​Correct The Record Monday February 23, 2015 Morning Roundup

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *​**Correct The Record Monday February 23, 2015 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Concord Monitor opinion: Paul W. Hodes and Peter V. Emerson: “My Turn: Who else but Hillary can manage world’s problems?” <http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/15722816-95/my-turn-who-else-but-hillary-can-manage-worlds-problems>* “Although we promised not to join the chorus of those asking Secretary Clinton to run for president, we have taken a sober look at the world’s condition, the prognosis for the future and America’s position in the world, and Hillary Clinton is the only one who can manage the problems that others see as unmanageable.” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Hillary Clinton and the #askhermore Oscar campaign” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/22/hillary-clinton-and-the-askhermore-oscar-campaign/>* “‘Ready for Hillary’, a super PAC urging the former Secretary of State to run for president, tweeted the hashtag #askhermore Sunday night before the Oscars. It's part of a campaign supported by actresses like Reese Witherspoon and Lena Dunham for reporters to ask more than ‘who are you wearing?’ on the red carpet.” *The Daily Beast: “Sorry, But Clinton’s Inevitably Is Not a Problem” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/23/sorry-but-clinton-s-inevitably-is-not-a-problem.html>* [Subtitle:] “And how exactly is it a bad thing for her or Democrats that Hillary Clinton has the nomination all but sewn up? News flash: It’s not.” *New York Times: “Economic Recovery Under Obama Creates Quandaries for 2016 Race” <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/23/us/politics/economic-recovery-under-obama-creates-quandaries-for-2016-race.html?_r=0>* “As both parties begin positioning themselves for the election to succeed Mr. Obama, the politics of the economy are far more complicated than the president would have them. Among Democrats, there are divisions over the degree to which Hillary Rodham Clinton, considered their leading contender, should praise the recovery and run on Mr. Obama’s stewardship of the economy.” *Politico: “National security still a perception problem for Democrats” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/national-security-democrats-115374.html>* “Now, more so than at any other time in the past 12 years, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to protect them from terrorism. A new report by Ben Freeman and Michelle Diggles from Third Way, a center-left think tank, claimed to have identified the Democrats’ antidote: Hillary Clinton.” *Wall Street Journal: “Biden’s Trips Fan 2016 Race Speculation” <http://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-stays-relevant-for-presidential-run-1424638769>* “When Vice President Joe Biden traveled to South Carolina last week to speak about investing in infrastructure, some longtime supporters had another topic on their minds: 2016.” *Articles:* *Concord Monitor opinion: Paul W. Hodes and Peter V. Emerson: “My Turn: Who else but Hillary can manage world’s problems?” <http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/15722816-95/my-turn-who-else-but-hillary-can-manage-worlds-problems>* By Paul W. Hodes and Peter V. Emerson February 22, 2015 We see ads frequently reminding us that friends do not let friends drive drunk. And we are also devoted to the idea that friends should not ask friends to run for president. We are referring to all the drums beating, tongues wagging and lips pronouncing, “Run, Hillary, run.” We are not friends with Secretary Clinton, but we have great admiration and respect for her career of public service. She carries with her a list of accomplishments to which few can lay claim. She is respected and lauded around the world. Her ideas have tremendous power and influence because of her unparalleled experience. So why would anyone wish on her one of the dirtiest, most degrading and exhausting processes ever conceived of? Already the lies, distortions and vicious personal attacks have begun. In fact, they never stopped; they just don’t make it to the front pages of the papers or newscasts or postings every day. But they are out there, whispered and repeated myriad times every day and echoed by Fox News and other proponents of anything but the news or facts. The world is becoming increasingly unstable and unpredictable, and therefore often far more threatening and dangerous to America and to American citizens at home and abroad. Looking but a few years down the road; there will be less food, less potable water and fewer basic human necessities for most of the world’s exponentially expanding population. Consequently, there will be more violence, civil strive and war. Unfortunately, many Americans are geographically and geopolitically challenged. Many still believe that America dominates the world and that we are neither dependent upon the international community nor subject to events occurring outside our borders. In short, many still hold opinions based on a world order long ago dismantled. We are now interconnected and interdependent upon every region of the world. Thus international stability and our continued prosperity are under attack in our shrinking world: ∎ The continued advance of the Islamic State has already further destabilized an already precarious order in the unstable Middle East ∎ The escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate with almost daily outbreaks of killings and retaliation. ∎ Iran’s continued nuclear program ∎ The slowing of the Chinese economy and the potential head-on conflict over the Diaoyu Islands in China and the Senkaku islands in Japan. ∎ The postponement of the election in Africa’s largest democracy, Nigeria, a success for Boko Haram ∎ Greece’s possible default on its debt and the impact on the European Union ∎ North Korea’s continued militaristic posture and nuclear capabilities ∎ Declining crop production in critical areas around the world And the list goes on and on and on. So what do these events mean to a waitress in New Hampshire, a farmer in Iowa, a rancher in Montana, an avocado grower in California, a high-tech entrepreneur in Massachusetts, a fisherman in Maine, a single mother in Harlem, a pensioner in Phoenix, a widower in Washington, our neighbors, family and friends? It means that events in other countries, often far away, spill into and through our borders. Americans are part of a new global order – or too frequently global disorder – that challenges our traditional notions of American exceptionalism and leadership. International crises that emerge anew each day directly affect the prices of our food, gas, health care, etc. – our domestic tranquility and our national security. All these events affect the bottom-line of all American households. So when we cut through the clutter of lies and gross distortions of the facts – all meant to create fear – to weigh and examine who’s capable of making a dent in these seemingly intractable problems and challenges, there is only one person who is capable of managing them. Please note that we did not say solve these intractable problems because that would be impossible. But managing problems and challenges, that’s possible. Although we promised not to join the chorus of those asking Secretary Clinton to run for president, we have taken a sober look at the world’s condition, the prognosis for the future and America’s position in the world, and Hillary Clinton is the only one who can manage the problems that others see as unmanageable. But given our pledge, we are reluctant to ask her to run for president, so we urge her to look around the world and within this extraordinary country of ours and ask herself, “Who else can accomplish what I can accomplish?” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Hillary Clinton and the #askhermore Oscar campaign” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/22/hillary-clinton-and-the-askhermore-oscar-campaign/>* By Hunter Schwarz February 22, 2015, 8:56 p.m. EST "Ready for Hillary", a super PAC urging the former Secretary of State to run for president, tweeted the hashtag #askhermore Sunday night before the Oscars. It's part of a campaign supported by actresses like Reese Witherspoon and Lena Dunham for reporters to ask more than "who are you wearing?" on the red carpet. The campaign comes on the heels of a re-energized conversation about sexism in Hollywood following revelations from last year's Sony Pictures hack that female actresses were in many instances paid less than their male counterparts. On E!, Ryan Seacrest seemed to have gotten the message, asking the "who-are-you-wearing" question throughout the night without actually using those exact words in that exact order, and promptly following it up with a similar question for the man. ("Who designed your dress?" he asked Chrissy Teigen before asking her husband, John Legend, what he was wearing). E! also got rid of the mani-cam. While asking actresses questions about things other than fashion is something we should do a lot more of (why wouldn't you ask everyone on the Golden Globes red carpet last month what they thought about the Sony hack that happened just weeks before?!?), it's not just a question that's completely based in sexism; it's a big part of the fashion industry. "You might say that awards season is as important, if not even more important, to fashion brands as it is to the entertainment companies that are honored in these ceremonies like the Oscars," Howard Hogan, an attorney and partner in the Washington, D.C.,-based firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "A favorable review for an Oscar gown can be make or break for the designers who outfit them." Red carpet fashion can involve contracts and money changing hands. Los Angeles Times reporter Booth Moore tweeted that if we really want to get rid of "who are you wearing," we need to get rid of fashion brands paying actresses to wear their clothes. Without that, the question might not go away. During the 2010 Oscars, Ryan Seacrest abstained from asking about fashion and was criticized by some in the fashion press, and now five years later, and he's back to asking those question again. But in politics, where politicians don't have to sign contracts about what wear, this campaign is still good news for female candidates. It shows there's a growing interest in ensuring reporters, whether on the red carpet or in Iowa, treat men and women equally. *The Daily Beast: “Sorry, But Clinton’s Inevitably Is Not a Problem” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/23/sorry-but-clinton-s-inevitably-is-not-a-problem.html>* By Ana Marie Cox February 23, 2015 [Subtitle:] And how exactly is it a bad thing for her or Democrats that Hillary Clinton has the nomination all but sewn up? News flash: It’s not. Pundits can't stop snatching Hillary's defeat from the jaws of victory, insisting that her commanding lead in the polls is itself a problem. A Vox piece this week is typical: “Hillary Clinton's uncontested nomination is dangerous for her and her party,” but I’d like to give points to Politico for finding a slightly different angle, “All-too-ready for Hillary,” which argues that Clinton’s real problem is all the really talented people who want to work for her. Clinton may not win, but blaming a loss on her popularity (or overly talented staff!) exposes the weak, desperate illogic of a pundit class that is mostly just filling time and news cycle holes until anything real happens. An “air of inevitability” should be a good thing, right? It’s in the superhero toolbox, right next to the cloak of invisibility and hammer of invincibility. So why do journalists treat it like kryptonite? On some level, it may be due to amorphous ill will towards Clinton herself, whether motivated by generic sexism or a more specific dislike of her notoriously prickly staff. (The "which came first" between a prickly staff and the negative coverage is a chicken-and-egg-meets-Heisenberg Principle problem whose solution deserves a Nobel in both science and peace for the person who solves it.) "Of course she's going to win the primary, and that’s great for her!" is also the coldest take one could imagine, the kind of "another plane landed today" non-news that political reporters believe in their bones to be inherently uninteresting—as if the point of news was to be interesting, rather than factually correct. The only kind of accuracy political pundits care about has to do with predictions. The continuing spate of concern-trolling on Hillary’s behalf might just be padding out a soft landing should anything not work out exactly like most polls and political scientists predict. Airy counter-intuitive clickbait is also a lot easier than reporting anything, and almost impossible to call out as untrue, especially when it comes embedded with iceberg-sized caveats such as this (from the Vox piece): At the end of the day, presidential campaign gaffes rarely seem to matter much. But they surely don't help. And one reason they don't matter is that nobody makes it through the nominating process without showing they can take the heat. In 2016, Clinton isn't going to have to show that. And it might cost her—and her party—dearly down the road. There is something to be said for working the kinks out of a campaign, as differentiated from a punishing series of preliminary contests. Still, politics can't be rigged like a non-conference schedule, a perfect balance of real competition and record-padding that gets you both ready and well-seeded for the big dance. Indeed, sports may be the one place that Americans truly prefer underdogs, but even then, NJIT jerseys do not sell as well as University of Kentucky ones. Clinton’s connection to purportedly unpopular Obama policies is also a real concern, though one that requires those making the argument to straight-up ignore data that say people will vote for Clinton in favor of squishier "how do you feel" answers—as though that means more than the question that is, you know, the one on the ballot. The story “Why Hillary Clinton isn’t even close to a shoo-in, explained in one poll question,” is, for some reason, not about the one poll question that shows her to be a shoo-in. A variant of the “too popular to win” theory is the hypothesis that Clinton is only popular because of her familiar name, but having a familiar name is actually a bad thing. The argument that HRC (and/or Jeb Bush) represents a dynastic tendency that voters may rebel against is at least real argument, as opposed to the logical contortion of "inevitable=not inevitable.” The proof that “Americans hate dynasties” is a real argument is that is a testable hypothesis! Testable and proven wrong, by the polls that show Hillary to be so popular. In general, if there's a political dynasty that America doesn't love, well, we haven't heard of it, and there are plenty of political dynasties in America. Though some may point toward anti-Hillary coverage as proof that the media are not biased to the left, I consider this tendency toward deliberate, counter-factual undermining as pretty good evidence of that very bias, mostly because you just don't see this pathology on the right. Base voters on either side rattle their cages when the presumptive nominee doesn't fit their specific ideological prescription, but the Karl Roves of the world don't lay into a GOP hopeful just because he’s (or she, but come on…) clearly going to win. Poll numbers are not subject to the insecurity and attention-seeking that reporters are, and they tell a much less sexy, “Hillary leads the polls and you won’t believe what happens next”-type story. What reporters insist on calling "inevitability" is a quantifiably unprecedented amount of support. According to the pollsters at The New York Times, “No candidate, excluding incumbent presidents, has ever fared so well in the early primary polls as Mrs. Clinton. She holds about 60 percent of the vote of Democratic voters, a tally dwarfing the 40 percent she held this time in the last election cycle.” I’ll say it: Barring her own Titanic/iceberg moment, Hillary will win the nomination, and she will be in excellent position to win the general. Perhaps the only thing that can keep her from being in such an enviable position is the steady drip of negative coverage that proclaims otherwise. *New York Times: “Economic Recovery Under Obama Creates Quandaries for 2016 Race” <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/23/us/politics/economic-recovery-under-obama-creates-quandaries-for-2016-race.html?_r=0>* By Jonathan Martin February 22, 2015 WASHINGTON — When President Obama addressed members of the Democratic National Committee here over the weekend, he offered a glowing account of the economic recovery under his administration. “America is coming back,” he said after rattling off an array of upbeat economic indicators. “We’ve risen from recession.” But as both parties begin positioning themselves for the election to succeed Mr. Obama, the politics of the economy are far more complicated than the president would have them. Among Democrats, there are divisions over the degree to which Hillary Rodham Clinton, considered their leading contender, should praise the recovery and run on Mr. Obama’s stewardship of the economy. And Republicans — assessing falling unemployment and soaring job creation under a president with still-mediocre approval ratings — are grasping for the right way to frame their 2016 campaign message. The coming debate over the economy, and by extension Mr. Obama’s legacy, is a particularly acute topic for governors, who are often judged by voters on their states’ economic performance and who spend much of their time on job creation. As the governors gathered here for their annual winter meeting, there was bipartisan optimism about the economy, but it was guarded. “In many parts of the country, we are seeing increasing momentum in terms of recovery, but in almost every state, and certainly in parts of Colorado, we are still struggling to get the unemployment down,” Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado said, “and most importantly the wages still haven’t started rising.” Colorado’s unemployment rate was down to 4 percent in December, below the national average, which was 5.7 percent in January, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But Mr. Hickenlooper’s sober analysis suggests an awareness that voters are not yet enjoying a boon and certainly are not yet fully crediting Mr. Obama for the recovery. Indeed, a Quinnipiac University poll in Colorado, a crucial swing state, released last week indicated that 58 percent of voters said they wanted the next president to “change direction from Barack Obama’s policies,” and the president’s job approval rating was only 43 percent. Perhaps mindful of such data, Mr. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, indicated that Mrs. Clinton could not run simply on the recent good economic news. “I am not saying who the candidate is going to be, but I don’t think she will come with, ‘Everything is fine, everything is going well,’ ” he said. “I suspect that she will come forward with some new ideas and some innovative ideas on how we can begin to move wages up and how we can help businesses expand more rapidly and create more jobs.” Yet in another important state on the presidential map, the Democratic governor said Mrs. Clinton should not be shy about linking herself to Mr. Obama’s record. “She should embrace the Obama economic policies that have moved the country forward, absolutely,” said the governor, Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, a close friend of both Mrs. Clinton’s and former President Bill Clinton’s. “Go through the numbers, look where we are today. Things are booming.” But Mr. McAuliffe was quick to add that Mr. Obama could make it easier for Mrs. Clinton to offer that embrace if his administration was more effective in trumpeting the recovery. “I think they need to do a much better job of explaining their successes,” said Mr. McAuliffe, who was the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. “I don’t get it.” What most of the governors, in both parties, agreed on was that longstanding wage stagnation was diminishing the political impact of the recovery. “We still have a wage problem. We are still creating too many low-wage, not family-supporting, jobs,” said Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island, a Democrat who was elected last year in a state that was among the hardest hit by the recession. Ms. Raimondo, whose state has a 6.8 percent unemployment rate, added: “So there is a lot of work to do. She has a wage problem that she has to fix.” The country’s structural economic challenges — whether wages, diminished manufacturing or other challenges associated with globalization — are such that Mrs. Clinton must come up with her own agenda, Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware, another Democrat, said. “I think it would be a mistake for somebody to be running on ‘It’s great guns; we just have to keep doing what we’re doing,’ ” Mr. Markell said. “It ought to be, ‘In a changing world, here are the things we need to do differently.’ ” Early signs suggest that Mrs. Clinton intends to offer proposals that would move beyond Mr. Obama’s ideas — notably a plan to offer incentives to corporations that increase profit-sharing with employees. If Democrats are grappling with how best to hail the resurgent economy while acknowledging its underlying difficulties, Republicans are engaged in a conversation over whether they should remain critical of the recovery, claim a share of credit for it or move on to different issues. Many of the Republican governors from states where economic improvement has been significant on their watch are uneasy about their nominee’s continuing to bad-mouth the economy. Gov. Terry E. Branstad of Iowa, where unemployment is down to 4.1 percent, said Republican presidential candidates should point to job growth in Republican-led states. “Take some credit for what Republican governors have done, because the recipe to revitalize the national economy is to do the same thing,” Mr. Branstad said He also suggested that Republicans ought to focus on national security, an issue on which Mr. Obama may prove to be more vulnerable than the economy. *Politico: “National security still a perception problem for Democrats” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/national-security-democrats-115374.html>* By Adam B. Lerner February 23, 2015, 5:35 a.m. EST [Subtitle:] Report: Voters trust Republicans more to protect them from terrorism. Now, more so than at any other time in the past 12 years, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to protect them from terrorism. A new report by Ben Freeman and Michelle Diggles from Third Way, a center-left think tank, claimed to have identified the Democrats’ antidote: Hillary Clinton. Focus groups conducted in October and November 2014 with white college-educated swing voters in Colorado and Iowa indicated that Clinton was an exception to the Democrats’ otherwise lackluster performance, the researchers found. Respondents said she “exhibits strength without being pushy” and is “quicker to make decisions” than President Barack Obama without being too proactive like former President George W. Bush. In Gallup polls dating back to 2003, Republicans have consistently led Democrats on national security — except for an approximately 18-month period from 2007 to mid-2008. Republicans now have a 23-percentage-point lead, after hovering in the teens and single digits through the rest of the period. It remains unclear whether Clinton’s personal favorability on national security will last into a national campaign, the researchers found; respondents praised the current Democratic front-runner in vague terms but their skepticism of her party and the president for whom she worked as secretary of state could sully her brand as she takes more public stances. Third Way Senior Vice President Matt Bennett said he believes Clinton’s appeal could work in the other direction. “An ancillary benefit [of a Clinton candidacy] will be that it will help close the security gap for the party” at large, he said. The report stated that voters often intertwine immigration with foreign policy, meaning the issue could have particular resonance in 2016 if Obama’s executive action to grant undocumented immigrants legal status and the rise of extremist groups in the Middle East are still key topics of debate. Bennett believes that a Clinton campaign will need to “lean in” on national security to maximize her advantage. The report’s analysis also made an argument that national security is a more important electoral issue than originally believed. During the 2014 midterms, even though only 13 percent of voters said foreign policy was the most important issue facing the country, the large gap between the parties on the issue made it far more decisive than an issue like the economy. Third Way’s analysis found that Democrats’ advantage with regards to the economy earned them only 2.6 percent in the polls, while national security and immigration both lost the party 5 percent. Further, the authors found a strong correlation between voters’ opinion of parties’ handling of national security and their overall opinions of the parties, though shifts in the former weren’t typically followed in the latter for about a year. That analysis implies that the fact that Republicans currently lead Democrats on national security by the largest margin in more than a decade means the Democratic Party’s overall favorability relative to the Republican Party is set to tank. As for Obama’s most significant foreign policy achievements, Third Way found that voters couldn’t care less. “The benefit of the bin Laden raid is gone entirely,” said Bennett. In one focus group the researchers convened, a Colorado woman tried to identify his killing as a major Obama foreign policy success. “That guy, they made a movie about him. You know the skinny guy with the beard.” None of the other eight or so respondents knew his name either, the report noted. *Wall Street Journal: “Biden’s Trips Fan 2016 Race Speculation” <http://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-stays-relevant-for-presidential-run-1424638769>* By Colleen McCain Nelson February 22, 2015, 3:59 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] Vice President keeps supporters guessing on whether he will challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 When Vice President Joe Biden traveled to South Carolina last week to speak about investing in infrastructure, some longtime supporters had another topic on their minds: 2016. “You need to run,” Dick Harpootlian, former Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina, told the vice president during a stop in Columbia. Mr. Biden gave his friend a smile and a coy answer. “We’ll talk,” Mr. Harpootlian recounted the vice president saying. Mr. Biden has taken no overt steps toward building a national campaign machinery, and few people expect him to run. Nonetheless, Mr. Biden in recent weeks has fanned the will-he-or-won’t-he conversation by suggesting that he’s still considering a bid and by scheduling trips to three states that hold the earliest presidential nominating contests. His recent travels to Iowa and South Carolina—as well as a planned Wednesday excursion to New Hampshire—have been official White House business to promote the administration’s agenda. But inevitably, talk turns to the presidential campaign in private conversations. Mr. Biden doesn’t seem to mind, fellow Democrats say, but he remains consistently noncommittal. In January, Mr. Biden described the presidential race as “wide open” and said he may wait until summer to make a final decision on his own plans. Assessing Mr. Biden’s intent, Democratic strategists say the not-in, not-out strategy suggests that the vice president is keeping his options open on the off-chance that Hillary Clinton doesn’t run. Polls show that Mrs. Clinton, who has yet to officially announce her candidacy, holds a commanding lead over all other potential contenders in her party, and strategists say it is unlikely that Mr. Biden would challenger her. Joe Trippi, a longtime Democratic consultant, said Mr. Biden would be embarking on a much more aggressive effort if he were planning to square off against Mrs. Clinton. “He’s doing things that help him in the event that everyone is wrong but not expending so much energy on what could be a futile mission,” he said. “He’s being realistic.” Mr. Biden’s approach is also aimed at solidifying the Obama administration legacy, and his role in it, by urging members of his party to “acknowledge what we have done” rather than distance themselves from it, as many Democrats did during the 2014 midterm campaigns. His argument may carry more sway if Mr. Biden is seen as a figure with political relevance and a future. The vice president had all but fallen out of the 2016 conversation, but he inserted himself into the political fray in January by saying he might seek the Democratic nomination. During his recent trip to Iowa, Mr. Biden repeated that timeline and stoked speculation by calling for a continuation of President Barack Obama’s policies while urging Democrats to run on this White House’s record in 2016. “Some say that would amount to a third term of the president,” Mr. Biden said during a speech at Drake University. “I call it sticking with what works.” Beyond that public declaration, the vice president said little privately during his trips to Iowa and South Carolina that suggested he was ready to run. Democrats in those states, as well as in New Hampshire, say they’ve seen no evidence of organizing efforts by Biden emissaries, and many supporters say no one from the vice president’s circle has even hinted that local officials might want to hold off on committing to other candidates. In Iowa, Mr. Biden reunited with some local Democrats when he stopped by Smokey Row Coffee in Des Moines. Abby Finkenauer, a state representative from Dubuque who volunteered for Mr. Biden’s 2008 presidential campaign, managed to snag a few minutes with the vice president at the coffee shop to catch up. But there was no mention of future plans, she said. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton’s emerging campaign is already lining up staff, and other groups have long been at work gathering donors and building a supporter network on her behalf. A New Hampshire Democratic strategist said there are no indications that Mr. Biden is organizing in that state, but the Ready for Hillary organization has been moving quickly to lock up commitments from Democrats. Still, Biden supporters in early primary states say they’re holding out hope. “He is the perfect successor to this president because he is part of the team that developed the policies that brought us this far,” Mr. Harpootlian said. “Joe Biden ought to be the next president of the United States.” *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html> ) · March 3 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton honored by EMILY’s List (AP <http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=SUjRlg8K>) · March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton Foundation (WSJ <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/> ) · March 10 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton addresses United Nations Women’s Conference (Bloomberg <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-19/hillary-clinton-to-headline-united-nations-women-s-conference>) · March 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to keynote Irish American Hall of Fame (NYT <https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/562349766731108352>) · March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>) · March 23 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton to keynote award ceremony for the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting (Syracuse <http://newhouse.syr.edu/news-events/news/former-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-newhouse-school-s> )