H4A News Clips 5.13.15

From:aphillips@hillaryclinton.com To: aphillips@hillaryclinton.com BCC: hrcrapid@googlegroups.com Date: 2015-05-13 09:55 Subject: H4A News Clips 5.13.15

*H4A Press Clips* *May 13, 2015* SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS Last night around 9PM five people died when a passenger train carrying 238 passengers and five crewmembers derailed in Philadelphia, PA, forcing Amtrak to shut down all service between New York City and Philadelphia. A sixth person was reported dead this morning and 8 remain in critical condition. In political news the Senate voted Tuesday to block action on a crucial “trade promotion authority” bill, delivering a setback to President Obama, who strongly supports the bill. The Washington Post Editorial Board calls on Hillary Clinton to take a position on trade saying, her “performance on trade so far implies that it’s just about winning the nomination.” Congressman Gowdy is expected to say whether he’ll accept Hillary Clinton’s offer to appear once before his committee next week. The likely answer will be ‘no’ and this will delay the process again. A CBS News piece highlighted last week’s CBS/New York Times poll that found that both Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings and the percent of people who see her as a strong leader have jumped in the month since questions about the Clinton Foundation began mounting. Her favorability rating leapt from 26 to 35 percent, and the number of people who see her as a strong leader jumped from 57 to 65 percent. Bill de Blasio Elizabeth Warren have been labeled as the voice of the liberal opposition, and yesterday unveiled a “Progressive Contract With America” alongside dozens of fellow travelers in Washington, D.C. The Daily Beast characterized the Hillary Clinton campaign as "yawning" in response. LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS NBC had a segment on Jeb Bush’s support for the Iraq war discussing his controversial comments from earlier today. There was no 2016 coverage on ABC or CBS. They instead covered the American military helicopter with six marines, helping in the aftermath of the earthquake in Nepal, is missing; the NFL’s lead investigator making critical statements about Tom Brady; Homeland Security agents raided a clothing drive that was a front for weapons trafficking. SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS................................................................. 1 LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS................................................................. 1 TODAY’S KEY STORIES............................................................................ 4 *Hillary Clinton, MIA on trade* // WaPo // Editorial Board - May 12, 2015............................... 4 *Do independent voters care about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation?* // CBS News // Jake Miller - May 12, 2015 5 *Is New Hillary Clinton Super-PAC Pushing Legal Boundaries?* // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein - May 12, 2015 9 *Gowdy vs. Clinton, no end in sight* // Politico // Lauren French – May 13, 2015................... 10 *Hillary Campaign Yawns at de Blasio* // Daily Beast // David Freedlander - May 12, 2015. 12 SOCIAL MEDIA........................................................................................ 15 *Annie Karnie (5/12/15, 11:14 AM) @anniekarni*: "If I were advising candidates I would say you’ve got to have a credible position on immigration reform," @BillClinton at Univision upfronts........................................................................ 15 *Adrian Carrasquillo (5/12/15, 8:14 AM) @Carrasquillo*: Bill Clinton brings up Eric Garner, says controversy can be lessened if there is dispute resolution by diverse community decision makers............................................................... 15 *Chad Pergram (5/12/15, 2:59 PM) @ChadPergram*: Senate blocks trade framework. Vote was 52 yeas to 45 nays. But needed 60. McConnell switched so he could call for revote............................................................................................................ 15 *Jeff Kaufmann (5/12/15 12:49 PM) @kaufmannGOP*: We hope Governor Bush rethinks his decision and realizes that grassroots will only grow in Iowa if he waters them. (1/3); The RedState Gathering is a four day event and other candidates have already indicated that they will be attending both. (2/3); We don’t buy this excuse and neither will Iowans. (3/3).................................... 15 *Jeremy W. Peters (5/12/15 5:56 AM) @jwpetersNYT*: @ananavarro says Jeb Bush told her he misheard Megyn Kelly's question about invading Iraq and answered accordingly..................................................................................................... 15 HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE................................................................... 15 *GOP battles for Benghazi leverage* // The Hill // Martin Matishak – May 13, 2015.............. 16 *Why Hillary Clinton Is Our Champion* // Urban Voice // State Senate Minority Leader Aaron D. Ford - May 12, 2015 18 *Hillary Clinton’s hedge on trade leaves Obama without political cover* // WaPo // David Nakamura - May 12, 2015 19 *Obama’s war of words over trade deal puts pressure on Clinton* // Yahoo News // Jon Ward - May 12, 2015 22 *Will Bill de Blasio and Elizabeth Warren be able to push Hillary Clinton to the left?* // Slate // Jamelle Bouie – May 12, 2015 24 *Hillary Is Passing 2016's Biggest Test—and Jeb Is Flunking* // The New Republic // Brian Beutler - May 12, 2015 26 *Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and authorizing the war in Iraq* // PolitiFact // Amy Sherman – May 12, 2015 29 *The 13 Questions Hillary Clinton Has Answered From The Press* // NPR // Tamara Keith – May 13, 2015 33 *Hillary Clinton Hasn't Answered a Press Question in 21 Days (And Her Opponents Are Taking Notice)* // ABC News // Liz Kruetz - May 12, 2015 36 *Hillary Clinton hasn’t answered a question from the media in 20 days* // WaPo // Chris Cillizza - May 12, 2015 38 *Here’s a clock that counts the minutes since Hillary Clinton answered a press question* // WaPo // Philip Bump - May 12, 2015 39 *Journalists Try Shaming Hillary Clinton Into Speaking To The Press* // Huffington Post // Michael Calderone - May 12, 2015 39 *Super PACs rise in influence in 2016 campaign* // AP // Ken Thomas and Steve Peoples - May 12, 2015 41 *Hillary Clinton-Aligned Group Gets Closer to Her Campaign* // New York Times // Maggie Haberman - May 12, 2015 43 *Hillary Clinton's damage control operation gets more troops* // POLITICO // Annie Karni - May 12, 2015 44 *Pro-Hillary Clinton Group Sets Novel Strategy to Back Presidential Hopeful* // WSJ // Rebecca Ballhaus - May 12, 2015 45 *US OK'd Most Bill Clinton Speech Requests Within Days* // AP // Lisa Lerer and Stephen Braun - May 12, 2015 46 *Hillary Has Some 'Splainin' To Do About Clinton Foundation* // Forbes // Robert W. Wood - May 12, 2015 51 *Uranium Investor- Turned Clinton Foundation Mega Donor Frank Holmes Grilled by CNBC* // Breitbart News // May 12, 2015 53 *Inside the Univision-Clinton network* // POLITICO // Hadas Gold and Marc Caputo - May 12, 2015 54 *State Dept. can’t fulfill your FOIA because it’s overwhelmed by Hillary e-mails* // WaPo // Al Kamen - May 12, 2015 59 *Clinton facing new ethics questions on role in Boeing deal* // Fox News // Dan Springer – May 13, 2015 60 *Bill Clinton: path to citizenship is just common sense* // POLITICO // Annie Karni - May 12, 2015 61 *Another Busy Day for Bill Clinton, the Noncampaigning Campaigner* // New York Times // Amy Chozick - May 12, 2015 63 *Hillary Runs to the Left of Bill on Immigration Reform* // WSJ // Jason L. Riley - May 13, 2015 65 *Dear Hillary, Do Illegal Immigrants Pay More Taxes Or Get Bigger Refunds?* // Forbes // Robert Wood – May 12, 2015 66 *How Bill Clinton’s Library Promotes Hillary Too* // TIME // Philip Elliott - May 12, 2015... 68 *Chelsea Clinton could take on role of first lady if Hillary wins, White House expert says* // Daily Mail // Francesco Chambers - May 12, 2015 70 *Hillary Clinton’s first South Carolina campaign visit is May 27* // Post and Courier // Schuyler Kropf - May 12, 2015 70 OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE....................................... 71 *Banks brace for Bernie Sanders* // The Hill // Kevin Cirill - May 12, 2015............................ 71 *O'Malley plans 4 stops in NH Wednesday* // WMUR // May 11, 2015..................................... 73 *O'Malley Returns to New Hampshire this Week* // Cocord Patch // Tony Schinella - May 12, 2015 74 *Bill de Blasio proposing national paid family leave that his own employees don’t get* // WaPo // Reid Wilson - May 12, 2015 74 GOP......................................................................................................... 75 *New Hampshire Poll: 2016 Republican Pack Has No Breakout Candidate Yet* // Bloomberg // Margaret Talev - May 12, 2015 75 *Jeb Bush Backpedals Again* // New York Times // Maggie Haberman -May 12, 2015.......... 77 *Jeb Bush, Ana Navarro and the Question That May Have Been Misheard* // New York Times // Jason Horowitz - May 12, 2015 79 *Jeb keeps it all in the family* // POLITICO // Roger Simon - May 12, 2015............................. 81 *No Iowa Straw Poll for Jeb Bush* // Des Moines Register // Jennifer Jacobs - May 12, 2015.. 83 *Fighting the Last War* // Slate // John Dickerson - May 12, 2015.......................................... 84 *Chris Christie hits Jeb Bush on Iraq War* // CNN // Alexandra Jaffe - May 12, 2015............ 87 *Jeb Bush’s eloquent defense of Christianity* // WaPo // Kathleen Parker – May 12, 2015.... 89 *Paul opposes granting Obama fast-track trade authority* // WMUR // John DiStasso - May 12, 2015 91 *Rand Paul tweets fake Hillary Clinton to-do list* // POLITICO // Adam B. Lerner - May 12, 2015 93 *Paul says he can run for White House and do day job, questions whether rivals can multi-task* // NH1 // Paul Steinhauser - May 11, 2015 94 *Rand Paul Promises To Fight On Against Patriot Act* // NHPR // Josh Rogers - May 11, 2015 95 *Paul calls for limited government in Londonderry visit* // Eagle Tribune // Doug Ireland - May 12, 2015 96 *Rand Paul: Advocates for the Disabled Should Help Brainstorm Ways to Cut Social Security Spending* // Bloomberg // David Weigel – May 12, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 97 *Rand Paul tries to get younger voters in Granite State* // Boston Herald // Chris Cassidy - May 12, 2015 98 *Christie defends use of $85,000 in public funds to entertain guests at sporting events* // Boston Globe // May 12, 2015 99 *Rare NH visit for Rick Santorum* // NH1 // Paul Steinhauser - May 12, 2015.................... 100 *Fiorina Grabs Attention In Iowa* // Oskaloosa News // May 12, 2015................................... 101 *Rick Santorum: Odd man out?* // POLITICO // James Hohmann - May 12, 2015................. 102 *Will Scott Walker’s budget troubles hurt his potential 2016 bid?* // WaPo // Jenna Johnson -May 12, 2015 105 *This Is Where Liberals Have Gotten Us* // Medium // Marco Rubio - May 12, 2015............. 108 *Marco Rubio Shifts Rightward on Foreign Policy* // TIME // Philip Elliott - May 12, 2015 109 *In title for most conservative, Marco Rubio just misses top spot* // Miami Herald // Chris Adams - May 12, 2015 111 *Lindsey Graham to Hold Senate Fundraiser Days After Planned Launch of White House Bid* // WSJ // Reid Epstein – May 12, 2015 111 TOP NEWS.............................................................................................. 112 DOMESTIC........................................................................................... 113 *Senate Democrats vote to block Obama on trade* // WaPo // Mike DeBonis and Steven Mufson – May 12, 2015 113 *At least 5 dead in Amtrak crash in Philadelphia* // USA Today // Melanie Eversley - May 13, 2015 116 *No charges in Wisconsin police shooting of black teen* // Reuters // Fiona Ortiz - May 12, 2015 117 *AOL, a Digital Pioneer, With Another Chance to Reshape Itself* // New York Times // Emly Steel and Michael j. de la Merced - May 12, 2015 118 INTERNATIONAL............................................................................... 120 *Nepal earthquake: Rescue resumes after latest deadly tremor* // BBC News // May 12, 2015 121 *China Lashes Out Over U.S. Plan on South China Sea* // WSJ // Eva Dou And.................... 123 James Hookway - May 13, 2015............................................................................................. 123 *Inspectors in Syria Find Traces of Banned Military Chemicals* // NYT // Somini Sengupta, Marlise Simons and Anne Barnard - MAY 12, 2015 125 OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS........................................................... 128 *Why Hillary Clinton Would Be a Weak Presidential Nominee for Democrats* // Huffington Post // Eric Zuesse – May 12, 2015 128 *Time for a Conversation about Paid Sick Leave* // Huffington Post // Jonathan Cohn - May 12, 2015 130 *America Doesn't Need Another 'Contract With America'—Not Even a Liberal One* // The New Republic // Elspeth Reeve - May 12, 2015 134 *The Aggressive, Sometimes Bizarre Progressive Campaign Against Obama’s Trade Agenda* // BuzzFeed // Evan McMorris-Santoro - May 12, 2015.............................................................................................................................................. 137 *Sabotage! Will Bill Save Us from Hill?* // PJ Media // Roger Simon - May 12, 2015............. 141 *The Center-Right Moment* // New York Times // David Brooks - May 12, 2015................... 143 *A Million Missing Black Voters* // The Atlantic // David A. Graham - May 12, 2015.......... 145 *Hillary 'Rewrites' the Economic Debate* // Huffington Post // Richard Brodsky – May 12, 2015 147 TODAY’S KEY STORIES Hillary Clinton, MIA on trade <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-s/2015/05/12/d89d9e68-f8bc-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html?hpid=z3> // WaPo // Editorial Board - May 12, 2015 FORTY-FOUR senators in the Democratic caucus voted Tuesday to block action on a crucial “trade promotion authority” bill, delivering an embarrassing setback to President Obama, who strongly supports the bill — and, more importantly, sowing doubts about U.S. leadership among friends and foes around the world. Leaders of both parties swore that this would not be the final word, that they would find a face-saving exit from the arcane procedural conflict that Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is using as a fig leaf for the ascendant anti-trade agenda within his party. As it happens, they are probably right, in part because there are still enough Democrats in the Senate (in addition to the one, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, who had the guts to vote against Mr. Reid on Tuesday) who favor trade. Still, it’s remarkable how much power the anti-trade left wing of the Democratic Party has come to wield within the Senate, which historically was a bastion of bipartisan pro-trade sentiment. Mr. Obama wants trade promotion authority — “fast-track” authority — to grease the legislative skids for his proposed ­Trans-Pacific Partnership, a measure that would enhance U.S. exports to Asia, as well as security ties to key nations such as Japan. Progressives oppose the trade deal on the spurious grounds that it would kill American jobs. So powerful has the opposition on the left become, in fact, that it has turned the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, into a quiet follower on the issue, rather than the forceful leader she once was — and still could be. While her opponents for the Democratic nomination populistically posture, all she has mustered are a couple of anodyne remarks. “Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security,” she said in a recent visit to New Hampshire. Ms. Clinton’s dash for the tall grass is transparently inconsistent with the position she embraced as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state. “Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements — and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific,” she wrote in an October 2011 cover story for Foreign Policy magazine. Indeed, given this well-known record, her avoidance now rather insults the electorate’s intelligence. With the president’s agenda embattled in the Senate, this would be a good time for Ms. Clinton to abandon her political caution and speak up for what she said so recently were her principles. In refusing to take a stand, Ms. Clinton is not only abandoning the president she once served but also missing an opportunity to help define the values of the party she would lead in November 2016. Do independent voters care about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation? <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-independent-voters-care-about-foreign-donations-to-the-clinton-foundation/> // CBS News // Jake Miller - May 12, 2015 Republican candidates are on the warpath against the Clinton Foundation, raising questions about whether Hillary and Bill Clinton sold influence to foreign entities in exchange for donations to their sprawling philanthropy. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul told Politico the Clintons accepted "thinly-veiled bribes." "Are you going to trust an individual who has taken that much money from a foreign source?" asked former Texas Gov. Rick Perry during a recent interview on CNN. "Where's your loyalty?" "At the very least, these revelations present a clear conflict of interest," added Texas Sen. Ted Cruz last month in a statement. "I call on Hillary Clinton to return the donations from foreign governments. Until she does, how can the American people trust her with another position of power?" Journalists have followed the money trail as well, examining whether Hillary Clinton took any actions as secretary of state that benefited donors to the Clinton Foundation. That question was thrust back into the media spotlight last month by a new book called "Clinton Cash: The The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich." The author of that book, conservative Peter Schweizer, has admitted he found no "smoking gun" pointing to tangible wrongdoing by the Clintons, but he's argued their "pattern of behavior" suggests a quid pro quo. The Clintons themselves have strongly denied any wrongdoing and accused Republicans and the media of hyping unsubstantiated claims about a foundation that does a lot of valuable charity work around the world. Bill Clinton has argued the scrutiny shows he and his wife are held to a different standard than many other public figures. If nothing else, though, the kerfuffle has presented a big political headache for Hillary Clinton as her 2016 presidential bid is taking flight. But with Clinton likely to seize the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, is there any indication the issue is resonating with the swing voters who will decide the election? Thus far, it doesn't seem to be taking much of a toll. A CBS News/New York Times poll released last week found that both her favorability ratings and the percent of people who see her as a strong leader have jumped in the month since questions about the Clinton Foundation began mounting. Her favorability rating leapt from 26 to 35 percent, and the number of people who see her as a strong leader jumped from 57 to 65 percent. It's still possible the issue could begin to erode her poll numbers, though - 55 percent of independent voters said they did not yet know enough about the foundation's fundraising to render an opinion on its integrity. If opinions among that bloc begin to harden, either for or against the Clintons, it could make an appreciable difference in the outcome of the 2016 election. CBS News talked to twelve of those poll respondents - independent voters who have not decided how they plan to vote in 2016, and who have said they need to know more about the foundation before forming an opinion on the matter. During a follow-up conversation, these voters were asked whether they plan to investigate the issue further and whether any information they find will factor into their 2016 decision. The results, together forming a kind of virtual focus group, suggest the issue won't be too big a hurdle for Clinton come Election Day, barring a more scandalous revelation over the course of the campaign. Most respondents seemed willing to give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt, disputing the idea that they would leverage their influence on behalf of foundation donors. "I don't believe that a donation from a foreign country or dignitary will have that big of an effect on decision making for the country," said Jerome, a 63-year-old from California. "If they were directly selling influence, you know, through the secretary of state's office, then yeah, that would probably be a deal breaker for me," said Michael, a 35-year-old Arizonan who works in the restaurant industry. That said, he added, there's a "lack" of a smoking gun. "A lot of it is based off of that book written by that author that has done nothing but trash the Clintons," he explained. "The snippets that I have read from his book, they're baseless. They basically connect a few dots that shouldn't be connected, you know. He uses a lot of, you know, just guessing, to connect two dots." Several suggested the whole episode is much ado about nothing, arguing there are more important considerations facing voters than charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation. "There are bigger issues on the table," said Alex, a 35-year-old writer from Texas who said she's not seen any evidence of wrongdoing, and that she's "satisfied" all of her questions about the issue have been answered "I don't see it being that big of an issue," agreed Andrew, a 28-year-old physician from Oklahoma who suggested other candidates have their own controversies. "It's politics and all politics has, you know -- it's always something." "Of course if it's some enormous scandal or fraud or something, I'm sure that would affect me more," Andrew added. Ruth, an 84-year-old from New York, said the issue would "certainly" play a role in her vote, though she did not indicate which way she's leaning. "There are questions about the funding and how it was used," she explained. "I think all that enters...into a judgment as to what kind of a person this is, how they use their funds." Some voters suggested Hillary Clinton would be able to distance herself from any questions of impropriety -- that she couldn't be expected to monitor all the foundation's activities, and that her husband deserves more scrutiny on the issue than she does. "This is more affecting what former President Clinton has done, for his charity, causes, and things like that, rather than what Mrs. Clinton, and how she's been involved with it. Because I think she's been more involved in government, more than what her husband has, since he's left office," said John, a 63-year-old retired chauffeur from New York. "One person doesn't know everything. To hold one person accountable for what goes on like in a foundation, that's unrealistic." Others nodded at a reservoir of trust and goodwill that the Clintons have earned during their long time in public life. Mary, a 52-year-old nurse from Massachusetts, initially told the pollsters that she did not have enough information to render a verdict, but that she's since heard all she needs to know. "I just saw something last night on TV and it was regarding Bill Clinton making a statement, so he brought me up to speed," she said. "I thoroughly trust the Clinton family, and I believe that that foundation is on the up and up, I never had a hint of thinking Hillary, or Bill, or [the foundation] would be other than the up and up. I have a good feeling of the Clinton family, and I don't think they'd ruin their integrity," Mary blamed the controversy on a "smear campaign" by Clinton's opponents and suggested it would "in no way" alter her opinion of Bill or Hillary. "I have a good feeling of the Clinton family, and I don't think they'd ruin their integrity." Almost all of the voters said they were leaning toward supporting Clinton, though several allowed that subsequent developments could prompt them to reconsider. "She's, in my mind, like the person I'd vote for given the other candidates, but, like I said, a lot can change between now and then," explained Andrew, the Oklahoma physician. "Unless someone else come into it, she's probably my best bet," said John, the retired chauffeur from New York. "Just because of her experience." "I'm leaning towards voting for her, I would like to have Hillary in there just from hearing what she says - her views on everything," said Justin, a 31-year old from West Virginia who works in real estate and property maintenance. "But I need to figure out what this scandal is all about, and that will be the deciding factor for me." "I would ultimately vote for her over pretty much any candidate you can name coming from the Republican Party," said Michael from Arizona. "I'm leaning towards Hillary Clinton," agreed Alex from Texas. "I haven't seen any other candidate that suits my needs as a voter, that represents me." Even voters who said they're leaning against Clinton suggested the questions surrounding the foundation are not foremost in their mind. "As long as the money is going for what it's supposed to go for, I don't have a problem with that - the charitable work," said Kim, a 46 year old from Arizona. "There's bigger issues on the table. I probably would not be voting for her." Of course, at this early stage in the election, the electorate is relatively tuned out - political geeks are following the story intensely, but most voters aren't political geeks. "I'm really busy," said Andrew from Oklahoma. "I can't keep track of every single thing between now and 2016. You know, like I said I'll look at it close to that time and...make a decision then." "Truthfully, I've read a little about it, but I couldn't care less," said William, a 24-year-old from New York. The election is "too far in the future, really. There are so many things that can happen." Is New Hillary Clinton Super-PAC Pushing Legal Boundaries? <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-13/is-new-hillary-clinton-super-pac-pushing-legal-boundaries-> // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein - May 12, 2015 A second, semi-official super-PAC is being formed to help Hillary Clinton, and in an unusual twist, has announced plans to coordinate with the Democratic presidential front-runner's campaign. The move is the latest manifestation of a new trend in 2016 politics: the outsourcing of routine campaign functions to outside groups that are permitted to raise money in unlimited amounts. Candidate committees are limited to donations of $5,400 a campaign cycle from individuals. Last month, the Associated Press reported that all-but-declared Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush will be running much of his campaign through a super-PAC. Clinton's newest super-PAC ally, Correct the Record, is spinning off from American Bridge, another super-PAC that formed four years ago and that conducts opposition research on Republican presidential hopefuls. Correct the Record, which has been serving as a rapid-response team to defend Clinton since November 2013, is being recast as an independent super-PAC that will continue to serve as “a political research and communications war room,” the group said Tuesday. What’s unusual is that Correct the Record plans to coordinate with the Clinton campaign and potentially other federal campaigns and Democratic party committees—something that quickly drew skepticism from watchdogs who find it difficult to see how the group can function without running afoul of campaign finance laws. Those laws are designed to prevent committees that collect big-dollar contributions from having direct contact with campaigns. Correct the Record’s plans to coordinate with Clinton’s team amount, at the very least, to a “campaign finance law boundary-pushing” arrangement, said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. As a super-PAC, the group “cannot make any contributions to a candidate directly or in kind,” he said. Correct the Record’s communications director, Adrienne Watson, defended its approach, arguing that “FEC rules specifically permit some activity—in particular, activity on an organization’s website, in email, and on social media—to be legally coordinated with candidates and political parties.” She added: “This exception has been relied upon countless times by organizations raising non-federal money.” The group’s lawyer, who declined to be named for the record, pointed to nonprofit issue-focused groups like the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club, which can communicate with candidates and convey their views through press releases or on websites, as playing a similar role. If Correct the Record follows through on its plans to bulk up its existing rapid response and research structures, it could allow Clinton campaign to outsource some of the functions that have typically been part of presidential campaigns to a group that can collect dollars in much larger denominations than she can legally. That could mean that Clinton’s campaign committee could focus its more funds elsewhere. A Democratic lawyer supportive of the Correct the Record-Clinton campaign alliance dismissed the argument that the group’s work would amount to an in-kind contribution, saying it’s no different than a state political party doing rapid response to defend a presidential candidate. Correct the Record is the second super-PAC to largely focus on boosting Clinton. The other is Priorities USA Action, the group formed in 2012 to support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. That group will not coordinate with the Clinton campaign but the candidate and her team have signaled that she welcomes Priorities' efforts. Clinton met last week with a few potential donors to Priorities and former Clinton staffers including her 2008 political director, Guy Cecil, are coming on board to balance the influence of the Obamans still there. There’s at least one preliminary hint that the new super-PAC has the Clinton campaign's blessing too: Correct the Record is represented by lawyers in the Washington office of Perkins Coie and the Clinton campaign’s general counsel is Marc Elias, chair of the firm’s political law practice. Regardless of the legal precedents it cites for the coordination it plans with Clinton, Correct the Record will draw plenty of scrutiny. “We will be monitoring the activities of Correct the Record and the Clinton campaign very closely,” Ryan said, and CLC will file complaints not only with the Federal Elections Commission but with the Justice Department, if it believes that campaign laws have been violated. Gowdy vs. Clinton, no end in sight <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/trey-gowdy-hillary-clinton-benghazi-117881.html> // Politico // Lauren French – May 13, 2015 Trey Gowdy and Hillary Clinton are locked in a high-stakes game of cat-and-mouse that is threatening to drag on deep into the 2016 campaign. Depending on which side you talk to, it’s either a search for truth in the death of four Americans or a partisan witch hunt to hobble the presumed Democratic nominee. On the ground, the tit for tat is more mundane — a dispute over when, how many times and in which forum Clinton will testify in what promises to be a media circus. The Republican chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi and the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate have become inextricably linked by the congressional investigation into the 2012 terrorist attacks and related to her use of an email account set up on a private server during her four years as secretary of state. The latest twist could come this week, when Gowdy, a three-term congressman from South Carolina who was appointed a year ago to lead the Benghazi panel, is expected to say whether he’ll accept Clinton’s offer to appear once — but only once — before his committee next week. The answer likely will be no: Gowdy and Republicans wanted Clinton to appear for a private interview with the committee but later offered two public hearings as a compromise. “The fear was if she was to do two hearings, he would take the information from the first, which would probably be about the emails, and cherry-pick it and use it in whatever way was most advantageous,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Benghazi panel. “This thing has gotten to be too much about Hillary Clinton and far away from what the parents of the victims (of the attacks) asked from us.” At the very least, Gowdy wants the State Department to turn over a trove of documents before scheduling a public hearing with Clinton. As his negotiations with Clinton’s high-powered attorney, David Kendall, continue, Gowdy is going out of his way to avoid the appearance of meddling in presidential politics — no easy task given who he’s dealing with. The 50-year-old congressman, a federal and state prosecutor earlier in his career, is eyeing a federal judgeship and hates being tagged as an ideologue. Since Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) tapped Gowdy to run the Benghazi panel, Gowdy has repeatedly stressed that he’s unwilling to risk his reputation as a sincere legislator just to nab a Democratic heavyweight — even if the catch is the presumed Democratic nominee for president. “This has always been about getting the facts … and the first thing you have to do is establish that you have all the relevant documents,” a Republican committee aide said. “That is the only thing he is looking for. … It would probably be easier if he was trying to be political, but he isn’t.” When Clinton does finally appear, she’ll face a balancing act between the highly message-focused act of running for president and being forthright about the consequences of the Obama administration’s decisions in Libya. Clinton’s camp has known since the House voted to create the Benghazi select committee in May 2014 that the former secretary of state would be asked to testify — and her allies on the Hill had long predicted that her appearance would come after she announced her candidacy. Clinton backers say the spectacle of Clinton testifying under oath again about the Benghazi attacks will backfire on Republicans. “Rep. Gowdy reminds me of my old dog, Gus, who I had when I was a kid in Missouri City, Texas,” said Paul Begala, a close Clinton ally. “Ol’ Gus loved to chase cars. … Till one day he caught one. Or, rather, one caught him. Before you knew it, Ol’ Gus had 5,000 pounds of 1977 Oldsmobile rolling over his head. If I were Mr. Gowdy, I’d be mighty careful. Hillary has the facts on her side, and I suspect the last thing the Republicans truly want are the facts.” Still, the former diplomat also needs to avoid another “What difference does it make?” moment. That animated retort — which came under tough questioning from Republicans during a Senate committee hearing in 2013 — was promptly turned into a sound bite by her adversaries. Clinton’s campaign did not return a request for comment. Gowdy has been trying to schedule a Clinton appearance for weeks — making multiple offers to the former secretary of state to answer questions in public and private about Benghazi and her use of a non-official email account while at State. Clinton’s team has steadfastly refused to appear for more than a single, public hearing. The latest offer from Gowdy could come within days, after Kendall told the 12-member panel last week that Clinton was ready to appear as early as next week. “The committee will call Secretary Clinton to testify once it is satisfied that all the relevant information has been provided by both the State Department and her,” Gowdy said Friday. His statement came shortly after Kendall accused the Republican-led committee of having “no basis, logic or precedent” for multiple hearings. Gowdy has zeroed in on outstanding requests for documents and emails from the State Department and Obama administration as the major sticking points in scheduling a hearing with Clinton. Without assurances from the State Department that they have the documents, congressional Republicans have been wary of agreeing to just one hearing. Aides on the committee have pointed to the committee’s discovery of Clinton’s private email as proof that it would be ineffective to have her appear, only to discover new evidence later. But Democrats have seized on the delay as evidence that Gowdy is only interested in damaging Clinton by pushing the probe further into campaign season. Cummings repeatedly has compared the Benghazi panel to the National Republican Congressional Committee. “At every turn, the select committee comes up with a new excuse to further delay its work and then blames its glacial pace on someone else,” he said. “Republicans are desperately trying to validate the $3 million in taxpayer funds they have spent over the past year, but they have nothing to show for it other than a partisan attack against Secretary Clinton and her campaign for president.” Hillary Campaign Yawns at de Blasio <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/12/hillary-campaign-yawns-at-de-blasio.html?via=mobile&source=twitter> // Daily Beast // David Freedlander - May 12, 2015 During a Democratic primary season in which Hillary Clinton’s putative opponents have pointedly declined to criticize her, Bill de Blasio has emerged as the voice of the liberal opposition, declining to endorse her on national television on the day she announced her candidacy, traveling to the early primary states to tout his vision for the Democratic Party, and on Tuesday unveiling a “Progressive Contract With America” alongside dozens of fellow travelers in Washington, D.C. But if all that activity is supposed to rally the Democratic base to pull Clinton to the left, the Clinton campaign would like to thank de Blasio very much for his effort, but says it is unnecessary. “For her entire career, Hillary Clinton has championed many of the issues included in this contract,” said Karen Finney, senior campaign spokeswoman. “She has a long record of pushing for progress on issues like family leave, income inequality, and education, and she looks forward to continuing the conversation around these important topics as she lays out her own ideas in this campaign.” Indeed, many of the nearly a dozen Clinton advisers and supporters contacted for this article said they welcomed de Blasio’s forays into presidential politics, as so much of what he has been trying to do is create a constituency that dovetailed with Clinton’s own record and platform. Most of the issues de Blasio touts in his Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality, like a higher minimum wage and higher taxes on the wealthy, have been pushed by President Obama, to little avail, and Clinton has spoken out in favor of them. “Hillary Clinton has a long career of advocating for progressive issues—the minimum wage, issues important to women,” said Jack Rosen, a New York-based real estate executive and longtime donor to Bill and Hillary Clinton. “De Blasio has a right to speak out on issues he cares about, but Hillary Clinton doesn’t need any advice. She has her own inner compass on this.” Tom Sheridan, a top D.C lobbyist and a donor to the Clinton campaign, said that by trying to pressure Clinton from the left, de Blasio was actually creating space for Clinton to position herself as palatable to the broad middle. “He is giving her running room and new ways to position herself on these issues,” he said. “I think it’s all good, I really do. You have people trying to put pressure on the left wing and the right wing, and Hillary gets to show that she knows how to fly the plane, so to speak.” “If the purpose of this is to put pressure on our candidate, there are better ways to do it, and it’s unnecessary anyway.” Polls show that Clinton remains strongly popular with even the most liberal elements of the party, though grassroots organizers continue to push Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren as a populist challenger to her. Robert Wolf, a former CEO of UBS Americas and friend of Obama who has already signed on to the Clinton campaign financial operation, predicted that the impact of de Blasio’s press conference Tuesday on the Clinton campaign would be minimal, especially once Clinton flushes out more of her own agenda. “To me the candidates that are talking about real issues like the secretary last week on immigration versus trying to rally the far left or the far right seem to get the most traction to the thoughtful person, as opposed to getting the most media hype of the day,” Wolf told The Daily Beast. Which isn’t to say Team Clinton isn’t a bit mystified at what de Blasio is doing. The New York City mayor owes his career in part to Clinton, having served as campaign manager for her 2000 run for the U.S. Senate, then parlaying that experience into his first political run. Bill Clinton inaugurated de Blasio as mayor, while Hillary Clinton looked on. “I am proud to come from the Clinton family,” de Blasio told reporters after he won the Democratic nomination. “If he were running for president, that would be one thing, but he is not,” said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist and longtime adviser to both Clintons. “People who hold elective office like to get covered and like to be heard and like to be part of the conversation. I take him at face value.” People in and close to the Clinton campaign say they take de Blasio at his word, that he is not running for president (despite a New York Post report to the contrary). Rather, they assume he is trying either to elevate his national profile and capitalize on a Democratic base yearning for a standard-bearer, or trying to shore up his credentials with progressives in New York in the face of sinking poll numbers and what could be a potentially competitive reelection in 2017. “I know Bill de Blasio like the back of my hand,” said Manhattan borough president Gale Brewer, who served with de Blasio in the David Dinkins administration in City Hall and in the City Council, and who was one of the first New York City elected officials to endorse the Ready for Hillary super PAC that laid the groundwork for another Clinton run. “He thinks this is part of his official duties as mayor,” she said. “Of course, you elevate yourself when you do that, but in his head it is about elevating the city.” Brewer said she was supportive of the mayor’s efforts if it meant getting more resources to the city. If it also meant getting Clinton to tack left, well, good luck. “I don’t think that is helpful,” Brewer said. “She is going to do what she needs to do to win the election. I don’t know too many people who are listening to what Bill de Blasio is saying about Hillary Clinton being to the left or not. They are judging Hillary Clinton on her own pluses and minuses.” Much of the Democratic establishment backed Clinton long before she was even a candidate, even many of those who appeared alongside de Blasio at his press conference in Washington on Tuesday. If de Blasio’s non-endorsement on Meet the Press was a bit curious, few Clintonistas doubted that he would eventually come around. “I was with Bill de Blasio in the 2000 Senate campaign. I bumped into him several times in Ohio in 2008 when he was campaigning for Hillary,” said Ann Lewis, a longtime Clinton adviser. “And I fully expect to be campaigning with him again.” Former Rep. Anthony Weiner, a one-time de Blasio opponent—and whose wedding to a Hillary Clinton aide was officiated by Bill Clinton—agreed. He said de Blasio had every right to step out on the national stage as mayor of New York but that he was not sure exactly what the point of it all would be. “It takes some hubris here to suggest that Hillary Clinton doesn’t understand the challenges of inequality or the challenges facing our country,” Weiner said. “So what are you going to do, say, ‘I am going to hold my breath until Hillary becomes a good Democrat?’ If the purpose of this is to put pressure on our candidate, there are better ways to do it, and it’s unnecessary anyway.” SOCIAL MEDIA Annie Karnie (5/12/15, 11:14 AM) @anniekarni <https://twitter.com/anniekarni/status/598142583861354496>: "If I were advising candidates I would say you’ve got to have a credible position on immigration reform," @BillClinton at Univision upfronts Adrian Carrasquillo (5/12/15, 8:14 AM) @Carrasquillo <https://twitter.com/Carrasquillo/status/598144242893094913>: Bill Clinton brings up Eric Garner, says controversy can be lessened if there is dispute resolution by diverse community decision makers. Chad Pergram (5/12/15, 2:59 PM) @ChadPergram <https://twitter.com/ChadPergram>: Senate blocks trade framework. Vote was 52 yeas to 45 nays. But needed 60. McConnell switched so he could call for revote. Jeff Kaufmann (5/12/15 12:49 PM) @kaufmannGOP <https://twitter.com/kaufmannGOP>: We hope Governor Bush rethinks his decision and realizes that grassroots will only grow in Iowa if he waters them. (1/3); The RedState Gathering is a four day event and other candidates have already indicated that they will be attending both. (2/3); We don’t buy this excuse and neither will Iowans. (3/3) Jeremy W. Peters (5/12/15 5:56 AM) @jwpetersNYT <https://twitter.com/jwpetersNYT/status/598109379032920065>: @ananavarro says Jeb Bush told her he misheard Megyn Kelly's question about invading Iraq and answered accordingly. HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE GOP battles for Benghazi leverage <http://thehill.com/policy/defense/241858-gop-battles-for-benghazi-leverage> // The Hill // Martin Matishak – May 13, 2015 Hillary Clinton and Republicans on the House Benghazi panel are battling for leverage surrounding the Democratic presidential front-runner’s possible testimony on the deadly 2012 attack. Both sides are determined to make sure that if and when Clinton testifies to the panel, it is on their side’s terms. Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) is due to consult with Republican leaders and his fellow panel members on Wednesday about how to best respond to a request by Clinton’s camp to have her testify only once and not twice as he wanted. One congressional aide predicted Gowdy would give his response to Clinton before the end of the week. “I’d be surprised if that didn’t happen,” an aide said on Tuesday. The former secretary of State has made it clear that she is willing to testify — but only once. She does not want the fight over the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, to cast a long shadow on her 2016 presidential campaign. Republicans, for their part, have an obvious interest in extending the Benghazi battle, which could be a lingering distraction for Clinton’s campaign. Both sides face risks as they battle over when and how Clinton will testify. If Republicans are seen as continually pushing off Clinton’s testimony even as she agrees to appear before the panel, it will bolster allegations that the committee is all about politics. Republicans firmly deny their probe is about politics, even as Democrats on the panel insist it is all about Clinton. Gowdy “is not interested in the politics of this,” the congressional aide said. “He’s made that clear from Day One,” the aide said, adding that any possible long-term political risks to Clinton’s presidential bid are “not a consideration he has made.” Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the panel’s top Democrat, rejected that argument. He said Republicans appear to want to drag the process out for as long as possible so that it remains a focus in 2016. “It does appear we have a situation where Republicans are drawing this entire situation out,” he told The Hill. “I think it would be very difficult to draw any other conclusion than it’s all about Hillary Clinton.” A risk for Clinton is appearing as if she has something to hide. It’s a risk magnified by the controversy over her use of a private email account while she served as secretary of State. The former secretary of State has gone to lengths to make sure she does not come off as reluctant to appear before the panel. Clinton, Cummings said, has been willing to “come forth and provide the truth and resolve any questions that the committee might have.” “It seems like the Republicans can’t take yes for an answer,” he told The Hill. Cummings, who said he has not been in touch with the Democratic front-runner’s campaign, said he was “sure it’s very frustrating for her to see the goal posts constantly being moved” over when she will testify and about what. Gowdy has been careful to signal that, while his panel wants to hear from Clinton, its members must first have access to all of the information necessary to question her. It’s an argument that hints at the controversy over Clinton’s private email server, a topic likely to dominate any appearance she makes before the panel. An interim report from the Benghazi committee, released on Friday, said it would not call Clinton to testify until “it is satisfied that all the relevant information has been provided by both the State Department and her.” The congressional aide said Gowdy has “hands down” placed a premium on getting emails from State Department principals, including Clinton, before her appearance. The committee requested those communications in November and issued a subpoena for them in March. Without those records “it becomes difficult to question because how do you close the loop?” the aide asked. Despite the delays, Gowdy doesn’t plan on subpoenaing Clinton to appear. “From his perspective, it hasn’t come to that, and he’ll cross that bridge if it’s necessary, but so far, it has not come to that. She hasn’t said she’s unwilling to come, so I don’t know why you would subpoena her,” the aide said. Any impact the investigation might have on Clinton and her White House bid “would only be with regards to what the committee can determine are the actual facts.” Cummings said he doesn’t know what the GOP wants, as Clinton has already agreed to testify. “The question is, when does it end?” he asked. Why Hillary Clinton Is Our Champion <http://www.theurbanvoice.com/las_vegas/2015/05_may/02_why_hillary_clinton_is_our_champion.htm> // Urban Voice // State Senate Minority Leader Aaron D. Ford - May 12, 2015 In mid-April, Hillary Clinton announced she was running for President of the United States because everyday Americans and their families need a champion, and she wants to be that champion Her life's work reflects her middle-class upbringing in Chicago, demonstrates that she is a hard-worker and listener, and proves that Hillary will stand strong for everyday Americans. She has consistently fought to help women and children, the middle class, and the African-American community because she knows that when our families are strong, America is strong. Like all of us, Hillary is shaped by her parents and her upbringing. At a young age, Hillary's mother was abandoned, and understanding her struggle motivated Hillary's tireless efforts to become a champion for children and families. That’s why when she graduated from law school, Hillary chose not to go to a large law firm in a big city. Instead, she knocked doors in New Bedford, Massachusetts for Marian Wright Edelman’s Children's Defense Fund. Her on-the-ground work helped ensure that all children, including those with disabilities, had a fair shot at a good education. Strengthening families and keeping loved ones together has been the bedrock of Hillary’s work as a Senator on criminal justice reform, too. By promoting tough but fair reforms of probation and drug diversion programs, pushing an anti-crime plan to cut the number of repeat offenders and reduce the prison population, and championing community policing programs, Hillary has shown time and again that she will fight for fair treatment under the law. As a co-sponsor of the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001, she fought to prohibit any racial profiling. And by proposing a strong Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) hiring program, Hillary worked to ensure that new community police officers were trained to partner and work with the communities they serve. Bottom line: an important part of her career has focused on creating safe neighborhoods. Important as well for the African-American community, and all Nevadans, is the feeling that while the economy has come back from collapse, many families still don't feel economically secure. We see those at the top benefiting from the growing economy while wages stagnate and the cost of living increases. Hillary has made clear she will work so that all middle-class families can thrive. So many Nevadans are waiting for it to be their turn; they want someone they can count on who can help them get ahead and stay ahead. President Obama inherited an economy wracked by the financial crisis, but over the last six years he has made remarkable progress in turning our economy around. Over the last year, according to the Department of Labor, we have added an average of 269,000 jobs per month. The person we can count on to continue this progress is Hillary Clinton. While we have started to bounce back, we cannot lose sight of the need to grow our economy for everyone. When the deck is stacked in favor of those at the top, we need to reshuffle that deck. CEO pay is through the roof, and yet everyday Americans are not sharing in the success. It is time for our everyday Nevadans to get ahead and stay ahead. Hillary Clinton is focused on engaging every community, hearing our ideas, and working with us to find solutions. Our country, our state, and our community needs a champion. The middle class needs a champion. Hillary Clinton will be that champion. That’s why I’m standing with her as she works to earn your vote. Hillary Clinton’s hedge on trade leaves Obama without political cover <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-trade-deal-hillary-clinton-keeps-her-distance-from-obama-and-her-past/2015/05/11/bc2cc604-f7e1-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html> // WaPo // David Nakamura - May 12, 2015 The United States’ reputation in Asia was suffering under the weight of economic and political turmoil at home when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Hong Kong in the summer of 2011 to reassure American business executives that the future was brighter. Back in Washington, President Obama was locked in a budget dispute with Congress that would ultimately damage the nation’s credit rating. But in remarks to the American Chamber of Commerce, Clinton painted a robust vision of U.S. economic leadership, anchored by an emerging free-trade deal that “will bring together economies from across the Pacific.” The goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, she explained, was to “create a new high standard for multilateral free trade,” a pact that would cement the United States’ standing in the world’s fastest-growing region. Four years later, with Obama making a desperate final push to complete that 12-nation pact, his former partner and most effective global advocate for the deal has gone quiet. As the president has scoured Capitol Hill for elusive Democratic support in recent weeks, Clinton has said virtually nothing about the TPP, other than to point out areas of the deal with which she has concerns. Senate Democrats blocked legislation on Tuesday that would have given President Obama the power to grant “fast-track” authority to move trade deals quickly through Congress. (Reuters) Clinton’s silence on trade, coming at the worst possible time for Obama, dovetails with her transformation into a presidential candidate eager to align herself more squarely with the liberal wing of her party. In other areas in which Clinton has moved to the left — such as immigration reform and gay marriage — White House aides have been delighted that she has forcefully embraced the president’s governing record. But on trade, Clinton’s hedge has left Obama without political cover in his increasingly bitter feud with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other progressives, who have fiercely opposed the pact as a boondoggle for big business. On Tuesday, a bill to grant Obama “fast track” trade authority failed to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate, with only one Democrat voting in favor of it. Republican leaders have vowed to try again, but it was an embarrassment for the president. “One of the biggest proponents of the TPP in the administration now, as a candidate, picking on a couple of technical issues just looks like pure politicking,” Ernest Bower, a Southeast Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said of Clinton. White House aides have refused to criticize Clinton for remaining on the sidelines, noting that the trade pact has undergone changes since she departed more than two years ago. But she has been mocked by her political rivals on both sides of the aisle for her refusal to take a clear position. “She can’t sit on the sidelines and let the president swing in the wind here,” House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said on “Meet the Press” last week. Clinton’s campaign pointed to a statement from three weeks ago, in which her spokesman said any trade pact must “raise wages and create more good jobs at home” and strengthen national security. Clinton reiterated those criteria a few days later during an appearance in New Hampshire, her only public comments on the trade deal since launching her campaign. In many ways, the politics for Clinton are playing out in a fashion similar to 2008, when both she and Obama, competing for support in Rust Belt states during the Democratic primary, distanced themselves from the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by President Bill Clinton. Longtime allies described Hillary Clinton as generally less inclined to support large, multilateral trade deals than her husband was. As a senator, she voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2005, as did Obama, then also a senator. “Some people are generally pro-trade or anti-trade. She’s case-by-case on trade,” said Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council in both the Clinton and Obama administrations. With manufacturing-heavy Iowa holding the first-in-the-nation caucuses — which she lost to Obama seven years ago — Clinton would be foolish to actively stump in favor of the president’s trade initiative, allies said. But this time, the political calculus is complicated by her legacy as the nation’s top diplomat. Foreign policy analysts have pointed to the Obama administration’s bid to shift U.S. attention and resources toward Asia to counter China as potentially one of Clinton’s most significant achievements as secretary of state. From the start of her tenure, Clinton made Asia a priority; her first trip in office was a swing through Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and China. Early on, Clinton and her top aides endorsed the TPP to balance the Pentagon’s military buildup in the Asia Pacific region. Clinton’s team helped elevate the trade pact as a pillar of what Clinton later described, in a Foreign Policy magazine cover story in October 2011, as the administration’s “pivot” to Asia. “Clearly, we all saw this as strategic,” said James Keith, the U.S. ambassador to Malaysia from 2007 to 2010. Before the administration publicly unveiled its Asia strategy, “there was lots of talk of having to add meat to the bones, not just on security but on economics, too.” Yet a primary concern Clinton has raised about the TPP after leaving office did not register alarms inside the State Department during her tenure. In 2009, the agency oversaw a review of a component of U.S. trade policy, appointing a panel of business officials, labor leaders and academics to review the language in the United States’ “model bilateral investment treaty.” That treaty is used by U.S. negotiators in most trade deals. During the review, which lasted six months, one of the primary disagreements centered on the standard inclusion of a dispute settlement mechanism that allows corporations to sue nations over policies that damage their profits. Under the provision, the cases are heard by an international tribunal that rules outside of domestic legal systems. To the chagrin of the labor representatives, the dispute mechanism provision remained intact during the State Department review after the business representatives on the panel fiercely defended it. “I had the feeling that we were a box that was just going to be checked off,” said Kevin P. Gallagher, an associate professor at Boston University who was on the panel. “It was a multi-stakeholder dialogue in which we did not agree with each other, so they just go with the old model.” Warren has made this arrangement — formally known as “investor-state dispute settlement” — a chief part of her objections to the TPP. She has argued that the mechanism potentially exposes U.S. taxpayers to massive monetary damages outside of U.S. courts if corporations sue the government over new laws to protect the environment or workers. Obama has called her arguments “dishonest,” noting that the United States has been sued just 13 times over the provision in previous trade pacts and never lost a case. In her book “Hard Choices,” published last year, Clinton raised concerns that echo Warren’s. She cited a case in which the Asia division of tobacco giant Philip Morris sued Australia over a “plain packaging” law, employing the dispute settlement provisions in an Australia-Hong Kong trade pact. “We should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests,” Clinton wrote. Robert Hormats, a high-ranking State Department official from 2009 to 2013, oversaw the trade policy review and emphasized that Clinton was not involved in those types of granular policy discussions. By the time she left office, the general framework for the TPP was already in place. During a speech in Australia in November 2012, Clinton referred to the pact as “the gold standard in trade agreements.” The risk now for Clinton is that if the trade deal fails, the Obama administration’s “Asia pivot” strategy risks being viewed as more rhetorical than tangible, foreign policy analysts said, which could lead to a reevaluation of her legacy at the State Department. “We saw it as a chance to make a difference,” Hormats said, reflecting on the Clinton team’s early embrace of the TPP. He added, “The weakness of the American economy in the financial crisis led many to assume the U.S. was backing off and incapacitated.” After he and other Clinton aides made trips to China in 2009, Hormats said, “we came back more resolute than ever that we had to do this.” Obama’s war of words over trade deal puts pressure on Clinton <https://www.yahoo.com/politics/obamas-war-of-words-over-trade-deal-puts-pressure-118746488241.html> // Yahoo News // Jon Ward - May 12, 2015 President Barack Obama’s decision to escalate his fight with the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party over a free trade deal with Asia is unwelcome news for Hillary Clinton. Former secretary of state Clinton, who is now running for president, had been keeping her head down on the trade issue — and on the fast-track trade authority that Obama is seeking in order to execute the deal. Despite her past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, which she in 2012 called “the gold standard,” she has remained noncommittal on it since announcing her presidential bid. Labor and progressive groups are eager to see Clinton come out swinging against the deal. But Clinton would open herself up to charges of flip-flopping and cynical pandering if she did so now, given her past remarks and her generally pro-trade positions in the past. “What would be her reason for opposing it? She hasn’t laid the groundwork for that with any articulation of serious concerns about this trade deal,” said a senior-ranking Democratic congressional aide. “She probably wants fast-track authority if she’s going to be president.” If Clinton were to vocally back the deal, however, that could give oxygen to one of the other declared or likely candidates for the Democratic nomination, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, both of whom oppose the deal. And while Clinton at present far outpaces both men in polls, fighting members of her own party on the trade deal could pave the way for union endorsements for her opponents and give them strength on the ground in early-contest states. “TPP is treacherous territory. It proves that … even without a dozen well-funded primary opponents, she’ll still have to navigate a bunch of tough issues that various segments of her base consider critically important — all without alienating swing voters for the general,” said Dan Newman, a Democratic consultant who is working for California U.S. Senate candidate Kamala Harris and the state’s lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom. Union and liberal organizer support for Clinton’s opponents would drain resources, time and energy from her campaign that otherwise could have gone to preparing for a general election. “Whatever the merits of the TPP, this issue has become a surrogate within the party for a larger debate about corporate power and fairness, which puts her in a difficult spot,” said David Axelrod, a former top political adviser to the president. “She was the [secretary of state] when these negotiations began, and the previous Clinton administration was closely identified with trade. But it is a volatile issue, and supporting it could add to fears on the left that she is too oriented toward big business and give additional impetus to a potential primary challenger,” Axelrod said. “In the end, this is one where [Clinton] is going to have to take a gut check and choose. And she would probably do best by choosing the side in which she genuinely believes, even if it buys her some grief,” he noted. Obama “could relieve some of that pressure” on Clinton “by making a compelling case” for the trade deal, he said. The president should stress “a cooling-off period for review before he signs and another before Congress votes, and specific standards for labor, human rights, and the environment, with the ability of Congress to rescind fast track if the standards are deemed not to be met,” Axelrod said. When asked if he thought Obama was doing enough to make a “compelling case” for the deal, Axelrod said, “It’s a tough hill to climb. He just needs to keep climbing.” Obama and the White House have been feuding with Warren for days over her opposition to the trade deal. But during the weekend, the president made his most pointed comments about the liberal Democratic senator from Massachusetts, inan interview with Yahoo News. Obama told Yahoo’s Matt Bai that Warren is “absolutely wrong” in her opposition to the trade deal and that her warnings of a Republican president using authorities given to the executive in the deal to unwind Wall Street regulations are “made up.” “It doesn’t make any sense,” he said of Warren’s objections to the bill. The president also suggested that Warren’s opposition is motivated more by her own ambition than by righteous ideology. “The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else, and she’s got a voice that she wants to get out there.” Warren quickly responded on Monday morning, reiterating her concerns in detail to the Washington Post. It is a quickly intensifying intraparty squabble that will be increasingly hard for Clinton to ignore. “Given how this is developing, I think she will need to pick a lane,” said Iowa Democratic operative Jeff Link. In Iowa, “we tend to support trade deals,” he said, and so if Clinton were to support the deal, it would not hurt her in the first primary or caucus state. But in the broader Democratic Party, there is money and organization that is poised to punish Clinton if she does step out and take a position in favor of the trade deal. “Unless there is some miracle compromise to convert the bill’s fierce opposition, it’s a very risky thing for a candidate to support. Why wade into danger when you can promise to sign a better version as president?” asked Gil Duran, a California political operative who has worked for Governor Jerry Brown. “Any candidate who backs this turkey stands to lose some very important blocs of support.” A Clinton spokesman did not answer a question about whether Clinton would take a position on the issue. In roughly a month as a presidential candidate, Clinton hasanswered only eight questions from the media. She has not spoken with the press in almost three weeks. Will Bill de Blasio and Elizabeth Warren be able to push Hillary Clinton to the left? <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/hillary_clinton_s_liberal_agenda_how_far_is_the_democratic_front_runner.html> // Slate // Jamelle Bouie – May 12, 2015 Thus far, the Democrats’ anti-inequality agenda has focused on redistribution. Barack Obama wants free community college and tax credits for child care, congressional Democrats want a $12 minimum wage, and Hillary Clinton has endorsed paid family leave. But scholars at the forefront of the inequality battle want Democrats to go even further. “To fix the economy for average Americans,” writes Joseph Stiglitz and his team of fellow economists in a report for the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute titled “Rewriting the Rules: An Agenda for Growth and Shared Prosperity,” “we need to tackle the rules and institutions that have generated low investment, sluggish growth, and runaway incomes and wealth accumulation at the top and created a steeper hill for the rest to climb. It would be easier, politically, to push for one or two policies on which we have consensus, but that approach would be insufficient to match the severity of the problems posed by rising inequality.” In an unequal economy, they argue, it’s not enough to redistribute the gains of a tiny, wealthy minority. Even with more programs—more health care, more tax credits—the shape of the economy is the same: The wealthiest individuals and corporations receive the lion’s share of national income. And that’s by design. “Inequality has been a choice,” writes Stiglitz and his team. “Beginning in the 1970s, a wave of deliberate ideological, institutional, and legal changes began to reconfigure the marketplace. … Get government out of the way and the creativity of the marketplace—and the ingenuity of the financial sector—would revitalize society.” Put differently, the “deregulation” of the 1980s and 1990s was really a “re-regulation”—“a new set of rules for governing the economy that favors a specific set of actors.” And it failed. Labor force participation sits at a 37-year low, public and private investment is weak, and tens of millions of Americans struggle with slow growth and low wages. Greater redistribution can ameliorate these problems, but it can’t solve them. For that, you need to rethink the markets themselves. You need new rules to build an economy that delivers more equal results before the government steps in to tax and spend. In short, Stiglitz and company recommend greater financial regulation—ending “too big too fail” and creating greater transparency in financial markets—incentives for long-term business growth (including a financial transaction tax to discourage short-term trading and “encourage more productive long-term investment”); higher taxes on capital gains, dividends, and corporate income; and a national commitment to full employment, through public works and monetary policy. And to deliver more gains to ordinary people, they call for stronger bargaining rights and lower barriers to unionization, criminal justice reform, pay equity, health care reform (“Medicare-for-all”), and a host of new programs for children (universal pre-K, child benefits), retirees, and homeowners (a public option for mortgages). It is one thing to push Clinton on immigration and criminal justice reform; it’s something else to push her toward a fundamental revamp of our economy. The bulk of this plan is far afield from the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Which means it runs far afield from Hillary Clinton, who stands at the center of the Democratic coalition. What’s more, from the Clinton administration to her time in the Senate, Clinton has held close ties to the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party, which favors the kind of financial deregulation that produced yawning inequality and a catastrophic economic collapse. It is one thing to push Clinton on immigration and criminal justice reform—areas where the coalition has moved to the left. It’s something different, and more difficult, to push her toward a fundamental revamp of our economy and its rules. It helps, however, to have an ally. And the Roosevelt Institute has two in the form of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. Both spoke at the Tuesday event for the new report, urging Democrats—and Republicans, for that matter—to rethink their economic assumptions. “This country is in real trouble. The game is rigged and we are running out of time,” Warren said. “We cannot continue to run this country for the top 10 percent.” De Blasio touted his agenda in New York City—including universal pre-K and paid sick time for all workers—but urged national action. “We in New York are doing all we can, but we cannot complete the mission without fundamental change in federal policy,” he said. “There needs to be not only new debate in this country, but there needs to be a movement that will carry these ideas forward.” To that end, de Blasio took to the Capitol steps Tuesday afternoon to unveil his “Progressive Agenda to Combat Inequality,” a deliberate echo to the 1994 “Contract With America” of Newt Gingrich and the congressional GOP. “These 13 progressive ideas,” he said, “will make an enormous difference for families all over this country, for everyday Americans.” Among the proposals are a minimum wage increase to $15 an hour, national paid sick and family leave, subsidized child care, and “closing the loopholes that allow CEOs, hedge fund managers, and billionaires to avoid paying their fair share in taxes.” There’s no doubt Clinton will adopt this language—to an extent, she already has. But will she adopt the policies? Will she go beyond the agenda for redistribution to embrace structural change of the American economy? The answer to this question depends on power. Is the left strong enough to budge Clinton from her ground in the corporate center of the Democratic Party? It’s too early to say—the fight has just begun—but there are signs. Hours after the Roosevelt Institute unveiled its package, the Senate held a cloture vote for a bill that would give President Obama “accelerated power to complete a major trade accord with Asia.” On this, Warren has been a strong opponent, denouncing the bill—and the accord itself—as a giveaway to corporate America. The vote failed. Warren peeled away enough Democrats to block cloture and continue debate, a blow to the president's standing. If this is a fluke, then Clinton can resist the calls from her left. But if it’s a sign of the times, then liberals can look forward to a Clinton campaign that sounds a lot like them. Hillary Is Passing 2016's Biggest Test—and Jeb Is Flunking <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121772/hillary-passing-2016s-biggest-test-and-jeb-flunking> // The New Republic // Brian Beutler - May 12, 2015 In America, in 2015, large swaths of people with wildly differing political ideologies—and, in some cases, wildly differing factual and analytical premises—are converging on a series of assumptions they didn’t always share. The list is long, but it includes the following, timely opinions: that the drug war is a moral and practical failure; that three-strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and myriad other aspects of our criminal justice system are flawed, racially biased, and in desperate need of reform; that the loosening of certain financial regulations in recent decades was disastrous; that the Iraq war never should have happened. The political establishment hasn’t caught up to all of these consensuses, or emerging consensuses, but in most cases the public has, and in each instance the public has outpaced its elected officials. And when you view the aforementioned left-right convergence in light of federal policymaking over the past 20 or 30 years, it reflects poorly on our country’s most recent political leaders. Or at the very least, it suggests those political leaders made a number of very consequential decisions while they were in power without thinking past near-term politics. You might believe these errors stem from the inherent difficulties of governing, or from systemic institutional failures, or a mix of both. But the phenomenon is indisputable, and a reckoning with the causes is now inevitable. Why? Because these issues have moved to the foreground of the country’s political imagination just as the most recent president’s brother and his predecessor’s wife are running for president. In the absence of the Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush candidacies, a new paradigm could prevail without a great deal of bipartisan introspection. Instead, this election will force referenda on the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies. The coming Democratic and Republican primaries will to a great extent turn on how adeptly and convincingly Jeb and Hillary can explain away or atone for the country’s biggest public policy failures in recent memory. Were these mistakes? Were they rational decisions that simply didn’t withstand the test of time or have grown obsolete? Or, despite all appearances, is the jury still out? From an elevated vantage point, the retrospective politics of the 2016 campaign should be easier for Hillary Clinton than for Jeb Bush to navigate. Whatever particular mistakes her husband made in office, the public generally remembers Bill Clinton’s presidency fondly, as a time of relative peace and economic growth. He left office popular and has grown more so ever since. George W. Bush’s presidency, by contrast, is widely and correctly understood as a travesty—marred by debt-financed social policy, intelligence failures, the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history, grand-scale deception, a gruesome, losing war of aggression— which culminated in the country’s worst economic crisis in nearly a century. He became historically unpopular and has only returned to parity, or near-parity, by dint of the afterglow that tends to accrete around presidents after they leave political office. And yet despite these fundamental differences, both Hillary Clinton and her husband are publicly grappling with the shortcomings of his substantive record, while Jeb Bush, if anything, is embracing his brother’s toxic record. Jeb told funders in New York recently that when it comes to Middle East foreign policy, George is his lodestar. “If you want to know who I listen to for advice, it’s him.” More damningly, Jeb told Fox News host Megan Kelly that he still supports the invasion of Iraq. "Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?" she asked. "I would have," replied. Jeb’s full answer was actually more ambiguous than most political writers, including Washington Examiner’s conservative reporter Byron York, are allowing. Though he appeared to suggest that the Iraq war was wise despite false pretenses, he added, “And so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would have almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.” But Jeb is painfully aware of the expectation that he’ll disavow George W.’s presidency. “[J]ust for the news flash to the world,” he told Kelly, “if they’re trying to find places where there’s big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of those.” The Clintons are, by contrast, at pains to scrutinize their own records. Hillary's criminal justice speech last week, in which she called for an end to “the era of mass incarceration” was an implicit rebuke of her husband's former views and her own. Bill himself conceded that mass incarceration (and thus its attendant racial inequities) were partly attributable to a 1994 crime bill that he signed. Republicans, he said, insisted on incorporating the legislation’s tough-on-crime measures, but he was willing to accept them as the price of signing. “The problem is the way it was written and implemented,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour at the Clinton Global Initiative last week, “we cast too wide a net and we had too many people in prison. And we wound up... putting so many people in prison that there wasn't enough money left to educate them, train them for new jobs, and increase the chances when they came out so they could live productive lives.” Hillary has had a more difficult time explaining how she landed on her belief that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right and explicating her position on free trade (which her husband supported unabashedly), but in both cases her current substantive views depart in obvious ways from her previous ones and thus constitute admissions that—at the very least—time hasn’t been kind to the Democratic orthodoxy of the 1990s, which she helped shape. Though there’s a strangeness to the spectacle of Jeb embracing his unpopular brother while the Clintons break faith with their former selves, it’s also difficult to see how it could be any other way. Progressivism by its nature isn’t kind to old dogmas, which is why any politician who hopes to remain relevant in progressive politics for decades will have to evolve and atone. Conservatives, by contrast, are wary of precisely this kind of second-guessing. Republicans no longer zealously guard Iraq as a war of patriotic necessity, but they will sooner admit that Obamacare isn’t a complete failure than that Iraq was a mistake on its own terms. And here the dynastic differences between the Bushes and the Clintons further complicate matters. Unlike the Bushes, the Clintons don’t have a political ancestry. You can believe that they admit error now because they learn from their mistakes or simply because it’s the path of least resistance to power, but they aren’t the reflexive defenders of Bill’s every decision the way the Bush family must be of George W.’s. That’s partly attributable to the unusually bad record George W. amassed over eight years—it’s ironically easier for the Clintons to admit select errors when they can defend Bill’s record in general. But it’s also partly attributable the fact that the Clintons just aren’t like the Bushes. As The New Republic’s Rebecca Traister wrote recently, “There are big differences between being born into a position of political privilege and marrying someone who becomes politically powerful.” One of those differences is that you don’t have to treat the family name as if it’s a precious stone that must constantly be burnished. A further irony is that these apparently liabilities—the dynastic heritage, the conservative reluctance to second guess—each work to Bush’s advantage in Republican politics. But when conservatives fret that nominating a Bush will neutralize one of Hillary Clinton’s only big weaknesses, this—the inherent awkwardness of squaring the recent historical record with the current state of public opinion—is exactly what they have in mind. Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and authorizing the war in Iraq <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/may/12/jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-and-authorizing-war-iraq/> // PolitiFact // Amy Sherman – May 12, 2015 Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s comments on Fox News about the Iraq War brought up more questions than answers. Did Bush fully understood the question posed by Megyn Kelly on May 10? We’ll go straight to the transcript. Kelly: "On the subject of Iraq, very controversial, knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?" Bush: "I would have, and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody, and so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got." Kelly: "You don't think it was a mistake?" Bush: "In retrospect, the intelligence that everybody saw, that the world saw, not just the United States, was faulty. And in retrospect, once we invaded and took out Saddam Hussein, we didn't focus on security first, and the Iraqis in this incredibly insecure environment turned on the United States military because there was no security for themselves and their families. By the way, guess who thinks that those mistakes took place as well? George W. Bush." His remarks drew considerable attention: Was Bush saying that even knowing the intelligence was faulty, even he and Clinton would have gone to war anyway? After the interview aired, Kelly said, "I do think, in fairness to Gov. Bush, when I said ‘knowing what we know now would you have invaded Iraq,’ I think he was trying to answer the question: ‘Do you think it was a mistake at the time?’ " she said. "That was my take on it in the interview. He wasn’t trying to say, ‘Still today I don’t there is an issue.’ " Bush went on Sean Hannity’s radio show May 12 to clarify his remarks. "I interpreted the question wrong, I guess," Bush said. "I was talking about, given what people knew then, would you have done it, rather that knowing what we know now. And knowing what we know now, clearly there were mistakes as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead up to war and the lack of focus on security. My brother has admitted this, and we have to learn from that." Of course, it’s impossible to know with certainty how people would have acted if history were different. But we suspect Clinton would have answered the question differently than Bush. How candidate Clinton and presidential contender Bush talk about the Iraq war will be a major foreign policy topic in the 2016 race, so we decided to take a look at their statements about the Iraq war. Hillary Clinton Clinton has said recently that she regrets her 2002 vote, which ended up being a stumbling block during her 2008 presidential campaign. In her 2014 book Hard Choices, Clinton said this about her vote: "While many were never going to look past my 2002 vote no matter what I did or said, I should have stated my regret sooner and in the plainest, most direct language possible. I’d gone most of the way there by saying I regretted the way President Bush used his authority and by saying that if we knew then what we later learned, there wouldn’t have been a vote. But I held out against using the word mistake. It wasn’t because of political expediency. After all, primary voters and the press were clamoring for me to say that word. When I voted to authorize force in 2002, I said that it was ‘probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make.’ I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple." On Meet the Press on Sept. 23, 2007, she said, "Well, I cast a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time, and I take responsibility for that vote. I also said on the floor that day that this was not a vote for pre-emptive war. ... Now, obviously, if I had known then what I know now about what the president would do with the authority that was given him, I would not have voted the way that I did." She made similar comments on the Today Show on Dec. 18, 2006: "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote, and I certainly wouldn't have voted for it." Her decision in 2002 to vote for the Iraq war urged international co-operation and focused on Saddam Hussein’s atrocities. She described Hussein as "a tyrant" who used weapons to kill more than 20,000 people and that he blocked weapons inspections in 1998. "A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president and we say to him -- use these powers wisely and as a last resort," Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor. "And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein -- this is your last chance -- disarm or be disarmed. Jeb Bush’s statements about the Iraq war Bush showed strong support for his brother leading up to and during the war. During a 2003 news conference in Pensacola, Bush said, "It is the last thing that a commander in chief, a president of the United States, wants to do. But in his heart, I know he is doing what he thinks is right, and I concur with him." In April 2006, amid mounting criticism of how President Bush was handling the war, Gov. Bush visited Florida troops in Iraq for Easter. "It is very important that we stay the course, that we provide support for these incredible people that are doing such a service for liberty around the world and protecting our freedoms here," Bush said upon returning. Bush has been asked about the Iraq war several times since he left office in January 2007. In March 2013, CNN’s Candy Crowley asked Bush about polls showing that the American public thinks the war was a mistake: "Do you think that will ever change?" Bush: "Yes. You know, a lot of things in history change over time. I think people will respect the resolve that my brother showed, both in defending the country and the war in Iraq. But history will judge that in a more objective way than today. The war has wound down now, and it's still way too early to judge what success it had in providing some degree of stability in the region." As Bush has explored a bid for president, at times he has tried to avoid picking apart his brother’s decisions about Iraq. At an event with his mother in Florida in February, Bush told reporters that he would not be addressing the war in Iraq or "re-litigating anything in the past." But that’s exactly what he has had to do. In a February speech in Chicago, Bush said during the question-and-answer session: "There were mistakes made in Iraq, for sure," Bush said, adding that the intelligence "that everybody embraced about weapons of mass destruction turned out to not be accurate." Bush also faulted his brother's administration for failing to create "an environment for security" in Iraq after the removal of Hussein. However, he called his brother's decision to deploy 20,000 additional troops into Iraq in 2007 "one of the most heroic acts of courage, politically, that any president's done because there was no support." While in New Hampshire in March, Bush said that if Obama had kept 10,000 troops in Iraq, it would have prevented the rise of the Islamic State. "The surge worked. We created a fragile degree of stability. The forces agreement the president could have signed, I think, would have avoided where we are today," Bush said, referring to a troop level increase that his brother had authorized. "But we are where we are." He said the United States should "re-engage with some small force level who can help continue to train the Iraqi army, to be able to provide some stability." In his most recent remarks on Hannity, Bush praised the surge again, but wouldn’t say if he would have authorized the war, knowing what he knows now. "Yeah, I don’t know what that decision would have been," Bush said. "That’s a hypothetical. But the simple fact is, mistakes were made. They always are in life and (in) foreign policy. So we need to learn from the past to make sure we are strong and secure going forward." Our conclusion Bush said regarding the Iraq invasion that both himself and Clinton would have authorized it. "I would have and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody, and so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got," he said. Bush can’t know what Clinton would have done if she had known that the intelligence was faulty. Here is what we do know: In 2002, Clinton supported the Iraq resolution, but by 2006 she said she regretted it. Bush was a supporter of the invasion at the time and stood by his brother. He has acknowledged that the intelligence was flawed but has still expressed support for his brother’s decisions. The 13 Questions Hillary Clinton Has Answered From The Press <http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/13/406250488/the-13-questions-hillary-clinton-has-answered-from-the-press> // NPR // Tamara Keith – May 13, 2015 It has been more than three weeks since Hillary Clinton has answered a question from reporters. There is always a tension between the press and the candidates they cover. Journalists want access, and want to ask questions. Campaigns want to control the message. Over time, that has especially been true with Hillary Clinton. Since announcing her candidacy in a web video, there have been no press conferences and no sit-down interviews. It has been a month, and the candidate has answered just 13 reporter questions (at least that we've been able to find, building on the work of National Journal). And you can quibble about whether some of the answers were really answers. Last week in Nevada, as Clinton posed for pictures, we in the press corps attempted to get her attention. All we saw was the back of her head as she walked out of the room, to applause from a small hand-selected group of participants and observers. Clinton's campaign describes this as the ramp-up phase, where she listens to voters. Questions about when there will be interviews, or when she will make herself available to questions from reporters are deflected with something along the lines of: all in good time. Now, this isn't to say the candidate hasn't answered any questions. She's answered plenty. But they've been generally friendly questions on comfortable topics from people invited to participate in round-table discussions with her. Her campaign spokesperson, Nick Merrill responds in an email: The focus of our ramp-up period is to hear from voters about the issues they care about. She's enjoyed engaging in hours of public question and answers sessions and, as the campaign progresses, looks forward to more engagement with voters and the press as well. Until then, here are the 13 reporter questions Clinton has answered: 1. Strategy in Iowa NBC's Kristen Welker caught up with Clinton outside of her very first campaign stop at an Iowa coffee shop: "You lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What's your strategy?" Welker asked. Clinton's reply, as she walked toward an open van door: "I'm having a great time. Can't look forward any more than I am." 2. Liking Iowa AP got in a question as Clinton walked into the Iowa State Capitol building to meet with lawmakers: "How are you liking Iowa?" "I'm having a great time," Clinton answered. 3. Why are you running? ABC's Cecilia Vega got a question in during Clinton's visit to a community college in Iowa. "What would you say to Americans who want to know why you are running?," she asked. "I'm running to be the champion to Americans and their families, so that we can not just worry about treading water, but you can get ahead and you can stay ahead," she answered. 4-6. More liking Iowa, and opportunity structure Clinton answered three other questions from reporters at the community college in Iowa. One was "Is it good to be back out here again?" Her response was: "Welcome. It is, it's fabulous. We're having the best time." She was also asked what she learned during her visit, to which she responded, in part: "So much good information, so much great exchange about what works, what can work not just here in Iowa, but I think across the country." She was also asked a question not caught in recordings of the event, and in response spoke about the start of the campaign and her visit to Iowa. "We're off and running, and I had a great drive across the country. One of the highlights was seeing spring, finally, once I got to Iowa, which I thought was a good sign. I saw daffodils and tulips and flowering trees. It was so beautiful. Just glad to be here," she said. 7-8. Campaign finance plan A pair of Washington Post reporters spotted her outside of an unannounced event and asked about campaign finance reform. The answers weren't substantive. According to the Post, she said "We do have a plan. We have a plan for my plan." 9. Importance of Iowa Brent Roske, the host of the Iowa television show Roske on Politics worked his sources to figure out where the candidate would be. "I found myself basically the sixth car in the motorcade pulling into Mount Vernon, Iowa," he said. He was in the right place at the right time and was able to ask a question. "Secretary Clinton what do you think the importance of the Iowa caucus will be in the upcoming election?," Roske asked. Clinton answered: "I think it's important because it's the first contest and I look forward to getting prepared for it next February." Roske admits it was a softball question. But it's a question he asks all of the candidates he interviews, to get the conversation going. And Roske has interviewed a ton of candidates. His Clinton interview in the middle of the street as she headed into a closed door event has to go down as one of his shortest. "Was hoping to get a minute or two with her and just got a very short exchange," he said. "I was hoping it would spark a bit more of a conversation. I didn't know at the time that she wasn't necessarily taking press questions on this tour." 10. Position on trade deal In New Hampshire, Clinton answered four reporter questions. One was about trade. NBC's Andrea Mitchell asked Clinton about the trade deal, and whether that will hurt American competitiveness. Clinton didn't answer immediately or directly. Instead she talked about an Intellitech machine assembled in Manchester. And then about 30 seconds later, she talked more broadly about trade deals. "Well any trade deal has to produce jobs, and raise wages, and increase prosperity and protect our security. And we have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive," Clinton said. 11. Response to Clinton Cash book ABC's Vega asked Clinton for her response to the Clinton Cash book, specifically: "Did foreign embassies receive any special treatment for making any kind of donations to foundation or your husband?" "Well, we're back into the political season and therefore we will be subjected to all kinds of distraction and attacks. And I'm ready for that. I know that that comes, unfortunately, with the territory," Clinton answered. She went on to say she didn't know what the Republicans would talk about "if I weren't in the race." 12-13. Criticism of a staged campaign And then a reporter from WMUR asked her to respond to criticism that the campaign is too staged. "This is exactly what I want to do. I want to hear from people in New Hampshire about what's on their minds," she said. And the follow-up: "Are you planning to answer reporter questions about some of the things that are coming up regarding the play for pay allegations in the latest book, emails back in 2012?" the reporter asked. "Those issues are in my view distractions from what this campaign should be about. What I'm going to make this campaign about," Clinton responded. But does avoiding questions or not answering them directly hurt her with voters? "The premise of your question presupposes that the way that Hillary Clinton needs to reach voters is through the national media, and that's simply not the case anymore," said Steve Schmidt, a Republican strategist who was a senior adviser on John McCain's Straight Talk Express campaign 