and the officials seem almost giddy at the problems they create. 

At one point, Wildstein received a text message from an unknown sender -- the emails are partially redacted -- saying, "Is it wrong that I'm smiling."

"No," replied Wildstein. When the other person added, "I feel badly about the kids. I guess," Wildstein reminded them that their parents are probably Democrats anyway. 

"They are the children of Buono voters," said Wildstein, referring to Democrat Barbara Buono, who unsuccessfully challenged Christie in the Nov. 5 gubernatorial election. 

Wildstein also predicted political problems for Sokolich over the issue, writing in a Sept. 18 email, "It will be a tough November for this little Serbian."

The Port Authority's Foye was furious when he learned about the lane closures and ordered the lanes reopened on Sept. 13. Wildstein and Kelly were, in turn, furious at Foye for screwing with their plan.
"The New York side gave Fort Lee back all three lanes this morning," wrote Wildstein in an email to Kelly on Sept. 13. "We are appropriately going nuts. Samson helping us to retaliate."
"What??" replied Kelly.

"Yes, unreal," said Wildstein. "Fixing now."

David Samson, as The Record notes, is chairman of the Port Authority and a close adviser to Christie.
Christie's spokesman did not return a request for comment from The Huffington Post.

Christie, who is considered a possible 2016 presidential contender, has dismissed the controversy over the bridge closures and blamed it on Democrats trying to score political points against him. 

"National Democrats will make an issue about everything about me. So get used to the new world, everybody," he said in a Dec. 13 press conference. "You know, we're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. That's the way it goes, so it's fine."

Since news of the closures broke, Wildstein has resigned, as has his boss Bill Baroni, who was deputy executive director of the Port Authority and a top Christie aide. Christie, however, has maintained that Baroni's resignation was planned before news of the controversy broke.
 

Monday, January 6, 2014

Hillary Clinton's shadow campaign

POLITICO


Hillary Clinton's shadow campaign

 

Silhouetted by a stage light, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at the University of the Western Cape about U.S.-South Africa partnership in Cape Town, South Africa. | AP Photo
Publicly, Clinton insists she’s many months away from a decision. | AP Photo


Early last summer in her Georgian-style home near Washington’s Embassy Row, Hillary Clinton met with a handful of aides for a detailed presentation on preparing for a 2016 presidential campaign.

Three officials from the Democratic consulting firm Dewey Square Group — veteran field organizer Michael Whouley, firm founder Charlie Baker and strategist Jill Alper, whose expertise includes voter attitudes toward women candidates — delivered a dispassionate, numbers-driven assessment. They broke down filing deadlines in certain states, projected how much money Clinton would need to raise and described how field operations have become more sophisticated in the era of Barack Obama.

The meeting was organized by Minyon Moore, a longtime Clinton intimate also at Dewey Square who has informally become the potential candidate’s political eyes and ears of late. Clinton listened closely but said little and made no commitments, according to people familiar with the nearly hourlong gathering. It appears to have been the only formal 2016-related presentation Clinton has been given from anyone outside her immediate circle.

Publicly, Clinton insists she’s many months away from a decision about her political future. But a shadow campaign on her behalf has nevertheless been steadily building for the better part of a year — a quiet, intensifying, improvisational effort to lay the groundwork for another White House bid.

Some of the activity has the former first lady’s tacit approval. Some involves outside groups that are operating independently, and at times in competition with one another, to prepare a final career act for the former senator and secretary of state, whose legacy as the most powerful woman in the history of American politics is already secure.

More than two dozen people in her orbit interviewed for this article described a virtual campaign in waiting — a term that itself makes some of Clinton’s supporters bristle — consisting of longtime Clinton loyalists as well as people who worked doggedly to elect her onetime rival Obama.

There are two spheres of influence. One is made up of more than a dozen Clinton staffers, loyalists and longtime friends whose advice she values the most.

(PHOTOS: Who’s talking about Hillary Clinton 2016?)

The other sphere is more complex. It includes an assortment of super PACs and outside groups, all jockeying to be part of the Clinton movement but operating beyond her immediate direction and control. Still, some of these efforts could become the foundation of an eventual campaign.

For all the genuine excitement about the prospect that Clinton, 66, could shatter the glass ceiling she famously invoked in 2008, the potential for rancor among these groups is real.

In at least one instance last year, two super PACs collided over efforts to get behind a Clinton candidacy — forcing her allies to intervene.

“There’s upside and there’s risk” to this patchwork of outside forces, said Tad Devine, an unaffiliated strategist who worked on John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, when Democratic-leaning outside groups often acted at odds with the candidate’s message.

“The upside is that people are out there doing valuable and important work for you,” he said. But “in a campaign, when people are acting on your behalf but they’re not driven by an agreed-upon strategy, then that’s the risk.”

The outsiders: friends with headaches

Hillary Clinton was a few months removed from the State Department when one of her top aides, Huma Abedin, received an alarmed phone call about trouble brewing between two groups looking to help her politically.

“Ready for Hillary,” the super PAC that was initially billed as a grass-roots effort to channel early energy for Clinton to run, had become a source of frustration, and it was reaching a boiling point. In addition to a moniker that irked some Clinton allies — they thought it had an air of inevitability that plagued her in the past ­ — the group was making an aggressive play for activists and donors to back their effort.

(PHOTOS: Hillary Clinton's 50 influentials)

At the same time, Priorities USA, the main super PAC behind Obama in 2012, was in discussions to reinvent itself as a pro-Hillary Clinton endeavor. That would mean appealing to some of those same supporters. The two groups also had wildly different views of how active to be while Clinton was assessing whether to run.

The Priorities official warned Abedin that the situation could become problematic for Clinton if it wasn’t resolved. The official sought guidance from someone who had the would-be candidate’s ear.
The efforts of pro-Clinton outside groups over the past half-year, and the Clinton allies trying to corral them, reflect a much-changed political landscape since Clinton’s last run. Back then, super PACs didn’t exist. Potential candidates who needed campaign prep work done had to set up an exploratory committee or PAC under their own direct control.
Now super PACs are a must-have political accessory for candidates of all stripes.

The groups can raise and spend unlimited sums in support of a candidate and perform key tasks the person isn’t ready to do. In Clinton’s case, Priorities will probably line up pledges from big donors. Ready for Hillary is building email lists. And Correct the Record — launched last year by Clinton-critic-turned-defender David Brock as an offshoot of the super PAC American Bridge — hits back when Clinton is attacked in the media and tries to define potential rivals like Chris Christie.

(Also on POLITICO: How she's fared in the polls)

The outside backers have allowed Clinton to stay out of the political fray for a longer period of time as she makes up her mind about whether to run.

But the free-agent entities can also become headaches when they act at cross-purposes — or in ways a candidate doesn’t approve of.

A clash of super PACs

The call to Abedin, described by several people familiar with the conversation, touched off a larger debate in Clinton’s circle. Clinton herself was forced to grapple with the run-in between the two groups; several sources familiar with the discussions said she wanted to keep her team distant from the work of the super PACs to avoid brushing up against rules forbidding coordination. But Clinton made clear to aides that the mess, which in many ways echoed the factionalism of her past, needed to be sorted out.

In a series of meetings in Washington and New York, advisers to both groups huddled to address the problem. John Podesta, the former chief of staff to Bill Clinton who recently joined the Obama White House, was among the participants brought in on the Priorities side to help.
Some suggested trying to force Ready for Hillary to shut down. That idea was rejected out of concern it would prompt negative stories about Clinton forces stomping on the grass roots.

Another adviser proposed merging the two super PACs, but that also went nowhere.

Eventually they settled on a solution: Ready for Hillary would focus on collecting and analyzing voter data, accepting donations up to $25,000. Priorities would be the super PAC for mega-donors, working solely on paid advertising.

Ready for Hillary has since won over key people close to Clinton impressed by its efforts like cultivating detailed lists of supporters through social media, which Clinton didn’t do in 2008. Among other moves, it brought on Craig Smith, a White House political director for Bill Clinton and friend from his Arkansas days. He gave the aura of an adult in the room to a group created by younger former Clinton staffers.
Most important is that Moore, whose background is in field organizing, is said to believe in the work the group is doing, as does Baker of Dewey Square, according to several sources. Besides the email list, Ready for Hillary is building a massive, 50-state direct-mail and voter targeting program. In a sign of cooperation, the group rented Clinton’s supporter list from her old PAC. It also brought on Obama’s field gurus, Mitch Stewart and Jeremy Bird, to help build up its efforts, including by supporting local candidates who Clinton backs in this year’s midterm elections.

Ready for Hillary hopes to make its data available to a 2016 Clinton campaign, and some Clinton allies believe there are a number of young aides and operatives working for the super PAC who could become part of her campaign. The 2008 campaign had many well-documented flaws, but one was the failure to prominently deploy young campaign talent, which flocked to Obama.

“If you wonder whether Clintonworld has learned our lessons from 2008, look no further than the work of Ready for Hillary,” said one source supportive of its work.

It’s far from certain the outside group’s voter data would be welcomed by a Clinton campaign; it will likely prefer to compile its own. Or, some Clinton associates say, it could choose from any number of outside campaign data firms, including two launched by Obama 2012 veterans after his reelection.

Elsewhere in the constellation of outside groups doing work related to Clinton is EMILY’s List, led by operative Stephanie Schriock, who is frequently mentioned as a possible Clinton campaign manager. The group, which focuses on electing women and isn’t a super PAC, is conducting an expansive polling project about attitudes toward female candidates. Correct the Record, the Brock-sponsored rapid response project, is being managed by a Hillary Clinton favorite, Burns Strider, and has her allies’ nod of approval.

“This effort for Hillary, unprecedented in both its early timing and scope, is a demonstration of the extent to which the Democratic Party is unified behind this potential candidacy,” said one of the organizers.

From Obama ‘08 to Clinton ‘16

Two of the boldest-faced names to enter the Clinton constellation in 2013 tied their political fortunes to electing Obama in 2008: Jim Messina, who went on to become a top political hand in the White House and then run Obama’s reelection, and Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg.

(PHOTOS: Stars line up for Hillary Clinton 2016)

Despite his late arrival to Obama’s campaign in 2008 — he didn’t come on board until after the bloody primary — Messina was seen by Clinton aides as carrying a deep grudge from the campaign to the White House. Some Clinton associates suspected he was behind a failed attempt to scuttle two of her top staff picks at State: Capricia Marshall and Philippe Reines.

But what Messina lacks in longtime loyalty to Clinton, he makes up for in connections to Obama’s vast network of donors and activists. That had obvious value to a group like Priorities USA, which early last year was looking to morph from its 2012 version that decimated Mitt Romney with a series of attack ads into a pro-Clinton endeavor for 2016.
Early last year, Messina, who quietly admired Priorities’ work in 2012, started talking informally to the super PAC about a role. One draw is that working on a super PAC is less of a grind, and certainly more lucrative, than an actual campaign.

The discussions went on for months last year, long before news reports in November that he was in serious talks to become a co-chairman of the group. But some Clinton allies have grumbled that Messina’s swelling list of business clients could potentially embarrass Clinton; his backers dismiss the complaints as professional jealousy, saying plenty of Clinton advisers have their own potential business conflicts.

The White House has its own worries about Messina’s hoped-for move. One is that it would look like Obama was giving his blessing to the pro-Clinton group as his own vice president, Joe Biden, is weighing a 2016 run. Concern within the administration about ruffling relations with Biden has been serious enough to cause a lengthy delay in signing off on Messina officially joining Priorities, according to two people familiar with the deliberations.

Whatever role Messina may end up playing in 2016, the mere fact that most Clinton allies are fine with him being part of a pro-Clinton group signals a rapprochement that began when Obama tapped Clinton as his top diplomat. Messina had informal discussions with some of her aides after 2012 about his view of modern campaigns, and Bill Clinton has publicly admired his work since developing a connection with him last year.

Messina wasn’t the only one affiliated with Obama to join the future Clinton army via Priorities. Katzenberg broke with the Clintons in 2008 to back Obama and four years later helped launch Priorities with a $2 million check.

“I hope my donation will draw attention to the amount of money being raised by the extreme right wing and serve as a catalyst for other Democratic donors,” the DreamWorks Animation chief executive told CBS News in April 2012. The super PAC is now broadly seen as his baby.
After Obama secured four more years, the Democratic rainmaker made clear he was prepared to get behind Clinton financially. With Priorities reinventing itself and Messina getting involved with the group — Katzenberg and Messina worked together during the 2012 race — the media mogul has positioned himself as the group’s ambassador to Hollywood.

If all goes as planned, the hope is that Katzenberg and Messina’s involvement on behalf of Clinton will signal a smooth passage from Obama to Clinton within the party.

“It reflects the fact that the Obama political infrastructure is seamlessly transitioning to serve as [Clinton’s] political infrastructure,” said California-based political strategist Chris Lehane. “And [it] sends a signal to both Obama donors and operatives that it is all right to begin actively supporting the Clinton ’16 effort.”

The don’t-do-it camp

Despite the feverish buildup to a Clinton candidacy, some of her closest advisers aren’t sure she’ll run ­— and some don’t want her to.
Clinton has as clear a path to the nomination as anyone could. But she also bears the scars from her 2008 battle, as do a number of her aides who remember vividly the toll the enterprise took on Clinton and everyone involved. They all want to help her achieve whatever she decides she wants, but they are clear-eyed about another campaign.