podesta_email_02046.txt

podesta-emails 52,895 words email
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
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=5a6T
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

					*H4A Press Clips*

*May 2-3, 2015*

*SUMMARY OF THE WEEKEND NEWS *

Hillary Clinton’s campaign hit back against Peter Schweizer, the author of
a controversial book that questions Clinton’s impartiality while at the
State Department, and attacked him for referring to himself as part of the
conservative cause during a Koch Brothers-funded conference. Politico
article gives a process analysis of Hillary Clinton campaign fundraising
tactics and predicts that Jeb Bush will have raised more money that Hillary
Clinton by the end of June. In addition, the New York Times had a story
about the progressive groups pushing Hillary Clinton to move to the left in
her agenda.

In the case of Freddie Gray’s death, in Baltimore’s chief prosecutor
charged six police officers with a range of crimes including manslaughter
and murder. Gov. Chris Christie’s former ally pleads guilty to his role in
the intentional closing in 2013 of the George Washington Bridge and two
others were indicted. Gov. Christie has been cleared of any charges brought
against him at this time. The Obama Administration has imposed tougher
safety regulations for trains carrying crude oil, responding to growing
alarm about a series of fiery derailments that killed dozens of people in a
small Canadian town and have rattled U.S. communities from North Dakota to
Alabama to Virginia.

*WEEKEND’S KEY STORIES
 5*

*Hillary Clinton’s big-money dilemma*
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clintons-big-money-dilemma-117559.html?ml=po>*
// Politico // Glenn Thrush and Anna Palmer – May 1,
2015………………………………………………………………………5*

There is a growing realization inside Hillary Clinton’s Brooklyn
headquarters and among the wider circle of Democratic operatives that
coming up with the requisite $1 billion to $2.5 billion in campaign and
super PAC cash for the 2016 campaign will be a lot tougher than anticipated
— and demands a more aggressive approach to out-of-the-gate fundraising.

*6 Baltimore Police Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death*
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/us/freddie-gray-autopsy-report-given-to-baltimore-prosecutors.html?ref=todayspaper>*
// New York Times // Alan Blinder and Richard Pérez-Peña – May 1,
2015…………….9*

Baltimore’s chief prosecutor charged six police officers on Friday with a
range of crimes including murder and manslaughter in the arrest and fatal
injury of Freddie Gray, a striking and surprisingly swift turn in a case
that has drawn national attention to police conduct. The state’s attorney
for Baltimore City, Marilyn J. Mosby, filed the charges almost as soon as
she received a medical examiner’s report that ruled Mr. Gray’s death a
homicide, and a day after the police concluded their initial investigation
and handed over their findings.

*Key Christie ally pleads guilty to role in Bridgegate, two others indicted*
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/key-christie-aide-pleads-guilty-to-role-in-bridgegate/2015/05/01/d0ea2a90-f00d-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html>*
// Washington Post // Rosalind S. Helderman – May 1, 2015………………..13*

A onetime ally of Christie pleaded guilty Friday, while two others were
indicted, in connection with an intentional 2013 traffic jam leading to the
George Washington Bridge. David Wildstein, who as an official at the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey had ordered the closure of two of the
bridge’s toll lanes, confirmed to a federal judge Friday that he closed the
lanes to punish the mayor of Fort Lee, Democrat Mark Sokolich, who declined
to endorse the Republican governor’s reelection bid.

*HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE
16*

Hillary Clinton’s smartest move: Say no to TPP, and join the Warren/Krugman
forces
<http://www.salon.com/2015/05/02/hillary_clintons_smartest_move_say_no_to_tpp_and_join_the_warrenkrugman_forces/>
// Salon // Elias Iquith – May 2, 2015………………………….……………………………………….16

Author: Clinton Foundation Disclosures 'Sloppy At The Very Least'
<http://www.npr.org/2015/05/02/403766807/author-clinton-foundation-disclosures-sloppy-at-the-very-least>
// NPR // Scott Simon – May 2, 2015…..……………………………………………………………………………………17

Hillary Clinton's conflict-of-interest problems
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0503-mcmanus-clinton-foundation-20150503-column.html>
// LATimes // Doyle McManus – May 2, 2015…
……………………………………………………………………..……………………………………..19

Hillary campaign pans 'Clinton Cash' author for comments at Koch event
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/240854-hillary-campaign-pans-clinton-cash-author-for-comments-at-koch>
//The Hill // Ben Kamisar - May 1, 2015………………………………………………………………………………20

Clinton Loyalist Joins Priorities ‘Super PAC’
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/01/clinton-loyalist-joins-priorities-super-pac/>
// First Draft – New York Times – May 1,
2015………………………………………………………………………………………………………………22

Clinton Accelerates Fundraising Efforts for Primaries in Presidential Bid
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-accelerates-fundraising-efforts-for-primaries-in-presidential-bid-1430521475>
// Wall Street Journal // Peter Nicholas - May 1, 2015
…………………………………………………………..23

Clinton ramps up fundraising as GOP candidates surge ahead
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/04/30/clinton-bush-white-house-fundraising/26653095/>
// USAToda // Fredreka Schouten – May 1, 2015
…………………………………………………………………………………..25

Hillary Clinton and the Tragic Politics of Crime
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-tragic-politics-of-crime/392114/>
// The Atlantic // Peter Beinart - May 1, 2015
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..………..27

Liberals urge Clinton to go left, where she risks losing swing votes
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-hillary-clinton-liberals-conflict-20150501-story.html>
// LA Times // Evan Halper - May 1,
2015…………………………………..……………………………………………………..28

Hillary Clinton Courts the Democratic Left, but Is Pressured to Take
Progressive Stands
<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/us/politics/hillary-clinton-welcomes-the-democratic-left-but-is-pressured-to-take-progressive-stands.html?_r=0&referrer=>
// New York Times // Jonathan Martin and Nicholas Confessore – May 1,
2015…….30

Why Is Hillary Running Left?
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/01/why_is_hillary_running_left_126447.html>
// Real Clear Politics// Sean Trende – May 1, 2015…..33

AP-GFK POLL: Doubts About Clinton's Honesty After Emails
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_POLL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-01-15-25-38>
// AP // Lisa Lerer and Emily Swanson – May 1, 2015
……………..…………………………………………………………..35

Hillary Clinton a Free Trader, or Not, Depending on the Moment
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-01/hillary-clinton-a-free-trader-or-not-depending-on-the-moment>
// Bloomberg // Mike Dorning – May, 1 2015
……………………………………………………………………………………..37

On Clinton's age, Republican rivals imply -- but never say -- she's old
<http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NM34V20150501?irpc=932> //
Reuters // James Oliphant – May 1, 2015 …….…………………………………………………………………….40

The bipartisan corruption of American politics
<http://www.vox.com/2015/5/1/8519077/clinton-foundation-corruption> // vox
// Ezra Klein – May 1, 2015 ..43

Clinton Charities Raked in Millions of Taxpayer Dollars
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-charities-raked-in-millions-of-taxpayer-dollars/>
// Free Beacon // Elizabeth Harrington – May 1,
2015…………………………………………………………………………………..46

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE 50*

Sanders draws warm welcome in New Hampshire
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-says-he-will-register-as-a-democrat-if-needed-for-primary-fight/2015/05/02/39dc71f6-f02d-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html>
// Washington Post // Aaron C. Davis - May 2, 2015
………………………………………………………………………………………….………..50

Sanders will register as a Democrat if needed
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-says-he-will-register-as-a-democrat-if-needed-for-primary-fight/2015/05/02/39dc71f6-f02d-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html>
// Washington Post // Aaron C. Davis – May 2, 2015
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..53

Elizabeth Warren praises Bernie Sanders’ prez bid
<https://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/05/elizabeth_warren_praises_bernie_sanders_prez_bid>
// Boston Herald // Prisca Pointdujour – May 2, 2015
…………………………………….…………………………………………..54

Bernie Sanders Yells His Mind
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/opinion/gail-collins-bernie-sanders-yells-his-mind.html>
// New York Times – Opinions // Gail Collins – May 1,2015
……………………………………………………………………………………………..………………..55

Bernie Sanders raises $1.5 million in 24 hours, says his campaign
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-raises-1-5-million-in-24-hours-says-his-campaign/>
// Washington Post // Philip Rucker - May 1,
2015………………………………………………………………………………..56

Bernie Sanders Could Curb Hillary's Enthusiasm
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-could-curb-hillary-clintons-enthusiasm>
// U.S. News and World Report The Run 2016 // David Catanese - May 1,
2015………………………………………..………………..57

…

Baltimore riots hurt O'Malley's already slim chances
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/baltimore-riots-hurt-omalleys-already-slim-chances-117545.html?hp=r2_4>
// Politico // James Hohmann – May 1,
2015………………………………………………………...…………………………………………..60

*GOP
 66 *

Cleveland's 2016 convention plan: Don't be Baltimore
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clevelands-2016-convention-plan-dont-be-baltimore-117569.html>
// Politico // Daniel Lippman – May 2, 2015
……………………………………………………………………………………………….……..66

Republicans seeking White House say it’s all about stopping Hillary Clinton
<http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150502/PC1603/150509822/1177/republicans-seeking-white-house-say-it-x2019-s-all-about-stopping-hillary-clinton>
// Post and Courier // Schuyler Kropf - May 2, 2015
……………………………………...……………………..66

Jeb Bush exploits major loophole in campaign finance rule
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-exploits-huge-loophole-campaign-money-rule>
// MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin- May 2, 2015………………………………………………………………………………….……..68

Jeb's secret Jersey mission
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/jebs-secret-jersey-mission-117567.html>
// Politico // Alex Isenstadt – May 2, 2015………..………..71

No charges, but Christie's troubles persist
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/02/charges-christies-troubles-persist/26793945/>
// USAToday // Michael Symons – May 2, 2015
…………………………………………………………………….………………………………………..74

As Ben Carson bashes Obama, many blacks see a hero’s legacy fade
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-ben-carson-bashes-obama-many-blacks-see-a-heros-legacy-fade/2015/05/02/b9ce53c8-e850-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html>
// Washington Post // Robert Samuels - May 2, 2015
……………………………………………………………………..76

Carly Fiorina to launch presidential campaign Monday
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/carly-fiorina-to-launch-presidential-campaign-monday/>
// CBS News // Stephanie Condon – May 1, 2015
……………………………………………………………………………………..82

Ted Cruz Says He Has Asked the Pentagon for Answers on Jade Helm 15
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-02/ted-cruz-says-he-has-asked-the-pentagon-for-answers-on-jade-helm-15>
// Bloomberg // David Weigel – May 2, 2015……………………………………………………..…………………..83

F.E.C. Can’t Curb 2016 Election Abuse, Commission Chief Says
<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0&referrer=>
// New York Times // Eric Lichtblau – May 2, 2015
……………………….…………………………………………………..84

Why Does Rand Paul Keep Missing His Moment?
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-01/why-does-rand-paul-keep-missing-his-moment->
// Bloomberg // David Weigel - May 1,
2015………………………………………………………………………….………………………………..88

Columba Bush, Wife of Jeb Bush, Takes on Greater Role in Campaign
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/05/01/columba-bush-wife-of-jeb-bush-takes-on-greater-role-in-campaign/>
// Wall Street Journal // Rebecca Ballhaus - May 1,
2015………………………………………………………..89

With Bridge Case Charges, a Cloud Descends on Christie’s White House Hopes
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/nyregion/charges-in-bridge-scandal-pose-trouble-for-chris-christie.html>
// New York Times // Michael Barbaro – May 1, 2015 …………………………………………………..90

Ted Cruz, Barack Obama and the biggest vote-missers in the Senate
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/01/ted-cruz-barack-obama-and-the-biggest-vote-missers-in-the-senate/>
// Washington Post // Philips Bump – May 1, 2015
………………………………………………………………………..93

Marco Rubio Courts Right on Iran and Immigration
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/01/marco-rubio-courts-right-on-iran-and-immigration/>
// First Draft - New York Times // Ashley Parker - May 1,
2015……………………………………………………………………………..96

Rubio: A bad Iran deal 'almost guarantees war'
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/politics/marco-rubio-iran-war/> // CNN //
Alexander, Jaffe - May 1, 2015………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..97

Huckabee gears up for presidential announcement with new video
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/huckabee-gears-presidential-announcement-new-video>
// MSNBC // Emma Margolin – May 1, 2015…………………………………………………………………………………….98

Kasich Undecided on 2016: 'Without Resources, You Can't Do It'
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/kasich-undecided-2016-without-resources-you-cant-do-it-n352151>
// NBC News // Mark Murray - May 1,
2015………………………..……………………………………………………………..99

Ohio's Kasich says 2016 presidential run depends on money
<http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NM4DD20150501?irpc=932> //
Reuters // Steve Holland – May 1, 2015
…………………………………………….…………………………………………………..100

Kasich wades into presidential waters, says he’s an unconventional
Republican
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/01/kasich-wades-into-presidential-waters-says-hes-an-unconventional-republican/>
// Washington Post // Philip Rucker - May 1, 2015………………………………………………..101

Would-be presidential candidates like Pataki test waters with a wink
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flirters-in-presidential-race-are-again-dancing-around-the-subject/2015/05/01/93904c50-eac8-11e4-9a6a-c1ab95a0600b_story.html?wpmk=MK0000205>
// Washington Post // David A. Fahrenthold – May 1,
2015………………………………………………………..103

*TOP NATIONAL NEWS
 107*

Thousands Gather Peacefully in Baltimore in a Mix of Anger and Jubilation
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/baltimore-braces-for-more-protests.html?google_editors_picks=true>
// New York Times // Sheryl Gay Stolberg – May 2, 2015
………………………………………………………..107

SurveyMonkey CEO, husband of Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, dies suddenly
<http://www.cnet.com/news/surveymonkey-ceo-husband-of-facebooks-sheryl-sandberg-dies-suddenly/>
// CNET // Scott Olson – May 2, 2015…………………………………………………………………………………..110

Six officers charged in death of Freddie Gray
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/overnight-calm-in-baltimore-as-tensions-remain-and-protests-expected/2015/05/01/00e07e7a-efe6-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html>
// Washington Post // By Lori Aratani, Paul Duggan and Dan Morse – May 1,
2015…………………………………………………………..111

DOT issues final rules on flammable oil trains
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/obama-safety-regulations-train-oil-derailments-117550.html>
// Politico // Elana Schor and Kathryn A. Wolfe – May 1,
2015…………………………..………………………………………………………………..115

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS 119 *

Why Larry Flynt Is Endorsing Hillary Clinton
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-01/why-larry-flynt-is-endorsing-hillary-clinton>
// Bloomberg // John Heilemann - May 1, 2015
……………………………………………………….………………………………………………………..119

Veep Creator on Hillary Clinton and the Intense Pressure to Say Nothing:
Candidates running now define themselves by their inaction
<http://time.com/3843404/presidential-candidates-inaction/> // Hollywood
Reporter // Armando Iannucci – May 1, 2015
………………………………………………………………………………………..120

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES *

Hillary Clinton’s big-money dilemma
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clintons-big-money-dilemma-117559.html?ml=po>
// Politico // Glenn Thrush and Anna Palmer – May 1, 2015

There is a growing realization inside Hillary Clinton’s Brooklyn
headquarters and among the wider circle of Democratic operatives that
coming up with the requisite $1 billion to $2.5 billion in campaign and
super PAC cash for the 2016 campaign will be a lot tougher than anticipated
— and demands a more aggressive approach to out-of-the-gate fundraising.

The pace of donations to Clinton’s three-week-old campaign is surpassing
forecasts — but the candidate herself wants to accelerate the timetable and
just added several new New York City fundraisers to her May schedule,
people close to Clinton tell POLITICO.

Democratic operatives and fundraisers in contact with the campaign cite an
array of concerns about the deliberately slow ramp-up to date. There are
worries about the willingness of big progressive donors to commit to
Clinton before the general election and the campaign’s focus on mid-sized
donations. The lack of high-impact hires on the finance team have raised
eyebrows. Then there is the general unease about the ability of the party’s
pro-Clinton super PAC to compete with Republican counterparts that will
raise hundreds of millions in mega-contributions.

Over it all looms a larger problem – the optics. Barack Obama’s huge haul
in the first half of 2007 overshadowed Clinton’s solid fundraising numbers
and shattered her façade of inevitability. The 2016 campaign’s decision to
solicit only primary election contributions fits the campaign’s
work-for-every vote ethos, but it’s left some donors reluctant to
contribute to a race that seems so one-sided already. That means her first
campaign finance report — likely due in late July — will fall far short of
Jeb Bush, who is expected to raise a jarring $100 million in just the first
three months of his unofficial campaign.

“The expectations have always been too high, it’s Hillary so everybody
expects her to just rake in the money and that was never going to happen,”
said a veteran Democratic fundraiser who raised $1 million for President
Obama but is adopting a wait-and-see-approach before helping out Clinton.
“My feeling is that 2015 will be hard, but that things will pick up once we
get into 2016. It’s not a bad situation, but people have to realize we’re
in for a long, slow process.”

A Clinton spokesperson said the methodical build-up isn’t a sign of
weakness, but a commitment to creating a system that creates a bigger,
broader base of contributors. “Big donors are welcome but with the current
finance limits we are better off expanding the donor base and bringing new
people in, and it is smarter to bring those new people in May of 2015 than
October of 2016,” the spokesman said in an emailed statement.

Clinton herself echoed some of those concerns this week when she threw
herself onto the fundraising circuit in New York, Washington and
California, weeks before she had planned to, in an effort to jump-start the
campaign’s fundraising – the better to compete with Bush’s fundraising
juggernaut. “I need to get out there earlier,” she told an aide recently.

Clinton has already agreed to appear at two or three additional events in
New York the week of May 13th, a senior Democrat familiar with the planning
told POLITICO.

And she isn’t the only Clinton expected to hit the cash trail – two people
close to the situation said they expected Bill Clinton to attend
fundraisers, most likely for the super PAC Priorities USA Action, which is
hoping to raise a minimum of $150 million and as much as $300 million in
the 2016 cycle.

Under executive director Buffy Wicks and longtime Clinton adviser Harold
Ickes, Priorities is recruiting a new team of well-connected fundraisers –
including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s former adviser and veteran
fundraiser Brian Wolff – and streamlining its internal financial procedures
to increase transparency after a nasty internal spat spilled into public
view earlier this year.

In a shake-up, board chairman Jim Messina, Obama’s 2012 campaign manager,
is being moved to an advisory role — and longtime Clinton adviser Guy Cecil
will adopt a major role in the super PAC, according to sources familiar
with the situation. The moves were first reported in the Washington Post.

In February, POLITICO’s Kenneth P. Vogel reported that the group was
struggling to come up with 30 or more pledges of at least $1 million apiece
to be unveiled when Clinton formally jumped into the race; to date, they
have only secured five million-dollar commitments and a handful of smaller
donations, according to a source with knowledge of the organization’s
finances.

And some of Clinton’s leading donors aren’t committing, including hedge
fund billionaire Marc Lasry, who set out to raise $270,000 for Clinton’s
campaign in its first week. But when he was approached recently about
writing a big check to Priorities, he did not immediately commit, instead
explaining he’d think about it, according to sources familiar with the
group’s fundraising.

Priorities’ struggles have stoked serious concerns among many Clinton
aides, especially from Charlie Baker, a former Priorities board member who
stepped down to work on the campaign.

Wicks and other Priorities representatives, including veteran Clinton
adviser Paul Begala, are hoping to change that – and will be meeting in
small groups with donors in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and New
York over the next few weeks to recruit more contributors. “We’ll see what
the appetite out there is,” said one senior Democratic fundraiser.

The first round of fundraisers hosted by Clinton’s own campaign finance
team were intentionally small, in keeping with the low-key approach to the
kick-off. But organizers of the California events — in which bundlers are
encouraged to collect the $2,700 maximum individual primary contributions
from ten people — said they are meeting expectations.

“All three events will be at capacity. But the singular thing that is
happening here is not only are people contributing but everyone is
raising,” says Andy Spahn, a veteran Democratic fundraiser with deep
connections in Hollywood. “I am making calls for contributions and the only
“no’s” I get are from people who are saying, ‘I’m trying to raise ten
checks too.’”

Insiders expressed confidence in Dennis Cheng, the campaign’s relatively
unknown campaign finance director, whose selection was seen as a signal the
campaign was avoiding another mistake of ’08: The empowering of celebrity
donors who crowded out the younger, more aggressive bundlers who helped
power Barack Obama’s money machine.

Yet in recent days, as Clinton has assessed her daunting challenge, it’s
become clear that the force behind the fundraising operation is campaign
chairman John Podesta, who has been quietly cultivating big donors and
coordinating fundraising strategy.

Podesta, people close to the campaign say, supports the Cheng-led strategy
of creating an army of small- to medium-scale campaign bundlers – a “flat”
fundraising structure that would give donors the sense of ownership in the
campaign. Podesta jokingly refers to himself as the “Sultan of Flat,” but
more than a dozen older generation Clinton fundraisers and donors
interviewed over the past two weeks said they believed the new structure
would eventually give way to a more conventional fundraising apparatus that
would empower mega-donors on the coasts.

Managing the friction between the old lions of Clinton fundraising – who
have no use for the flat organizational chart — and the younger players
Cheng hopes to recruit, won’t be easy. Cheng recently angered several
former Obama fundraisers by offering them their old regional finance jobs –
even though they had gone onto to bigger, more lucrative careers in
Washington over the years; they turned him down, according to a former
Obama campaign official. The campaign’s low pay, and the rule that
fundraisers must cut ties to other clients, have also been an impediment to
getting top-level fundraisers to sign on in key money states like
California and New York.

Meanwhile, there’s been concern in Democratic finance circles that some of
the operatives selected to head regional fundraising efforts are not ready
for the big leagues of presidential fundraising.

The regional finance directors’ efforts to recruit new bundlers are also
being stymied by a perception that the Clinton’s fundraising circle is so
well-established that it’s tough for anyone new to break through.

Cheng, for his part, has also been trying to reassure Obama bundlers and
even former lower level Clinton administration aides, who have now gone on
to successful careers, that they won’t be marginalized. “Their sense is
that unless they raise zillions of dollars, they’re never going to be
noticed and certainly never going to infiltrate their already tight-knit
inner circle, so why bother,” one New York-based fundraiser said. “Everyone
knows who Clinton’s inner circle is, that they are going to raise a boat
load of money with relatively little effort, and that there is little that
can be done by a new person to make their mark.”

Even Washington events like the one campaign chairman Podesta and campaign
manager Robby Mook did last week in D.C. have drawn criticism for being a
little too old-boys-club-ish, including one hosted by Bill Clinton’s close
friend Vernon Jordan. Meanwhile, other major donors are complaining about
being asked to give early and often to Clinton toward the 2016 primary –
and not the far more competitive general election. One veteran Democratic
operative said that’s where they had heard the most complaining.

Another major question that remains unanswered: When will Clinton create a
joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee, which
would allow her to ask for $35,000 from individuals?

In the meantime, as Clinton and her team fine-tune their strategy, a key
critic on the left was peppering her campaign with questions about her
family’s charitable and political fundraising practices.

“So do I have concerns about the Clinton Foundation and that money? I do,”
newly announced Clinton primary opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders told ABC on
Thursday. “But I am concerned about Sheldon Adelson and his billions. I’m
concerned about the Koch brothers and their billions. We’re looking at a
system where our democracy is being owned by a handful of billionaires.”

Kenneth P. Vogel contributed to this report.

6 Baltimore Police Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/us/freddie-gray-autopsy-report-given-to-baltimore-prosecutors.html?ref=todayspaper>
// New York Times // Alan Blinder and Richard Pérez-Peña – May 1, 2015

Baltimore’s chief prosecutor charged six police officers on Friday with a
range of crimes including murder and manslaughter in the arrest and fatal
injury of Freddie Gray, a striking and surprisingly swift turn in a case
that has drawn national attention to police conduct.

The state’s attorney for Baltimore City, Marilyn J. Mosby, filed the
charges almost as soon as she received a medical examiner’s report that
ruled Mr. Gray’s death a homicide, and a day after the police concluded
their initial investigation and handed over their findings. Officials had
cautioned that it could take considerable time for her office to complete
its own investigation and decide whether to prosecute.

In a city rocked by unrest this week, and now under curfew and patrolled by
National Guard troops, Ms. Mosby’s announcement on the steps of the War
Memorial downtown drew cheers from the assembled crowd while a nearby
cordon of officers in riot gear looked on stonily. As word spread, people
in parts of the city took to the streets in spontaneous celebration.

By nightfall a large demonstration wound its way through the streets and
the scene became confrontational shortly after the curfew began with small
disruptions in front of City Hall and at Pennsylvania Avenue and West North
Avenue, where people blocked traffic and taunted the police. Some arrests
were made and the crowds disbanded as the police and National Guard closed
in.

The officers who were arrested, three white and three black, include a
lieutenant with 17 years on the force, several near-rookies and a woman who
had just been promoted to sergeant.

The most serious charges were brought against Officer Caesar R. Goodson
Jr., who was driving the van that carried Mr. Gray to a police station
after his April 12 arrest. Along with involuntary manslaughter, Officer
Goodson, 45, was charged with “second-degree depraved heart murder,” which
means indifference to human life.

All six officers were arrested and appeared before a judicial officer. Bail
was set at $350,000 for four of the officers and $250,000 for the other
two, according to court records. By late Friday, court records showed the
officers had been released from jail.

The death of Mr. Gray, 25, a week after he suffered a spinal cord injury
brought to a boil long-simmering tensions between the police and poor
neighborhoods in this majority-black city, culminating in rioting and
looting on Monday. More peaceful demonstrations continued through the week
after a curfew was put in place. And the swift action by the prosecutor
seemed to some to mark a turning point after months of debate and
demonstrations around the country over police violence.

 “The larger message, if there is one, is that we’re moving on these
things,” said David A. Harris, a law professor and expert on police racial
issues at the University of Pittsburgh. “We’re taking them seriously, and
there’s no longer going to be any kind of slowing down and taking it to the
point where people wonder, ‘Whatever happened to that?’ ”

In Washington, President Obama declined to comment on the charges directly,
but said that what mattered was for the justice system to work properly.
“What I think the people of Baltimore want more than anything else is the
truth,” he said. “That’s what people around the country expect.”

The Gray family said it was satisfied with the charges. “We must seize this
opportunity to reform police departments throughout this country,” said the
family’s lawyer, William H. Murphy Jr.

The Baltimore chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police called the speed of
the prosecutor politically motivated. “The actions taken today by the
state’s attorney are an egregious rush to judgment,” said Michael E. Davey,
the union’s lawyer. “We believe that these officers will be vindicated, as
they have done nothing wrong.”

Ms. Mosby faulted the police conduct at every turn. The officers who
arrested him “failed to establish probable cause for Mr. Gray’s arrest, as
no crime had been committed,” she said, describing the arrest as illegal.
Officers accused him of possession of a switchblade, but Ms. Mosby said,
“The knife was not a switchblade and is lawful under Maryland law.”

Ms. Mosby said Mr. Gray suffered a spinal injury while being transported in
a police van — and not earlier, while being arrested — and pointed to the
failure of the police to put a seatbelt on him as a crucial factor.

“Mr. Gray suffered a severe and critical neck injury as a result of being
handcuffed, shackled by his feet and unrestrained inside the B.P.D. wagon,”
she said.

Despite repeated stops to check on Mr. Gray, the van driver, Officer
Goodson, and other officers never belted him in, she said, at times leaving
him face-down on the van floor with his hands behind him. Though there has
been speculation that the police intentionally gave Mr. Gray a “rough
ride,” intended to slam him against the metal sides of the van, Ms. Mosby
did not refer to that possibility. She charged only Officer Goodson with
second-degree murder, the most serious crime facing the six officers; he
was also accused of manslaughter, assault and misconduct in office.

Mr. Gray’s condition deteriorated, she said, as officers repeatedly ignored
his pleas for medical attention and ignored obvious signs that he was in
distress. At one point, she said, when officers tried to check on him, Mr.
Gray was unresponsive, yet no action was taken. He died of his injuries a
week later.

Lt. Brian Rice was charged with manslaughter, assault, misconduct in office
and false imprisonment. Officer William G. Porter and Sgt. Alicia White
were charged with manslaughter, assault and misconduct in office. Officers
Edward M. Nero and Garrett E. Miller were charged with assault, misconduct
in office and false imprisonment.

As Ms. Mosby finished reading her announcement, the news began to ripple
through a crowd of African-American residents and activists who had pooled
around her. Edward Jenkins, 44, a motivational speaker and musician who
goes by the name Voyce, approached and could hardly contain his surprise
when he was told of the charges. “Are you serious?” he said.

Like many Baltimore residents, Mr. Jenkins, who grew up in Mr. Gray’s
neighborhood, said he thought the announcement might put a damper on
further unrest. “I think this will take some of the nervousness off of it,
but they’ll still want a guilty verdict,” he said. “It means that we’re
absolutely getting a start on justice.”

Standing on a nearby street corner, Renee James, 48, said, “There’s no need
to go tear up the city no more.”

Her friend Antoinnette White, 53, said of the riot: “Hurting innocent
people was nonsense. I cried.”

But Abdullah Moaney, 53, an information technology worker from East
Baltimore, said that “peace has lost its credibility.” Seeking to justify
the violence that broke out Monday, he said that “if it wasn’t for the
riot,” charges would not have been filed.

Homicide Charges in Gray Case Announced

Marilyn J. Mosby, the state’s attorney for Baltimore, said that Freddie
Gray’s arrest was illegal and that there was probable cause to file
manslaughter charges against the police officers involved.

“This is a great day, and I think we need to realize that,” said
Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland. “I think a message
has been sent by our state’s attorney that she treasures every life, that
she values every person.”

Elsewhere Friday, rallies celebrating May Day and calling attention to
police killings of black men emerged in cities across the country,
including Oakland, Calif., Seattle and Portland, Ore. In Manhattan,
protesters marched from Union Square to Foley Square, some chanting, “Make
them pay for Freddie Gray!”

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake of Baltimore said most of the city’s
officers were good, but added, “To those who choose to engage in violence,
brutality, racism and brutality, let me be clear: There is no place in the
Baltimore Police Department for you.”

Mr. Gray started the fateful ride on the floor of the police van, Ms. Mosby
said. A short time later, Officer Goodson “proceeded to the back of the
wagon in order to observe Mr. Gray,” she said.

“At no point did he seek, nor did he render, any medical help for Mr.
Gray,” Ms. Mosby said.

President Obama on Freddie Gray Charges

The president commented on the filing of homicide, manslaughter and
misconduct charges against police officers in the death of Mr. Gray.

A few blocks later, he called a dispatcher to say that he needed help
checking on his prisoner. Another officer arrived, and the back of the van
was opened. “Mr. Gray at that time requested help and indicated that he
could not breathe,” and asked twice for a medic, Ms. Mosby said. While the
officers helped him onto the bench in the back of the van, she said, they
still did not belt him in.

While they were there, she said, a call went out for a van to pick up and
transport another person who had been arrested. “Despite Mr. Gray’s obvious
and recognized need for assistance, Officer Goodson, in a grossly negligent
manner,” answered that call, rather than seeking medical help, Ms. Mosby
said.

At the van’s next stop, Officer Goodson met the officers who made the
initial arrest, and a sergeant who had arrived on the scene. Opening the
van once again, they “observed Mr. Gray unresponsive on the floor of the
wagon,” Ms. Mosby said.

The sergeant, she said, spoke to the back of Mr. Gray’s head, but he did
not respond. “She made no effort to look, or assess, or determine his
condition,” Ms. Mosby said.

When the van finally arrived at the Western District police station and
officers tried to remove him, “Mr. Gray was no longer breathing at all,”
she said. A medic was summoned and found Mr. Gray in cardiac arrest. Then
he was rushed to a hospital.

A. Dwight Pettit, a lawyer who handles police brutality cases in Baltimore
— and worked to help elect Ms. Mosby — said her emphasis on the officers’
lack of probable cause in arresting Mr. Gray was significant. Rarely, he
said, are police officers prosecuted for making false arrests — and too
often, they do not worry about lacking probable cause.

He called the charges of false imprisonment “something new for police
activity, which offends the constitutional rights of citizens.”

Key Christie ally pleads guilty to role in Bridgegate, two others indicted
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/key-christie-aide-pleads-guilty-to-role-in-bridgegate/2015/05/01/d0ea2a90-f00d-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html>
// Washington Post // Rosalind S. Helderman – May 1, 2015

A onetime ally and former high school classmate of New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie pleaded guilty Friday, while two other former members of
Christie’s inner circle were indicted, in connection with an intentional
2013 traffic jam leading to the George Washington Bridge.

David Wildstein, who as an official at the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey had ordered the closure of two of the bridge’s toll lanes,
confirmed to a federal judge Friday that he closed the lanes to punish the
mayor of Fort Lee, Democrat Mark Sokolich, who declined to endorse the
Republican governor’s reelection bid.

Indicted Friday were Christie’s former deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne
Kelly and William E. Baroni Jr., a top political appointee at the Port
Authority. Wildstein said he had conspired with the two to engineer the
traffic jam and falsely claim it was part of a traffic study.

U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman said he did not anticipate further charges
related to the traffic jam. But a federal investigation into other matters
sparked by the bridge inquiry continues.

The attorney for ex-Christie ally David Wildstein said his client "deeply
regrets" his involvement in the George Washington Bridge lane closure
scheme for which he pleaded guilty Friday and reiterated his claim that New
Jersey Gov. Christie knew about it. (AP)

Fishman said that the three officials “callously victimized the people of
Fort Lee, who were just trying to get to school, go to work or travel
wherever else they needed to go.”

Fishman said the plan was hatched in August 2013, after Sokolich withheld
his endorsement, but it was not implemented until early September when the
Christie allies knew the start of school would worsen gridlock. As part of
the scheme, prosecutors allege that the three ignored Sokolich’s
increasingly desperate entreaties about the traffic and lied to the media.

Christie has maintained that he was not given advance warning when two toll
lanes of the busy bridge were closed in September 2013. An internal
investigation that he commissioned cleared Christie of personal wrongdoing
in the episode but found that the closure had been purposeful and
politically motivated. Fishman declined to comment on those claims.

In a statement, Christie said Friday that the charges confirmed what he has
long said about the incident.

“I had no knowledge or involvement in the planning or execution of this
act,” he said. “The moment I first learned of this unacceptable behavior I
took action, firing staff believed to be accountable, calling for an
outside investigation and agreeing to fully cooperate with all appropriate
investigations, which I have done,” he said.

Still, fallout from the scandal has significantly deflated Christie’s
presidential prospects, which were extremely bright two years ago after he
easily won reelection in a deep blue state and was encouraged to seek the
White House by some of the GOP’s biggest donors. In the painful aftermath
of Hurricane Sandy in 2012, he cultivated an image as a hands-on, can-do
chief executive.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll shows 56 percent of New Jersey voters
disapproving of Christie’s performance as governor, with 38 percent
approving — Christie’s lowest ratings ever in that poll.

Christie and his advisers breathed a sigh of relief Friday, saying that the
indictments bring finality to the controversy that had stunted his
presidential campaign. “It’s been the ­elephant in the room,” one adviser
said, but also saying, “It’s not like anyone’s doing backflips.”

Christie’s advisers acknowledged that he still has a lot of work to do to
persuade voters and donors to give him a second look. Over the next three
weeks, Christie is planning several trips to New Hampshire, where he will
hold town-hall style gatherings, as well as private meetings with
prospective donors. These events will help him gauge whether he has a
viable path forward in the presidential race. He plans to make his decision
about whether to launch a campaign late this month or in early June.

But Alan Zegas, Wildstein’s attorney, has said “evidence exists” that
Christie knew about the closures, despite his denials. Speaking to
reporters outside the U.S. District Court in Newark on Friday, Zegas stood
by that claim, indicating that “there is a lot more that will come out.”
Fishman repeatedly refused to comment on who else, including Christie, may
have known about the plot to clog traffic.

As the long-running scandal came to a head in New Jersey, Christie was in
the Washington region, delivering a speech Friday morning to the
politically connected Northern Virginia Technology Council in McLean.

He had been scheduled to attend an afternoon fundraiser for Maryland Gov.
Larry Hogan (R), but that event was canceled because Hogan is dealing with
the aftermath of unrest in Baltimore.

In 2013, a legislative inquiry revealed Wildstein received an e-mail from
Kelly indicating that it was “time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,”
the town at the foot of the bridge affected most by the closures. The
e-mail exchange, which first suggested that the closure had been
orchestrated, prompted the 16-month investigation into the incident that
culminated in charges Friday.

Wildstein pleaded guilty to two criminal counts, misusing federal property
and denying Fort Lee residents their civil rights. Baroni and Kelly were
each charged with seven felony counts in a joint indictment, including wire
fraud.

Kelly quickly launched a Web site to appeal for donations to a legal
defense fund. At a news conference, she said it was “ludicrous” to suggest
that she was the only person in the governor’s office with knowledge of the
scheme. She also said she was embarrassed by the tone of her e-mails but
insisted she is not guilty of criminal activity.

“I will fight relentlessly to clear myself of these charges and will work
to regain my reputation and restore a sense of normalcy for my children,”
she said.

Baroni’s legal team released a statement calling Wildstein a “criminal and
liar” who had falsely led Baroni to think that a legitimate traffic study
was underway on the bridge; they said he is not guilty of the charges.

Although the criminal investigation began with the bridge incident, it has
broadened to include an investigation of the activities of the Port
Authority and allegations that Christie’s staffers had leveraged public
resources as political tools in other ways. Those investigations are
thought to be ongoing.

“Every organization behaves in a fashion in concert with the leader of that
organization,” said New Jersey Assemblyman John S. Wisniewski (D), who led
legislative investigations into Christie’s staff. “When we see a governor
who routinely told people to sit down and shut up, who routinely engaged in
name-calling and intimidation, you can see how this kind of behavior fit
right in and perhaps was even condoned.”

Wisniewski said his committee will reexamine statements made to legislators
under oath by a series of Christie aides who insisted that the traffic jam
was caused by a traffic study.

Beyond his fading first-tier status in GOP circles, Christie also has seen
his grip on power in New Jersey loosening — rapidly losing support among a
handful of prominent home-state donors and power brokers who are either
hesitant to back him or shifting allegiance to former Florida governor Jeb
Bush.

New Jersey state Sen. Joseph M. Kyrillos, chairman of Christie’s 2009
gubernatorial campaign and a longtime personal friend, bolted last month to
Bush’s camp. New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, a onetime Christie booster,
attended a major Bush fundraiser in Miami last weekend.

Speaking in March at the state Capitol, Kyrillos lambasted Christie’s
management of the Port Authority: “Rogue managers in place . . . toll
increases: outrageous. Bridgegate: outrageous. Outrageous.” He added,
“Biggest bridge in the world. An embarrassment to everybody, including the
governor, who said as much at the outset.”

There have been other bumps along the way. Christie’s remarks about child
vaccinations on a trip earlier this year to London drew scathing criticism
and alarmed some of his supporters. He had to make a series of calls to
assure contributors that he supports vaccination for diseases such as
measles. His embrace of wealthy Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and a New
York Times report on his penchant for private planes and luxury hotels made
headlines.

Embattled but nonetheless determined to rebuild his political standing,
Christie has moved aggressively in the past year to regain his footing with
party leaders and activists, traveling frequently to early primary states
and in 2014 raising more than $100 million for GOP candidates as chairman
of the Republican Governors Association.

Christie’s political team, which once envisioned a robust early campaign,
has narrowed its focus mostly to New Hampshire, where Christie has held a
series of town-hall meetings meant to reintroduce him to skeptical
Republicans and regenerate some of the electricity that was a hallmark of
his town-hall meetings in New Jersey in his first term, when his loud
clashes with public employees became popular on YouTube.

Nationally, Christie still counts several financiers as allies, including
Kenneth G. Langone, the billionaire co-founder of Home Depot, and Ray
Washburne, a Dallas real estate developer leading the fundraising push for
Christie’s political-action committee.

But the lane closures continued to haunt his comeback efforts. In December,
he was interviewed by federal investigators at Drumthwacket, the official
residence of the New Jersey governor, before he traveled to Iowa, home to
the first-in-the-nation Republican presidential caucuses.

While shaking hands at a Manchester, N.H., restaurant this month, Christie
was teased by Buck Mercier, 69, who told the governor that he made sure
when he heard of Christie’s visit that “the bridges were going to be open.”
Christie smiled. “Which direction is the bridge?” he asked. “I’ll make sure
it’s open.”

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE *

Hillary Clinton’s smartest move: Say no to TPP, and join the Warren/Krugman
forces
<http://www.salon.com/2015/05/02/hillary_clintons_smartest_move_say_no_to_tpp_and_join_the_warrenkrugman_forces/>
// Salon // Elias Iquith – May 2, 2015

Hillary Clinton's smartest move: Say no to TPP, and join the Warren/Krugman
forces

Sports obsessive that he is, President Obama likes to refer to the final
two years of his second term as his administration’s “fourth quarter.” He
does this because it’s a useful shorthand; but I’d guess his vanity, which
is a characteristic of any successful politician, is motivational, too. By
referring to himself as in the fourth quarter, Obama reminds an
increasingly distracted press corps that the game isn’t officially finished
for him quite yet — and, until it is, he intends to keep playing.

Since being the center of attention usually means being the focal point of
criticism as well, that’s probably a role that Hillary Clinton, Obama’s
former secretary of state and would-be successor, is happy to leave him for
the time being. Better he suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous
fortune (a.k.a. the Republican Party) from the comfort of the White House
than she do so while pretending to enjoy Iowa’s signature cuisine.

But while there may currently be a sort of harmony between the Democratic
Party’s two most influential figures, their respective self-interests are
only complementary up to a point. Sooner or later, it’ll be time for Obama
to cede the spotlight and the stage to the Clintons yet again; and sooner
or later, Clinton will have to accept her role as the party’s de facto
leader while establishing how (and why) her stewardship will be different.
The guardians of American politics’ unwritten rules will expect nothing
less.

Rather than delay the inevitable until it’s foisted upon her by the press,
wouldn’t it be easier if Clinton got ahead of the meta-narrative and
established where she breaks with the president herself? I think the answer
is quite clearly yes. The harder it is for the press to succumb to its
weakness for narcissism and frivolity, the better. And Clinton’s at her
best when talking about policy — not her own “authenticity” or how the
press corps’ feels — to boot.

Author: Clinton Foundation Disclosures 'Sloppy At The Very Least'
<http://www.npr.org/2015/05/02/403766807/author-clinton-foundation-disclosures-sloppy-at-the-very-least>
// NPR // Scott Simon – May 2, 2015

NPR's Scott Simon talks with Joshua Green of Bloomberg News about the
Clinton Foundation and its apparent lack of transparency over donors.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Scott Simon. Hillary Clinton is
drawing more attention right now for the foundation that bears her family's
name than her run for president. Clinton Foundation is under scrutiny for
contributions from foreign donors that were made while Mrs. Clinton was
Secretary of State. During that time, a Canadian mining financier donated
millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. He also secured a lucrative
mining deal that required approval of the State Department while Hillary
Clinton was Secretary of State. Joshua Green of Bloomberg News joins us in
our studios. Thanks very much for being with us.

JOSHUA GREEN: Good to be with you.

SIMON: These connections were first unearthed, to my knowledge, by Peter
Schweizer, who wrote the book that's coming out next week, "Clinton Cash."
The New York Times has been advancing the story. You certainly have at
Bloomberg News. Give us, if you could, a quick picture about what's known
about the relationship between the Clinton's and this Canadian business
person.

GREEN: Well, Frank Guistra is his name. I interviewed him about a week or
so ago. And he explained to me he met Bill Clinton at a fundraiser for
tsunami victims. He was dazzled by him, was invited to become involved in
his charities and has in a very big way - not only pledging or giving tens
of millions of dollars but also pledging half the profits of his mining
company in perpetuity to the Clinton Foundation. He landed on the board of
the Clinton Foundation and actually started up the Canadian wing, something
called the Clinton-Guistra Enterprise Partnership.

SIMON: But the fact that it's the Canadian affiliate is what has incited so
much interest because at least, as I have been given to understand, they
don't have to disclose donors the way they would here in the U.S.

GREEN: Well, that's not so clear. I mean, what happened was Peter
Schweizer, the author of "Clinton Cash," does a chapter or two on Guistra
and his relationship with Bill Clinton. And they have flown around the
globe on Guistra's plane, including to Kazakhstan, where they had dinner
with the president. And shortly thereafter, Guistra secured a lucrative
uranium mining deal. But it's caused, for Schweizer - now other
journalists, including myself - to kind of dive into the Clinton
Foundation's tax filings and receipts. And look at, OK, well, who really is
giving money? And what Schweizer discovered was that there were about half
a dozen Canadian donors who hadn't disclosed millions of dollars in
donations, including the chairman of this uranium company that Guistra
founded. And that's problematic because as a condition of Hillary Clinton
becoming Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation signed an agreement
with the Obama White House saying we pledge to disclose all of our donors
on an annual basis. All of this was going to be done out in the open. And
it turns out that it hasn't.

SIMON: Yeah. So the implication of your reporting is that whatever it means
politically, it violated the agreement between the White House and Hillary
Clinton about becoming Secretary of State.

GREEN: Oh, absolutely. There's no real dispute about that. In fact, the
president of the Clinton Foundation came out last weekend and issued an odd
statement saying, you know, we've made some mistakes. We're going to
re-file our taxes. And, oh, by the way, Canadian law forbids us from
disclosing people who donate through our Canadian affiliate. At the time,
we only knew about four or five in Schweizer's book who hadn't been
disclosed. But it turns out now - we're up to 1,100 and counting.

SIMON: Any indication that laws have been violated?

GREEN: I don't think there is, no. There is no indication yet that any laws
have been violated. I think a lot of reporters who have read the book and
done reporting on it would say, well, there may not be criminality, but
there certainly do appear to be lots of examples of sloppiness, at the very
least, and conflict of interest or maybe something worse. But I think in
the months and, I'm afraid, years ahead as we go through this presidential
campaign, that's what reporters are going to be looking into.

SIMON: Joshua Green, national correspondent for Bloomberg Politics, thanks
so much.

GREEN: Thank you.

Hillary Clinton's conflict-of-interest problems
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0503-mcmanus-clinton-foundation-20150503-column.html>
// LATimes // Doyle McManus – May 2, 2015

The harshest charges against Hillary Rodham Clinton — that she made
decisions that favored donors to her family's charitable foundation when
she was secretary of State — aren't sticking. Yes, the Obama administration
approved a donor's sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian firm, but
Clinton does not appear to have been involved. Yes, the administration
concluded a trade treaty with Colombia that benefited Clinton Foundation
donors, but that was President Obama's decision, not Clinton's. And yes,
Clinton lobbied foreign governments on behalf of donors such as General
Electric and Boeing — but that's part of every secretary of State's job
description.

Still, that doesn't mean candidate Clinton has emerged unmuddied from the
swamp of accusations and innuendoes stirred up by conservative author Peter
Schweizer in a book scheduled for publication this week. The front-runner
for the Democratic presidential nomination still has some explaining to do.

When she was nominated as secretary of State in 2009, Clinton promised that
she would bend over backward to avoid potentially compromising situations.

“Out of [an] abundance of caution and a desire to avoid even the appearance
… of a conflict,” Clinton said, the foundation would agree to strict rules:
It would disclose all its donors and clear new contributions from foreign
governments with the State Department.

Only that didn't happen. The biggest branch of the Clintons' charitable
network, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, never complied with the
agreement at all, according to the Boston Globe. It neither disclosed its
donors nor cleared new contributions. (A spokesman said they didn't think
it was necessary. After media inquiries, the program published a list of
donors last month.) The Clinton Foundation also failed to clear a donation
of $500,000 from Algeria. (An oversight, the foundation said.) And the
foundation's Canadian affiliate collected millions of dollars without
disclosing donors' names. (Canadian law guarantees privacy to donors, but
the foundation could have asked them to voluntarily disclose their
identities; it didn't until last week.)

Beyond the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates, former President Bill
Clinton's personal income has raised eyebrows, too.

[She] has tried to deal with bad press by either ignoring it or deploying
underlings to attack her critics. That's not going to work; Clinton's
problems won't just go away.

-

Thanks to the Washington Post, we have learned that Bill Clinton made
almost $105 million giving speeches from 2001 to 2012 — and his biggest
fees came from foreign hosts while his wife was secretary of State: $1.4
million from a Nigerian media firm (for two visits to Lagos); $750,000 from
the Swedish telecommunication giant Ericsson; $600,000 from Dutch financial
firm Achmea; and $500,000 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment
bank with ties to Vladimir Putin's Kremlin.

The former president did take one sensible precaution: He cleared his
speech gigs with State Department ethics lawyers. According to records
obtained by the gadfly group Judicial Watch, the lawyers approved every one
of the 215 speeches that were proposed.

There's nothing illegal about any of that; other former presidents have
accepted giant speaking fees, too. Ronald Reagan once picked up $2 million
for a trip to Japan — and that was in 1989 dollars.

But there's nothing pretty about that picture, either. Even though the
lawyers approved the deals, dozens of the firms that paid Bill Clinton were
doing business with the U.S. government at the time. Surely Hillary
Clinton's 2009 promise to avoid “even the appearance” of any conflict of
interest should have applied to her spouse as well as the family foundation
— right?

The Clinton Foundation has taken one step in the direction of reform: It
said it would stop taking money from most foreign governments while one of
its namesakes is running for president. For the most part, though, Clinton
has tried to deal with bad press by either ignoring it or deploying
underlings to attack her critics.

A successful candidate, at least in the Democratic primaries, needs to
reassure voters that she can reduce the impact of money in politics and
restore confidence in government. Right now, Clinton can't do that credibly.

And Clinton's conflict-of-interest problems will dog her in the debates
that will begin in August. “The Clinton Foundation … that's a fair issue,”
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said Thursday as he announced his candidacy.
(The bigger issue, he added, is “the huge amount of money it takes to run a
campaign.”)

Hillary Clinton can't undo the past. But here are four things she can do to
improve the situation now: She can press the Clinton Foundation and its
affiliates for disclosure of all donors, in belated compliance with the
agreement they made in 2009. She can ask the foundation to tighten its
limits on foreign donations — for example, to cover individuals with close
ties to foreign governments. She can ask her husband to tighten his
criteria for speaking fees, too, and make it clear that he'll donate his
biggest paychecks to charity. Most important, she can spell out the rules
she expects her family to live under if voters decide to put her in the
White House.

Last week, I asked the Clinton campaign if they saw merit in any of those
ideas. I haven't heard back.

Hillary campaign pans 'Clinton Cash' author for comments at Koch event
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/240854-hillary-campaign-pans-clinton-cash-author-for-comments-at-koch>
//The Hill // Ben Kamisar - May 1, 2015

The Hillary Clinton campaign is hitting back against Peter Schweizer, the
author of a controversial book that questions Clinton’s impartiality while
at the State Department, attacking him for referring to himself as part of
the conservative cause.

The Clinton camp has honed in on Schweizer’s comments at a 2014 summit
sponsored by the conservative multimillionaire donors Charles and David
Koch, where he gave attendees a call to action.

“Politicians today are not going to let up, the left and the academic
sphere is not going to let up,” he said, according to the Lady Libertine
blog, which has released a number of audio tracks of prominent
conservatives speaking at the retreat.

“The question is: Are we going to let up? And I would contend to you that
we cannot let up.”

Brian Fallon, the Clinton campaign’s national press secretary, bashed the
comments as indicative of political motivations.

"This is the clearest evidence yet that this widely discredited book is
part of a coordinated Republican attack strategy,” he told The Hill
exclusively.

“The author's remarks at a Koch fundraiser pull the curtain back on his
true purpose in going after Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation."

A Clinton aide added that the campaign plans to highlight the quote on
social media.

Schweizer also told the audience during his remarks that “the left doesn’t
dislike you or hate you because of what you do, they dislike you and hate
you because of who you are.”

Kurt Bardella, who helps represent Schweizer, downplayed the remarks in a
statement to the Lady Libertine Blog.

“As he has in several speeches as a lifelong conservative, Schweizer was
espousing his view that conservatives should be informed, engaged, and
active,” he said.

“The real politically motivated attacks are coming from Team Clinton as
they try the tired and, at this point, very desperate strategy of drawing
attention to things that have been in the public domain for sometime in the
hopes that Bill and Hillary can continue avoiding the press and their
questions."

The Clinton camp’s criticism comes as liberals and conservatives spar over
the revelations in Schweizer’s book. He lays out a number of instances
where Clinton Foundation donors directly benefited from Clinton’s conduct
as secretary of State and repeatedly said in media appearances that the
evidence suggests she played favorites.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who’s in the midst of his own presidential
candidacy, has repeatedly called for an investigation into Clinton’s
conduct at State based off of the allegations.

Fellow White House hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has called for her
foundation for return all foreign donations in light of the accusations.

But Clinton allies and other Democrats have panned the book as politically
motivated and Fallon previously told the New York Times that its
allegations of favoritism are “baseless.”

Clinton Loyalist Joins Priorities ‘Super PAC’
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/01/clinton-loyalist-joins-priorities-super-pac/>
// First Draft – New York Times – May 1, 2015

A longtime leading operative for Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton will join
Priorities USA Action, the dominant “super PAC” that will seek big-ticket
donations to finance what is expected to be the long and expensive
presidential campaign of Mrs. Clinton.

The move by the operative, Guy Cecil, was described by three people
familiar with the discussions as a brushback to Jim Messina, President
Obama’s campaign manager in 2012 and now the co-chairman of Priorities’s
board.

Mr. Cecil, who had been a top contender to run Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, had
long been expected to sign on to the PAC, which will rev up its
fund-raising efforts as Jeb Bush’s super PAC has already kicked into
overdrive.

It is not yet clear exactly what role Mr. Cecil, whose move was first
reported by The Washington Post, will play at the PAC. Priorities was
dormant during the 2014 mid-term elections and starts out behind in the
money race to several super PACs supporting Republican candidates.

But officials involved with the group are aware that they need to begin
fund-raising aggressively, as Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor, and
other Republicans rake in major contributions to their own super PACs.

Mr. Cecil, a favorite of Bill Clinton’s, is a Clinton loyalist coming into
a role that initially was supposed to be played by John D. Podesta. But Mr.
Podesta went to the White House to work for Mr. Obama, and then became Mrs.
Clinton’s campaign chairman.

At the same time, Mr. Messina, who has been viewed with suspicion for years
by many of Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, had become more representative of the
super PAC than some of her allies were comfortable with.

In recent months, Mr. Messina and David Brock, Mrs. Clinton’s staunchest
defender and the founder of Media Matters, had a public fight that prompted
Mr. Brock’s resignation from the Priorities USA board. (He has since
reopened discussions with the board.)

Lately, the Clinton campaign has started to signal to donors that
Priorities is, as one person briefed on the pitch put it, “the preferred
super PAC” to help support her bid for the White House. But there has been
little specificity beyond that.

At the same time, Mrs. Clinton has held a series of fund-raisers in New
York and Washington this week as she builds the “Hillstarters” program that
requests that donors raise $27,000 for the campaign (or the maximum of
$2,700 allowed in a nominating contest from 10 supporters).

Next week, Mrs. Clinton will host a discussion in Nevada and will attend
fund-raisers in Los Angeles, where Democrats who were split between Mrs.
Clinton and Mr. Obama in 2008 have expressed early support for her 2016
bid. Meanwhile, senior campaign staff members have been on a road show
across the country to explain the campaign’s strategy and approach to
prospective donors.

In February, tensions between Clinton loyalists and former Obama aides
erupted, and Mr. Messina’s allies worried that a strategist who was closer
to Bill and Hillary Clinton would replace him.

Mr. Cecil, who was previously the executive director of the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee, had been widely expected to be that
strategist. It is unclear what his role will mean for Mr. Messina and the
existing leadership at the super PAC, including Buffy Wicks, who serves as
executive director. A spokesman for the group declined to comment. Mr.
Cecil did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

One Democrat close to the talks to bring Mr. Cecil into Priorities called
him as “loyal to the Clintons as they are to him — he is a Clinton person,
and funders need that.” The Democrat was quick to describe Mr. Cecil and
Ms. Wicks as a “team.”

Another Clinton loyalist, Harold Ickes, who was an original adviser to
Priorities in 2012, has stepped up his role recently, according to people
involved with the group. Mr. Cecil is also a former employee of the Dewey
Square Group, and a founding partner of the group, Charlie Baker, was just
named Mrs. Clinton’s chief administrative officer.

Mrs. Clinton has made campaign finance reform one of the “four fights” of
her presidential campaign, vowing to get unaccountable money out of
politics. When stopped on the campaign trail in Iowa last month and asked
by Post reporters about the role of Priorities, Mrs. Clinton shrugged.

“I don’t know,” she said.

Clinton Accelerates Fundraising Efforts for Primaries in Presidential Bid
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-accelerates-fundraising-efforts-for-primaries-in-presidential-bid-1430521475>
// Wall Street Journal // Peter Nicholas - May 1, 2015

Hillary Clinton is ramping up fundraising for her presidential campaign,
packing her schedule with donor events that are at the same time designed
to signal that she will be more frugal than in her last race.

Mrs. Clinton attended a half-dozen fundraising receptions in New York City
and Washington, D.C., this week and plans to go to several in California
over three days next week. There, she will draw on long-standing support in
the entertainment industry. A co-host of one event is Jeffrey Katzenberg,
chief executive of DreamWorks Animation SKG and a longtime Democratic donor.

As with other elements of her campaign, Mrs. Clinton is taking steps
intended to avoid the mistakes of her first presidential bid, in 2008.
People familiar with her plans said she is setting a lower dollar threshold
needed for designation as a “Hillstarter,’’ or top fundraiser, in an effort
to draw in more supporters. “Hillstarters’’ need to bring in $27,000, or 10
times the maximum individual donation allowed in the primary, compared with
$100,000 in the previous campaign.

Mrs. Clinton was often criticized in 2008 for spending lavishly on
consultants and other expenses. The campaign says it is trying a more
thrifty approach this year and is signaling that to donors. At a morning
fundraising event in New York, donors were given name tags with plastic
holders. At the end of the reception, campaign aides asked them to return
the holders for reuse.

The breakfast itself was a no-frills affair: coffee and Danish. “Nobody was
making omelets,” said one participant, Jay Jacobs, chairman of the Nassau
County Democrats on Long Island.

One Clinton campaign adviser said, “The frugality is to make sure our
donors know the money is going toward things that matter: staff,
organization and communication.”

While she is raising money now only for the Democratic primaries, Mrs.
Clinton accelerated her schedule in part because of the aggressive
fundraising efforts of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a Republican who is
seen as one of her strongest potential opponents in a general election,
people familiar with the matter said. The idea is for Mrs. Clinton to show
a robust total when her first federal campaign-finance report is due on
July 15.

Mrs. Clinton told a group of more than 100 supporters in Manhattan this
week that she plans to raise $100 million for the Democratic primary, about
half of what she collected in the 2008 campaign. In that race, she needed
every cent in a protracted contest against then-Sen. Barack Obama. So far
this time around, no other potential Democratic rival is within 50 points
of Mrs. Clinton in public-opinion surveys.

Still, in raising money only for the primary, Mrs. Clinton is trying to
signal she isn't taking the nomination for granted. Her only formal rival
so far, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont, said Friday he
had raised $1.5 million online since announcing his campaign on Thursday.
Some 35,000 people donated, Mr. Sanders’ campaign said.

Mrs. Clinton is getting plenty of outside help. A super PAC called
Priorities USA Action, whose mission is to help Mrs. Clinton win the White
House, has been asking donors for money that will be used to underwrite TV
and Internet advertising. A co-chairman of the super PAC is Jim Messina,
who managed Mr. Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

Priorities USA hasn’t ruled out targeting Democratic rivals if they pose a
threat to Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the nomination. Martin O’Malley, the
former Maryland governor and a potential White House candidate, has been
getting bolder in his criticism, telling a TV interviewer in March that the
presidency is “not some crown to be passed between two families”—a clear
reference to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bush, whose brother and father are former
presidents.

One person close to Priorities USA said: “If “O’Malley gets in and really
goes after Hillary and attacks her hard, one of Priorities’ functions is to
rise to her defense.”

Clinton ramps up fundraising as GOP candidates surge ahead
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/04/30/clinton-bush-white-house-fundraising/26653095/>
// USAToday // Fredreka Schouten – May 1, 2015

Hillary Clinton is stepping up her race for campaign money, holding three
invitation-only events in the nation's capital Thursday ahead of a
fundraising swing next week through California.

The Democrat front-runner, who is deliberately focusing on raising her
money in relatively modest amounts, may need every penny. Several
Republicans vying for their party's presidential nomination are pulling in
staggering sums through new super PACs that can collect unlimited
contributions, setting up a 2016 campaign that will be awash in cash.

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who declared his interest in the GOP
nomination last December, has yet to officially join the campaign, giving
him the leeway to raise big sums for his Right to Rise super PAC.

At this pace, spending in the 2016 race could top $4 billion — or about
twice the amount that President Obama, Republican Mitt Romney and their
allies collected in the 2012 contest, said Anthony Corrado, an elections
expert at Colby College in Maine.

"It's a radically different approach to structuring campaigns," he said of
the Republican contenders' use of super PACs.

Clinton, who has made overhauling the nation's "dysfunctional"
campaign-finance system one of the four pillars of her budding campaign, is
building a decidedly low-key fundraising system. Bundlers, for instance,
need only to collect a total of $27,000 from 10 or more individuals for the
primary to earn the title of "Hillstarters."

Between 110 and 170 people were expected to attend each of the three
fundraising events Thursday in Washington. The cost: $2,700 per person.
Hosts include State Department official and long-time Democratic fundraiser
Elizabeth Bagley. She served as U.S. ambassador to Portugal during Bill
Clinton's presidency.

Next week, Clinton heads to California where her stops include a May 6
fundraiser at the home of billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer and his
wife, Kat Taylor. Steyer, who pumped more than $73 million of his fortune
into 2014 midterm races, will help Clinton "in a considerable way," said
Chris Lehane, Steyer's top political adviser.

Even so, Lehane said he expects Steyer's efforts will be overshadowed by
Republican giving.

Clinton also is slated to attend a fundraising event at the home of Esprit
clothing co-founder Susie Tompkins Buell, along with fundraisers in
southern California hosted by Homeland co-creator Howard Gordon and other
Hollywood luminaries.

Clinton's campaign has not released any fundraising totals, and a super PAC
supporting her candidacy, Priorities USA Action, raised no money in 2014 to
avoid siphoning cash away from the party's Senate races. Presidential
candidates and the super PACs supporting their bids will not have to
disclose fundraising and spending figures until July.

Signs abound, however, that Republicans are setting a blistering pace. Bush
told donors this week that he's already set a 100-day fundraising record
for Republican politics. Bush reportedly is weighing delegating core
campaign functions, such as advertising and data-gathering, to the super
PAC, the Associated Press recently reported. Super PACs are supposed to
operate independently of the candidates they support.

Allies of several other Republicans, such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, have
claimed raising tens of millions in super PAC donations already.

Last week, billionaire industrialist Charles Koch told USA TODAY that he
might provide financial support to as many as five Republican presidential
contenders. His political network will invest about $300 million in
electoral politics in 2016, he said.

"We have never seen the kind of money we anticipate being spent in this
election cycle," said Michael Podhorzer, political director of the
Democratic-aligned AFL-CIO. Democrats' best defense, he said, will be
appealing to voters concerned about pocket-book and quality-of-life issues,
such as income inequality and paid family leave.

Clinton's push to curb unlimited campaign spending could be "part of an
approach of saying, 'I'm going to be on your side, not Wall Street's side,'
" he said.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Allison Moore said Clinton
already is guilty of "faux populism" on that front, given that her
campaign's first fundraisers earlier this week in New York were attended by
hedge-fund managers and venture capitalists.

Steve Elmendorf, a lobbyist and veteran Democratic strategist, said Clinton
has ample time to build her campaign account.

"It's not like being a Republican in a crowded field of 15 candidates," he
said of Clinton's candidacy. "She can do it in a slow, steady way."

Hillary Clinton and the Tragic Politics of Crime
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-tragic-politics-of-crime/392114/>
// The Atlantic // Peter Beinart - May 1, 2015

With the exception of gay rights, no public-policy debate has shifted more
dramatically in my adult lifetime than the debate over crime. In 1992, when
Bill Clinton flew back to Arkansas to oversee the execution of a mentally
retarded African American murderer, the move helped him in New Hampshire’s
Democratic primary. In 1994, Clinton’s crime bill—which among other things,
expanded the death penalty, encouraged states to lengthen prison sentences
and eliminated federal funding for inmate education—garnered the votes of
every Democratic Senator except one.

Today, by contrast, Hillary Clinton is loudly repudiating the “tough on
crime” policies that she and her husband once championed. Even more
remarkably, prominent Republicans are nodding along.

To those who see Hillary’s new crime agenda as a flip-flop, her campaign
has a rejoinder: Different policies make sense at different times. As
Clinton spokesperson Jesse Ferguson tweeted, “HRC policy on internet might
also be different than WJC policy in 1994. Not b/c he was wrong but b/c
times change.”

The problem with this argument is that many of the crime policies the
Clintons supported in the 1990s were probably wrong even back then. Yes,
the crime bill did some good: It put more cops on the street and increased
penalties for sex crimes. But it also helped spawn the very “era of mass
incarceration” that Hillary now denounces. It’s not just that the bill
allocated almost $10 billion in federal-prison construction money. It only
allocated it to states that adopted “truth-in-sentencing” laws that
dramatically increased the amount of time criminals served. As NYU Law
School’s Brennan Center has noted, the number of states with such laws rose
from five when the bill was signed to 29 by Clinton’s last year in office.
Over the course of Clinton’s presidency, the number of Americans in prison
rose almost 60 percent.

All this might—I underscore, might—be justified if such prison expansion
produced dramatic declines in crime. But while crime has indeed dropped
dramatically—it’s about half what it was at its peak in 1991—the best
evidence suggests that locking people up is not the primary reason. After
spending close to two years testing 14 different potential causes of the
reduction in crime, the Brennan Center this year concluded that
“incarceration was responsible for approximately five percent of the drop
in crime in the 1990s,” and an even lower percentage since then. A report
last year by the National Academies’ National Research Council found that
“the growth in incarceration rates reduced crime, but the magnitude of the
crime reduction remains highly uncertain and the evidence suggests it was
unlikely to have been large.” Even a 2004 investigation by University of
Chicago economist Steven D. Levitt, who considers increased imprisonment
more effective, only found that it accounted for roughly one-third of the
crime drop.

Liberals urge Clinton to go left, where she risks losing swing votes
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-hillary-clinton-liberals-conflict-20150501-story.html>
// LA Times // Evan Halper - May 1, 2015

Richard Trumka mentioned no names as he vowed recently that labor would not
endorse yet another presidential candidate who talks big about confronting
inequality but offers an agenda that merely fiddles around the edges of the
economy, meeting Wall Street’s needs before throwing workers “scraps.”

Yet it was a clear warning to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Trumka, the AFL-CIO
president, had just summarized the collective progressive angst around her.

Clinton’s agenda is largely a mystery, reflecting a candidate who has not
been engaged in domestic policy since the country first plunged into the
Great Recession, and who is in no rush to box herself into positions.

But the left is not giving her the benefit of the doubt. A day has not gone
by since she launched her run three weeks ago without some group of
progressives calling on her to make a pledge. That she will oppose the big
Pacific trade agreement. That she will support a debt-free college plan.
That she will commit to raising the minimum wage to $15.

They want promises that she would upend the tax system, guarantee child
care for everyone, expand Social Security.

“America doesn’t need relentlessly cautious half-measures,” Trumka said at
his speech this week in Washington. Then he spelled out the consequences of
an uninspired base: the door-knocking, phone banking and other mobilizing
efforts that labor can offer in the general election may just not
materialize.

The message was clear. The coalition that propelled Barack Obama to victory
is disenchanted, and it will fray with every step Clinton takes toward the
center to appeal to swing voters.

Clinton’s long association with liberal causes, from Hillarycare to family
leave, is cold comfort to progressive organizers. So are her words on the
campaign trail, where she has gradually sought to assure restive liberals
that she is one of them, lamenting that “the deck is still stacked in favor
of those at the top.” One day her campaign hired Gary Gensler, a former
regulator who is a nemesis of big banks, and another, as the Supreme Court
considered gay marriage, it refashioned her avatar on Twitter as a rainbow
flag.

She also wrote the tribute when Time magazine named Clinton frenemy Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the lefty standard-bearer and constant source
of heartburn to Clinton’s campaign, one of its 100 most influential people.
After Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont socialist, announced Thursday that
he was running against her in the Democratic primary, Clinton tweeted that
she agreed with him that the “focus must be on helping America’s middle
class.”

Clinton is running in a very different Democratic Party than she was eight
years ago, and its base expects much more from her. Activists are angry
that even the end of the recession is doing little to stem economic
inequality. They resent her husband’s legacy on the economy, saying
Clintonian policies that emphasized creating opportunity over structurally
lifting those workers at the bottom have resulted in chronically low wages
and a deteriorating quality of life for too much of America.

“The problems have become so big that it feels to many of us like systemic
solutions are required,” said Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the
Center for Community Change, which advocates for low-income Americans.
“Whether she is prepared to go there is an open question.”

It is all irritating to the Clinton campaign. Her advisors argue that the
groups unfairly gloss over her lengthy record of pursuing liberal
legislation and instead harp on Bill Clinton's association with the
Democratic Leadership Council, the pro-growth think tank that helped shape
his economic agenda as president. The council shut down on the verge of
bankruptcy in 2011, and the currency of its ideas in the Democratic party
has withered.

The idea generators likely to have the biggest effect in driving Hillary
Clinton’s agenda now are at a very different group, the Center for American
Progress. The think tank is an incubator for many of the policies that
progressive organizations are pushing Clinton to adopt. Its founder, John
Podesta, is Clinton’s campaign chairman. The current president of the
center, Neera Tanden, was Clinton’s policy director in the last campaign.

“Just because Bill Clinton had some ideas in the 1990s, it doesn’t mean
Hillary Clinton is going to have the same ideas in 2015,” Tanden said. “I
categorically reject that … these are new times with new challenges.”

A lengthy report that Tanden’s group released this year is putting some
progressives at ease. It was notable not just because it acknowledges the
growth-focused strategies pursued by Bill Clinton no longer adequately
address stagnant wages and widening economic inequality, but also because
of who wrote it. The co-author was Larry Summers, the relentlessly centrist
Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton who played a key role in pushing the
Democratic Party to the right in the 1990s.

Now, Summers is warning of an erosion of democracy if unions are not
strengthened and government does not pursue policies that force wage growth.

Hillary Clinton could face a litmus test very soon. She is under pressure
to take a position on a massive Pacific free-trade agreement sought by
President Obama. Legislation supporting the pact is moving through
Congress, and the left is mobilizing to fight it.

“This is a chance to separate herself from what people fear about her,
which is a continuation of some of the Clintonian economic policies that
did not work out so well,” said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic
Policy institute, a progressive think tank.

For now, Mishel is reserving judgment. He said the candidate could yet
delight liberal activists, noting that Clinton had the more progressive
agenda when she ran unsuccessfully against Obama eight years ago. But he
also pointed out that she would be spending a lot of time with Wall Street
in the coming months, soliciting donations for her campaign.

“We just don’t know where she is yet,” he said. “The unstated concern of
some people, I think, is that she is too close to the financial center and
needs to raise a lot of money. That can make someone shy about addressing
the 1%. And it can push them into emphasizing ‘opportunity’ over inequality.

Hillary Clinton Courts the Democratic Left, but Is Pressured to Take
Progressive Stands
<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/us/politics/hillary-clinton-welcomes-the-democratic-left-but-is-pressured-to-take-progressive-stands.html?_r=0&referrer=>
// New York Times // Jonathan Martin and Nicholas Confessore – May 1, 2015

Months before Hillary Rodham Clinton started delivering Democratic primary
voters a liberal-minded message about a “stacked deck” in favor of the
wealthy and the need for criminal-justice reform, she met quietly at Esca,
a Mario Batali restaurant in Midtown Manhattan, with four powerful labor
leaders.

There, in February, she treated representatives of the biggest teachers’,
service employees’ and government workers’ unions to a seafood dinner and a
lengthy discussion of policy issues. Her meaning was unmistakable: She
wanted them to feel like an important part of her coming campaign.

But Mrs. Clinton is not just conveying veiled messages to her party’s
left-leaning base. She is also receiving them.

On Tuesday, Richard L. Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., gave an
address here aimed ostensibly at any White House contender. Without naming
Mrs. Clinton, he urged candidates for president to resist “cautious
half-measures.”

Interactive Feature | Who Is Running for President (and Who’s Not)? At
least a dozen Republicans and a handful of Democrats have expressed an
interest in running for their party’s 2016 presidential nomination.

He also called for “a commitment, from the candidate down through his or
her economic team,” to steer a progressive agenda to completion. A senior
labor official later called it the most important line in Mr. Trumka’s
speech.

That is because he was publicly amplifying, however obliquely, an argument
that liberals have made to Mrs. Clinton and her team more bluntly in
private: They do not wish to see the likes of Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence
H. Summers, both former treasury secretaries to Bill Clinton, become
fixtures in her circle.

It is unclear if Mrs. Clinton will bow to such demands; a senior campaign
aide said only that she receives a range of policy advice.

On Thursday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-proclaimed
socialist, said he would seek the Democratic nomination. But the push and
pull between Mrs. Clinton’s pursuit of the liberal base and its desire for
assurance before consummation may be a more significant source of tension
within the party.

Mrs. Clinton cheerily welcomed Mr. Sanders into the race, even as she works
to deny Mr. Sanders or any other liberal an issue on which to bloody her
from the left.

She and her top aides have begun an aggressive charm offensive, calling,
emailing, meeting and dining with scores of progressive officials and
activists. John Deeth, a well-read blogger in Iowa City (“the People’s
Republic of Johnson County,” he joked), said that Matt Paul, Mrs. Clinton’s
Iowa director, called him after she announced.

“Mostly he listened,” recalled Mr. Deeth, who said he would probably remain
neutral in the primary.

With labor opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, Mrs.
Clinton’s staff has been in touch with Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of
Ohio, who has been battling President Obama over the agreement.

“People are seeing that the Democratic Party is again standing for things,”
Mr. Brown said of the energy on the left. (He added that he was not ready
to commit to Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy — but had “zero” interest in a
presidential bid of his own.)

Liberal organizations say they are gearing up to mobilize their memberships
around issues like campaign reform, trade and net neutrality. Their goal,
leaders of some of the groups said, is to make clear to Mrs. Clinton that
committing to their issues could be the difference between tens of
thousands of additional enthusiastic volunteers going door to door for her
and making contributions to her campaign or simply casting their ballot for
her.

“The American people are pretty smart, and they’re used to being lied to in
campaigns,” said Becky Bond, the political director of Credo, a progressive
group that has raised about $76 million for liberal causes and has many
members in states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. “They want some kind
of reassurance that Hillary Clinton will back up her words with actions.”

The apprehensiveness is two-way. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign reached out
through intermediaries to campaign finance activists, some of whom have
been privately discussing a public effort in New Hampshire to pressure her
on the issue. Campaign reform groups, in turn, have argued that she will be
unable to persuade voters to back an activist government agenda unless she
first addresses their concerns about Washington corruption.

Mrs. Clinton faces even more intense pressure to confront income inequality
and make clear she is not beholden to the business-friendly policies
preferred by some of her contributors. While aligning herself with the left
on cultural issues like immigration and same-sex marriage, she has so far
been less explicit on economic policies — avoiding taking a position, for
example, on a controversial trade pact with Pacific Rim countries.

“No candidate can be all things to all people,” Mr. Trumka said in his
speech, demanding that White House aspirants resist “the politics of hedged
bets.”

That afternoon, Mrs. Clinton’s political director, Amanda Renteria, sent an
email to leading union officials saying that the campaign had tapped an
official from the United Food and Commercial Workers union as Mrs.
Clinton’s “labor outreach director.”

“Filling this position has been a top priority for us given the importance
of labor issues to Hillary and everyday Americans across the country,” Ms.
Renteria wrote, noting Mrs. Clinton’s “longstanding relationships” with
labor and her desire to nurture those ties “as a team.”

But a far weightier personnel matter is who will serve as Mrs. Clinton’s
economic advisers, both on the campaign and, should she win, as president.
Many on the left, who wish but are deeply skeptical that she will surround
herself with advisers from the Elizabeth Warren school, believe both Mr.
Obama and Mr. Clinton were overly captive to Wall Street-oriented economic
aides.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides noted that she is taking economic advice from
outspoken progressives like Gary Gensler, a former Wall Street regulator.

But Dean Baker, a liberal economist, said, “I would be very surprised if we
had a President Clinton and the administration didn’t include the usual
suspects.”

Mr. Baker, who has been frank about the need for a transaction tax on
financial investments, said he was called by an adviser to Mrs. Clinton
soliciting his input and ideas, but was unmoved by the approach.

“They’re being polite,” he said. “But I’m not optimistic. It may change if
blood is drawn by Sanders or somebody. Maybe then they’ll have to sit down
and talk seriously.”

Why Is Hillary Running Left?
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/01/why_is_hillary_running_left_126447.html>
// Real Clear Politics// Sean Trende – May 1, 2015

Brian Beutler has a thoughtful piece up at The New Republic discussing
Hillary Clinton’s leftward shift vis-à-vis her 2008 run for president (and
especially vis-à-vis Bill Clinton’s presidency). The piece is well worth
reading in its entirety, but these are the relevant sections for our
purposes:

“There’s an ongoing debate in American politics over the extent to which
the Obama coalition is unique to Obama, who is himself a unique historical
figure. Are the younger, more progressive Democrats who swept him into
office ready to do the same for a candidate who doesn’t check all of the
same characterological boxes—youth, charisma, diversity? . . .

“Perhaps more importantly, Hillary Clinton also thinks the answer is
yes—if, that is, you buy the cynical (but possibly accurate) interpretation
of her leftward shift. In fact, this might be the most hopeful
interpretation as far as liberals are concerned. Because if Clinton doesn’t
have any core convictions, and is only saying whatever she thinks she has
to say to win—if indeed she's merely betting that things like campaign
finance reform, same-sex marriage, and immigration reform will add up to a
winning platform—then it's a nod to her belief that the Obama coalition is
stable, loyal, and larger than the Republican electorate.”

I tend to think overall that the 2016 election will be decided much more by
the state of the economy than Hillary Clinton’s positioning on marriage
equality or ability to increase youth participation rates. In that respect,
Wednesday’s GDP report was much worse news for Democrats than anything we
might discern about youth turnout in 2016 (though it remains to be seen if
there is a summer “bounce-back” for the economy, as there was last year).

But I do think party coalitions matter, however, at least on the margins.
In that respect, I think Beutler identifies the most important issue, by
several orders of magnitude, for 2016: Is Obama’s coalition transferrable
to Clinton (or other Democrats)? I think we need to flesh out this question
a bit before we can turn to Beutler’s second question, which actually asks
what Hillary Clinton’s positioning tells us about the answer to the first
question.

From a demographic standpoint, an election consists of two components:
Turnout levels among different demographic groups and levels of support
among different demographic groups. Barack Obama won the demographic battle
on both fronts: He boosted turnout levels among African-Americans to match
those of non-Hispanic whites, and he blew the proverbial roof off in terms
of support levels from minorities.

This was critical to his victory in 2012: If Mitt Romney had matched George
W. Bush’s level of support among minorities, Romney would have been elected
president (even if he had dropped to George W. Bush’s level of support
among non-Hispanic whites). Likewise, if black participation had dropped
back to 2004 levels, the election would have been too close to call (how
you evaluate it would depend on whether you think new African-American
voters in 2008 were even more likely to vote for Obama than returning
African-American voters).

So is this coalition transferable? Obviously, Obama’s 2012 re-election
effort is a very good data point for Democrats on the turnout front. Many
analysts, myself included, were skeptical that Obama could re-create the
turnout from 2008, much less improve upon it (although much of the
demographic change that occurred was due to whites staying home, rather
than African-American or Hispanic turnout increasing).

Another positive data point for Democrats is turnout in the 2014 elections.
The fact that African-Americans were 12 percent of the electorate in 2014,
vs. 10 percent in 2006 and 11 percent in 2010, suggests that many of the
marginal voters Obama turned out are no longer marginal. In the battle
between voting as a socio-economic phenomenon and voting as habit, what
evidence we have suggests that habit may be winning (although turnout was
so unusually low in 2014 that it may be tough to generalize from this data).

Things are dicier, however, on the question of support. If we look at
support for the parties in the 2004, 2010 and 2014 elections among racial
groups, we see an awful lot of stability. Republicans won 59 percent of the
non-Hispanic white vote in 2004, 62 percent in 2010 and 61 percent in 2014
(these statistics exclude votes cast for third parties, a common practice
when comparing across elections).

Among African-Americans, Republicans won 11 percent, 9 percent and 10
percent in 2004, 2010 and 2014, respectively. For Hispanics, according to
the exit polls, Republicans won 45 percent in 2004 (though that is probably
an overestimate; the true number is likely closer to 40 percent), 39
percent in 2010 and 37 percent in 2014. Among Asian-Americans, it was 44
percent in 2004, 41 percent in 2010 and 51 percent in 2014. Among “other,”
the numbers are 43 percent, 45 percent and 49 percent.

There are differences there, but overall those electorates look roughly
alike. This is important, because if the Republican wins the same share of
whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and “other” voters in 2016 as
Republicans did in any of 2004, 2010 or 2014 elections, the Republican
would win the popular vote. This would be true even if the white share of
the electorate falls another two points, and the Hispanic and Asian/other
shares rise another point apiece. To look at this a shade differently,
Republicans just had a landslide win in an electorate that, according to
the exit polls, had pretty much the same racial demographics as the one in
2008 (which was supposed to be a more or less unwinnable electorate for
Republicans).

So how do we evaluate the “support” data? We have two basic ways of looking
at it. Democrats prefer to look at this as a midterm/presidential
electorate dynamic. There’s doubtless at least some truth here, although
this argument is neutralized somewhat by breaking things down by race: Seen
through this lens, you have to demonstrate not just that the voters who
stayed home were more Democratic, but that they were more Democratic after
controlling for race (see more here).

Republicans, on the other hand, think of this as an Obama coalition vs. a
“normal” coalition. The thought is that if you remove the historic nature
of Obama’s candidacy, the racial breakdowns will look much more like they
did in 2004, 2010 and 2014. There are problems with this view as well –
most notably that 2010 and 2014 were wave elections – but the idea that
Democrats would have a hard time maintaining 80 percent support among
non-whites without the positive stimulus of a non-white presidential
candidate isn’t far-fetched. Here’s political scientist John Sides:

 “Second, the ‘Obama coalition’ may prove to be exactly that: a coalition
specific to Obama. When he is no longer at the top of the ticket, will
groups like Latinos and African-Americans turn out in such numbers, and
with such strong support for the Democratic candidate? At a University of
Denver election panel last week, political scientist Matt Barreto noted
that 79% of African-American are “very enthusiastic” about the Democratic
Party now, but only 47% say they will be after Obama’s presidency ends (see
slide 18). It’s unlikely that African-Americans are going to vote for a
Republican candidate in large numbers, but will they turn out in such high
numbers for whichever Democrat wants to succeed Obama?”

This brings us back to Beutler’s argument that the decision to shift
leftward is made by the Clinton campaign from a position of strength, and
provides evidence of a belief that Obama’s coalition is both transferable
and larger than the Republican coalition.

I would call this the optimistic interpretation (from a liberal
perspective) of her moves, even if you accept that this is simply cynical
gamesmanship on her part. The pessimistic interpretation would stem from
one of the theses of my book, “The Lost Majority”: that Obama modified Bill
Clinton’s coalition into a narrower, deeper one. This enabled Obama to win
a victory in 2008 that was almost as large as Clinton’s 1996 win without
bringing Appalachians or working-class whites on board. The problem with
such a coalition is that it doesn’t allow for much flexibility: At least
for now, Democrats have to run up the score with different groups in order
to win.

Under the pessimistic take, the Clinton Coalition is simply gone. Bill
Clinton had managed to keep Appalachian voters and working-class whites in
the Democratic camp through skillful positioning and a bit of luck. But
over the course of the next decade, these voters finally broke with the
Democrats. This occurred at the presidential level in 2004 and 2008, then
occurred at the senatorial level in 2010 and 2014, when relatively
conservative Democrats like Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu found they could
no longer win with a Clintonian formula (in fact, they couldn’t come close
to winning). This was a break that was a long time coming, but given that
it has filtered down to congressional and even state legislative offices,
it seems like it will be difficult to reverse.

So from the pessimistic standpoint (again, from the liberal perspective),
Clinton is running leftward not because she believes it is the best way to
win, but because she believes that she has no choice.

AP-GFK POLL: Doubts About Clinton's Honesty After Emails
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_POLL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-01-15-25-38>
// AP // Lisa Lerer and Emily Swanson – May 1, 2015

Americans appear to be suspicious of Hillary Rodham Clinton's honesty, and
even many Democrats are only lukewarm about her presidential candidacy,
according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

Is she strong and decisive? Yes, say a majority of people. But inspiring
and likable? Only a minority think so.

Clinton's struggles to explain her email practices while in government,
along with questions about the Clinton Foundation and Republican criticism
of her openness, wealth and trustworthiness seem to have struck a nerve in
the public's perception of the dominant Democratic figure in the 2016
campaign. In the survey, 61 percent said "honest" describes her only
slightly well or not at all.

Nearly four in 10 Democrats, and more than six in 10 independents agreed
that "honest" was not the best word for her.

Even so, she is viewed more favorably than her potential Republican rivals,
none of whom are as well-known as the former secretary of state, senator
and first lady.

With Clinton facing little competition on the Democratic side, Republicans
are trying to make questions about her integrity central to the early 2016
campaign. They paint her as a creature of Washington who flouts the rules
to get ahead.

Her use of a private email account run from a server kept at her New York
home while serving as secretary of state has fed perceptions that she had
things to hide. And questions are swirling about foreign donations to the
family's charitable foundation and whether that money influenced her work
at the State Department.

James Robins, an independent voter from North Carolina, says his generally
positive opinion of Clinton has shifted over the past few months, as more
details have emerged about her email usage and foundation fundraising
practices.

"She and her family think they're above everything," he said. "She
intentionally destroyed all the evidence on that server. And when you look
at some of her other stuff recently it's equally as bad."

Clinton said last month that she used a personal account out of
convenience. She deleted about 30,000 emails that she has described as
personal in nature and has declined requests from congressional Republicans
to turn over her server for an independent review.

The survey suggests that many Americans aren't buying Clinton's
explanation: A majority said they believe she used a private address to
shield her emails from transparency laws and they think she should turn her
server over to a third party for further investigation.

At the same time, the public is split over whether her email usage is a
significant issue for her presidential aspirations: Less than a third -- 32
percent -- said it was a major problem, 36 percent rated it a minor
problem, and 31 percent said it's not a problem at all. Only 20 percent
said they're paying very close attention to the email story.

"We don't have the whole picture and all the information that we need to
make a judgment," said Ruth Johnson, of Moorhead, Minnesota. "Will she show
everything that was emailed? Or has she eliminated a lot of stuff we'll
never know about?"

Still, Clinton's overall ratings remain the strongest in the emerging
presidential field and are essentially unchanged since two AP-GfK polls
conducted last year. Forty-six percent of Americans express a favorable
view of Clinton, slightly more than the 41 percent who express a negative
opinion. No potential Republican candidate in the poll had significantly
greater positive than negative ratings.

Polls generally showed Clinton with a much higher approval rating while she
was secretary of state. Opinions of her have become more polarized as she
has re-entered partisan politics, as they were when she vied for the
Democratic nomination for president in 2008.

Despite Clinton's dominance in the early primary field, the survey suggests
that some in her party would be open to a challenger.

Among Democrats, only 34 percent said they were excited by her candidacy
while 36 percent described themselves as merely satisfied. Another 19
percent said they were neutral, and 9 percent were disappointed or angry.

"I wish there was somebody else," said Kenneth Berger, of New York City.
"She always has a problem."

---

The AP-GfK Poll of 1,077 adults was conducted online April 23-27, using a
sample drawn from GfK's probability-based KnowledgePanel, which is designed
to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error
for all respondents is plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

Respondents were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey
methods, and later interviewed online. People selected for KnowledgePanel
who didn't otherwise have access to the Internet were provided access at no
cost to them.

Online: AP-GfK Poll: http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com

Hillary Clinton a Free Trader, or Not, Depending on the Moment
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-01/hillary-clinton-a-free-trader-or-not-depending-on-the-moment>
// Bloomberg // Mike Dorning – May, 1 2015

Three years ago Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised a proposed deal
to reduce trade barriers among Pacific Rim nations as “the gold standard”
for such pacts.

Now, the presidential candidate Clinton has nothing to say as President
Barack Obama fights to win expanded negotiating authority to complete the
agreement over furious opposition from organized labor and progressives in
his own party.

Her silence on the premier economic issue dividing Democrats is consistent
with a long history of wavering under pressure on trade. She has even
alternately praised and criticized the landmark North American Free Trade
Agreement signed by her husband in 1993, calling it good for America or a
“mistake,” depending on the audience and circumstances.

“What she does could make a difference on the outcome.”

Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch

Critics of the current deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, are frustrated
by Clinton’s ambiguous stance as she tries to hold together a political
coalition that includes party activists on the left and major financial
supporters from business and Wall Street.

“We expect those who seek to lead our nation forward to oppose fast track,”
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a speech Tuesday without naming
Clinton. “There is no middle ground, and the time for deliberations is
drawing to a close.”

Some opponents of the trade accord believe a clear statement from their
party’s almost-certain presidential nominee opposing fast-track authority,
which allows Congress to vote up or down on trade deals but not to amend
them, might seal its defeat and kill the entire agreement.

“What she does could make a difference on the outcome,” said Lori Wallach,
director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. Opposition from Clinton
“would spotlight how isolated President Obama is among Democrats.”

Lines Drawn

Democratic backers of the deal aren’t pressing as hard for her to express
clear support and anger key constituencies such as unions and
environmentalists whose enthusiasm Clinton would need in an election.
Unions consider the Pacific trade agreement a job killer and activists
worry that certain provisions could be used to override environmental,
health and safety regulations.

A public Clinton stand on fast track “would be a factor but I don’t think
it would be particularly dispositive at this point,” said Representative
Gerald Connolly, a Virginia Democrat who supports the initiative. “The
lines have been drawn.”

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe traveled to Washington this week and
delivered an address to Congress to promote expanded trade as Congress
moves closer to a vote on negotiating authority. The measure would allow
Obama and his successor to negotiate trade deals for up to six years and
submit them to Congress for votes.

Only 13 Democratic House members have publicly expressed support for the
legislation, considered necessary to complete the Pacific trade deal, which
would cover the U.S. and 11 other nations accounting for 44 percent of
American goods exports in 2013.

Trade Links

No recent Democratic political name has been more closely linked to the
cause of expanded international trade than the Clintons’. NAFTA was a
signature achievement of Bill Clinton’s presidency, won only after he took
on the labor movement, key Democratic congressional leaders and much of his
party’s rank and file in Congress.

Then-first lady, Clinton praised NAFTA in 1996 as “proving its worth.” At a
meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in 1998, she
thanked business leaders for lobbying for the trade deal with Mexico and
Canada and criticized them for not making a more vigorous effort to give
the administration fast-track authority to negotiate more such agreements.

In 2000, while campaigning for the U.S. Senate in New York, where upstate
manufacturing jobs had declined, Clinton called NAFTA “flawed.” After she
was elected, she listed the trade agreement as an example of her husband’s
“good ideas and courage” in a 2002 speech to the centrist Democratic
Leadership Council. In 2004, she said “on balance NAFTA has been good for
New York and America.”

As she began to gear up for her 2008 White House run, she turned more
skeptical. She voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement in
2005, saying it lacked sufficient protection for foreign workers. She
joined fellow New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer in sponsoring
legislation calling for sanctions on Chinese exports unless that country
stopped holding down the value of its currency.

By 2007, she called NAFTA a “mistake” in a CNN presidential debate. During
the campaign she called for a “trade timeout” on additional agreements and
promised to appoint a “trade prosecutor” to more vigorously pursue
violations by U.S. commercial partners. A Washington Post editorial in 2007
called her evolution on trade issues “opportunism under pressure.”

Clinton wasn’t the only candidate to court voters in industrial states
unhappy with trade deals. Obama criticized her on NAFTA during hard-fought
primaries in Ohio and Pennsylvania and promised to renegotiate the
agreement if he were elected. He never followed through.

After House and Senate leaders negotiated compromise language on fast-track
legislation in April, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill issued a statement on
the Pacific trade talks that didn’t take a position on the vote facing
Congress.

“She will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on
currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and
health, promote transparency, and open new opportunities for our small
businesses to export overseas,” Merrill said.

“Any new trade measure has to pass two tests,” he added in the statement.
“First it should put us in a position to protect American workers, raise
wages and create more good jobs at home. Second, it must also strengthen
our national security.”

Perhaps mindful of his own history on trade, Obama has declined to
criticize his former secretary of state for withholding public support on
the fast-track debate.

“She said what she should be saying, which is that she is going to want to
see a trade agreement that is strong on labor, strong on the environment,
helps U.S. workers, helps the U.S. economy,” Obama said in an interview
Tuesday with the Wall Street Journal. “That’s my standard as well, and I’m
confident that standard can be met.”

Bill Galston, a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House, said
he’d be surprised to see the former first lady take a position on
fast-track authority, which she can always characterize as “a procedural
issue.’

‘‘It’s clearly her assessment that it has become a very volatile issue,”
Galston said. Should a complete treaty come before Congress, he added, it
would become “increasingly difficult for her to avoid taking a position.”

On Clinton's age, Republican rivals imply -- but never say -- she's old
<http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NM34V20150501?irpc=932> //
Reuters // James Oliphant – May 1, 2015

Her campaign barely three weeks old, Hillary Clinton already has been
attacked by Republicans on everything from donations to her family's
charitable foundation, to her tenure as secretary of state and her ties to
Wall Street. But her rivals, and the political action committees that
support them, are treading more carefully on one incendiary subject: her
age.

If elected in November 2016, Clinton would be, at 69, the second-oldest
person to take the presidential oath for the first time, behind only Ronald
Reagan, who turned 70 weeks after being sworn into office in 1981.

Questions of health and fitness for the presidency dogged two former
candidates of a similar age, Bob Dole in the 1996 election and John McCain
in 2008, each of whom was 71 at this point in the race. Time magazine
featured Dole on the cover asking whether he was "too old" for the job.
McCain was so determined to show that he was healthy that he often put in
back-breaking campaign days.

"I do think age is an issue in a presidential campaign," said Steve
Schmidt, who was McCain’s campaign manager. "There is a thin line between
seasoned and decrepit."

But several Republican campaigns that seem best positioned to exploit it
don't want to touch the issue - at least directly. That's a shift from just
a few months ago, when presidential hopefuls Senator Rand Paul, 52, and
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, 47, explicitly referenced Clinton’s age as
a possible disqualifier, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell likened
her to a cast member of the hit TV show “The Golden Girls,” which featured
four older women living together.

"It’s a rigorous physical ordeal, I think, to be able to campaign for the
presidency," Paul said in November, referring to Clinton's age. Now,
however, Paul’s presidential campaign doesn’t want to talk about the issue.
It declined further comment. As did Walker’s political action committee,
even though last fall, he, too, noted that he could run for president "20
years from now" and be the same age Clinton is today.

Campaign aides to Paul, Walker and Senator Marco Rubio, 43, as well as
Republican strategists, told Reuters there was little appetite in the party
at the moment for a direct assault on Clinton on the issues of her age and
fitness for office, even after a 2012 fall that gave her a concussion and
caused a potentially life-threatening blood clot.

Similarly, anti-Clinton political action committees such as American
Crossroads, America Rising, and Citizens United said they had no plans to
launch ads centered on her age.

POLL SHOWS DEMOCRATS UNFAZED

"It’s unwise to attack a political opponent based on her immutable
characteristics, like race, gender and age," said Republican pollster
Kellyanne Conway. She said she has met with at least five Republican
presidential campaigns seeking her services and none of them has indicated
they want to go after Clinton on issues involving her age.

With Clinton swamped by questions about foreign donations to the Clinton
Foundation and criticism of her use of a private email server while at the
State Department, there is also simply no reason at the moment to engage in
an attack that could be more divisive than beneficial, Republican
strategists said.

They fear that highlighting Clinton’s age could alienate women voters whom
Republicans need to be competitive in next year’s general election.

Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg said women older than 50 would likely
comprise the largest bloc of voters in 2016.

There is little evidence that Democrats and independent voters are
concerned about having another president in their 70s. A Reuters/Ipsos poll
conducted this month showed that Clinton’s age would not influence how 67
percent of Democrats and 72 percent of independents voted in November 2016.

And rather than downplay her age, Clinton in recent campaign events in Iowa
and New Hampshire embraced her role as a grandmother, striking sympathetic
notes with other older women in the room about the responsibility of
raising a grandchild.

Supporters have also sought to dismiss any concerns about her age as
sexist, noting that she’s the same age as Mitt Romney when he ran four
years ago. Romney largely avoided any protracted discussion about his
health.

IT'S A GENERATIONAL THING

While eschewing direct attacks, some of the Republican presidential
hopefuls have found other ways to strongly hint that Clinton's age should
be an issue for voters. They have repackaged the issue as "generational"
and suggested she is a product of the politics of the 20th Century. That
argument will grow more vivid should Clinton face a candidate who could be
a generation younger than her in the general election.

“When you look at Hilary Clinton’s age, it becomes an issue in a general
election if she’s running against a 40-something new face as opposed to
Governor Bush,” said Schmidt. Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, is 62.

Rubio, a quarter century younger than Clinton, referred to her as a "leader
from yesterday" when he announced his candidacy last month.

"We welcome the contrast (with Clinton)," said a top adviser to Rubio.
"This election is going to be about the future."

Clinton's campaign declined to comment on the various statements by the
Republican hopefuls, referring questions to Correct the Record, a
rapid-response operation run by the pro-Clinton group American Bridge. A
spokeswoman, Adrienne Watson, said it was Clinton's rivals, not her, who
were behind the times.

"Republican politicians are stuck in the 90s - the 1890s," Watson said.
"I'm sure all Americans, Republicans included, would appreciate it if
Republican leaders would join (Clinton) in talking about our future."

She saw Rubio's comments as a coded attack on Clinton's age.

"Marco Rubio basically disqualifies himself to be president when he
diminishes any American for being too young or old or anything else,"
Watson said.

BILL CLINTON'S PLAYBOOK

Yet Rubio's approach is similar to the one employed by Clinton’s husband,
Bill, in his reelection campaign against Dole in 1996.

"I don't think Senator Dole is too old to be president,” Clinton said at
one debate. “It's the age of his ideas that I question."

Dick Morris, who served as Bill Clinton’s campaign manager, said it was a
subtle enough way to remind voters of the age difference between the two
candidates.

"We obviously couldn’t attack age directly because of older voters," Morris
told Reuters. "What we did is adopt a whole strategy based on issues that
would summon the memories and ideas of age without articulating it."

Dole released his medical records in 1995 to assuage concerns about his
age. But the damage control was not entirely successful: he mistakenly
called the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team “Brooklyn,” and he tumbled off
a stage during a rally.

Hillary Clinton, too, had what her husband seemed to term a “senior” moment
in 2008 when she erroneously claimed she had come under sniper fire while
on a trip to Bosnia as first lady.

Bill Clinton blamed the episode on his wife being exhausted, adding that
her critics, “when they’re 60, they’ll forget something when they’re tired
at 11 at night, too.”

The bipartisan corruption of American politics
<http://www.vox.com/2015/5/1/8519077/clinton-foundation-corruption> // vox
// Ezra Klein – May 1, 2015

The money at the nexus of the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton's speaking
shop, and Hillary Clinton's State Department is unnerving. But the amount
of coverage it's getting might make you think it's unusually unnerving by
the standards of modern American politics.

Nope. In fact, it's not even the most unnerving part of Hillary Clinton's
campaign.

The Clinton Foundation is a great topic to investigate because its
structure is strange, it namesake is an ex-president, and there are lots of
documents and disclosures that can power stories. These investigations are
worthy, and these pieces should be written — which is why we've been
writing them at Vox.

But it's also worth looking past the smoke to the purported fire: the basic
concern is that the Clinton Foundation gave corporations and even foreign
governments a way to donate huge amounts of money to the Clintons without
seeming like they were donating huge amounts of money to the Clintons — and
those donations could have given them unusual access or influence in
Hillary Clinton's State Department, or to her hypothetical future White
House.

When you look at it that way, what becomes clear is that whatever the
conflicts in the Clinton Foundation's finances, the daily corruption that
powers modern presidential campaigns is much, much worse.

How to buy a Clinton

With the Clinton Foundation, there is at least the possibility that donors
wanted to give money to an actual philanthropy trying to save and improve
lives in poor countries. The same can't be said for the daily
money-grubbing that fuels modern political campaigns.

Take, well, Hillary Clinton. She kicked off her presidential fundraising on
Tuesday with a series of events on Wall Street. Guests paid $2,700 to
attend, while hosts had to bundle $27,000 in donations each. These are big,
direct donations to Hillary Clinton's campaign. They are being made by
people who have paid to be in a room with Hillary Clinton. They are being
made with the express purpose of helping Hillary Clinton win the
presidency. They are being made by people whose livelihoods are regulated
by the very agencies Clinton seeks to control.

The thing that people worry was quietly happening at the Clinton
Foundation, in other words, is publicly happening with the Clinton campaign.

You might argue, of course, that individual donors are limited by that
$2,700 cap. How much influence can anyone really buy for $2,700? How much
goodwill is really purchased by getting 10 of your friends to bundle their
contributions alongside yours? Particularly when Chicago businessman Fred
Eychaner gave more than $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. One guy.
More than $25 million. How can you compare that to donations capped at
$2,700?

You can't. But donations to the Clinton campaign aren't really capped at
$2,700. Clinton, like every other major candidate in the race (and probably
a few of the not-so-major ones), will have a number of allied Super PACs.
The Super PACs will supposedly be independent of Clinton's campaign, but
they won't be, not really. Hillary Clinton will be raising money for them
directly. Her top surrogates will quietly be urging her richest donors to
fund send them bigger and bigger checks. And those checks will get
eye-poppingly big.

Donations to Super PACs, like to the Clinton Foundation, are unlimited.
Eychaner can give another $25 million, or another $100 million, if he so
chooses. Indeed, one of the reasons Clinton announced so early was that her
Super PAC was having trouble raising those big checks until she officially
entered the race.

The dynamics behind Clinton's Super PAC are the precise dynamics that
people fear existed in the Clintons' foundation. Extremely rich individuals
and institutions will give extremely large sums of money in order to get
Clinton elected. These donors will get access, influence, and a certain
measure of power over her administration — after all, if Clinton wants to
run again, she's going to need them to fund her next campaign, too. And
there will be no chance that these donors simply wanted to help Bill
Clinton distribute HIV/AIDS drugs in the world's poorest countries.

How to buy the entire Republican primary field

 Anti-Koch Brothers Protest Held Outside Their Manhattan Apartment

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

That's not how you spell Coke.

It's not just Clinton, of course. The Republican candidates will have their
own Super PACs. The Koch Brothers, for instance, are coordinating a network
of rich Republicans who intend to spend nearly a billion dollars — yes,
billion with a "B" — on the 2016 election. And there, the corruption has
become almost comically explicit.

Rand Paul wrote them a love letter in Time magazine. "Charles and David
Koch are well known for their business success, their generous
philanthropic efforts and for their focus on innovation in management," he
wrote. "Some also know them for their activism in the political realm."
Yes, I think I heard something about that activism.

But it's not just Paul. Republican presidential hopefuls are literally
flying across the country to audition for the Kochs' support:

In another surprise, a top Koch aide revealed to POLITICO that Jeb Bush
will be given a chance to audition for the brothers’ support, despite
initial skepticism about him at the top of the Kochs’ growing political
behemoth.

Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz debated at the Koch
network’s winter seminar in January, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker made a
separate appearance. Those were the candidates who appeared to have a
chance at the Koch blessing, and attendees said Rubio seemed to win that
round.

And unlike the donors to the Clinton Foundation, whose political aims are
hypothetical and speculative, the Kochs are political activists trying to
change the nature of the Republican Party — and the country. And it's
working. As Andrew Prokop wrote, there's no serious Republican presidential
hopeful who breaks with the Kochs' core policy commitments — and that's
partly because no Republican presidential hopeful who breaks with the
Kochs' core policy commitments is going to have the resources needed to be
taken seriously:

The Kochs have longed seem to prioritize economic issues — shrinking
government, slashing entitlement spending, cutting taxes, and reducing
regulations — far above other matters. And it hasn't been too long since
the big-spending, Medicare-expanding George W. Bush administration drew
their ire.

The prospect of the GOP nominee pledging a major entitlement expansion
seems unimaginable now. Instead, the entire party has backed Paul Ryan's
plans to overhaul Medicare, to reduce government spending on the program.
More broadly, this year's contest features the spectacle of every major
hopeful competing to trash the Export-Import Bank — a longtime target of
the Kochs, who view the agency as exemplifying government interference in
the free market. Support for action on climate change, for Obamacare, or
for campaign finance reform are all anathema for the vast majority of the
expected presidential field — as they are for the GOP in general.

It actually, unimaginably, gets worse. The Clinton Foundation has agreed to
make its donors public, and presidential campaigns and even Super PACs are
required by law to make their donors public. We know, sooner or later, who
gave money and how much they gave. But there's also the world of 501(c)4
and 501(c)6 organizations, like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, where the
donations are simply secret: the public has no way to know who gave, or how
much, even though the candidate might know exactly whom they owe, and why.

This "dark" money has gone from a minor feature of campaign spending to a
powerful one. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the 2004
presidential election had less than $6 million in dark money; the 2012
election had more than $310 million.

That means the stories being written about the Clinton Foundation, or about
the Koch brothers, simply can't be written about the 501(c)4s — not because
the corruption isn't more grievous, but because the information is so much
more limited.

The influence-purchasing that people are worried might have happened, in a
loose and indirect way, with the Clinton Foundation, is happening in an
obvious and direct way around every single one of the major presidential
campaigns —and what's worse is that we're getting used to it, inured to it,
tired of complaining about it. The Clinton Foundation is getting so much
coverage in part because it's novel. But the much more significant, more
daily corruption of American politics is, sadly, becoming routine.

Clinton Charities Raked in Millions of Taxpayer Dollars
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-charities-raked-in-millions-of-taxpayer-dollars/>
// Free Beacon // Elizabeth Harrington – May 1, 2015

The Clinton Foundation and its major health charity have raked in more than
$7 million from the U.S. government in recent years, according to an
analysis of public records conducted by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), chaired by Bill Clinton and
run by the former president’s long-time associate Ira Magaziner, has
received $6,010,898 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) since 2010. CHAI, the biggest arm of the Clinton family’s charitable
efforts, accounting for 60 percent of all spending, received $3,193,500 in
fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, according to federal contracts, during
Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. The organization received
an additional $2,817,398 from the CDC in FYs 2013, 2014, and 2015.

The grants, including $200,000 awarded as recently as January, have gone to
CHAI’s Global AIDS program, and are filed under “Global Health and Child
Survival.” The CDC is listed as a $1 to $10 million contributor to CHAI,
according to its donor list released earlier this month.

The Boston-based health arm of the Clinton Foundation has come under
scrutiny for failing to disclose donations from foreign governments—in
violation of a pledge Clinton made to the Obama administration before she
assumed office as secretary of state.

A Reuters report found that the health initiative stopped making its annual
disclosure in 2010 and that “no complete list of donors to the Clintons’
charities has been published” since. The group only recently published a
partial donor list, which its spokesperson Maura Daley told Reuters “made
up for” CHAI’s “oversight” of failing to meet the disclosure agreement.

When asked whether the CDC has any concern regarding its funding of CHAI or
plans to provide grants to the organization in the future, an agency
spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon that it “can’t predict who
will apply for and be awarded grants.”

“CDC and potential grantees must follow federal guidelines when applying
for or awarding and monitoring grants,” said Shelly Diaz. “CHAI, like any
other organization meeting federal requirements, may apply for CDC grants.
They would also be expected to meet the same ongoing requirements for
grantees (e.g. reports, audits, performance standards).”

CHAI received hundreds of millions from foreign nations between 2009 and
2014, including: the United Kingdom ($79.7 million), Australia ($58.6
million), Norway ($38.1 million), Canada ($12.1 million), Ireland ($11.7
million), Sweden ($7.2 million), and New Zealand ($1.2 million).

The Boston Globe found that foreign donations “sharply accelerated” to CHAI
when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state.

“Government grants, nearly all from foreign countries, doubled to $55.9
million in 2013 from $26.7 million in 2010, according to the records,” the
report said.

The health initiative broke off into a nonprofit separate from the Clinton
Foundation in 2010, though it is still chaired by Bill and Chelsea Clinton.

The charities have remained intertwined. CHAI received a $2 million cash
grant from the Clinton Foundation for “Haiti relief,” according to the
group’s 2013 tax filing. It received a $4 million cash grant from the
foundation for “program service” in 2012.

CHAI’s chief executive officer and vice chairman, Ira Magaziner, a 1960s
student activist who tried to “convert a small American city into a model
of municipal socialism,” is a long time associate of the Clintons.
Magaziner was a Rhodes scholar with Bill Clinton in the late 1960s, a
senior advisor in the Clinton White House, and the architect of Hillary
Clinton’s failed health-care plan in the 1990s.

Magaziner formerly ran the foundation’s Clinton Climate Initiative while
also running CHAI, though he ceded control over the environmental group
late last year. He was paid $415,000 in salary and consulting fees from the
Clinton Foundation in 2013, according to Politico. Bruce Lindsey, Bill
Clinton’s longtime lawyer and chairman of the board of the Clinton
Foundation, was the highest paid official at CHAI, paid $398,159 in salary
and benefits in 2013 as a board member.

CHAI’s website says they are a “frugal” charity that focuses on saving
lives, rather than “compensating ourselves excessively.”

CHAI’s spokesperson, Maura Daley, said that taxpayer funding to her
organization is being provided by the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and distributed through the CDC for AIDS work in
Ethiopia.

“The CDC agreement with CHAI was a 5-year grant to support work in
Ethiopia, which began prior to Secretary Clinton becoming Secretary,” Daley
told the Free Beacon. “The work includes building the management capacity
in government hospitals throughout Ethiopia to maximize the productivity of
their resources and deliver higher quality services.”

She said the funding is going towards enrolling hospital CEOs in masters
programs for hospital management.

“CHAI had been working with the Ethiopian Government to begin this hospital
management program with funding from other donors prior to the CDC getting
involved,” Daley said. “The CDC came in later to add funding for the work
so it made sense for the Ethiopian Government and the CDC to have CHAI
continue the work we had already been doing.”

Daley said CHAI does not normally accept grants from the U.S. government,
but said the Clinton charity was the “ideal” group for the CDC.

“While CHAI does not typically take USG work, it agreed to do so on
contract in this instance because it was the ideal NGO to successfully
complete the work required,” she said. “Again, CHAI’s involvement in the
work, which has continued, was at the request of the Ethiopian Government
along with the CDC.”

Aside from millions given to the health initiative, the Clinton Foundation
itself has received more than $1.4 million in U.S. taxpayer funding from
federal agencies and the 2009 stimulus law.

The Clinton Foundation lists several state and federal agencies as
financial contributors, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The EPA is listed as having contributed between $1,001 and $5,000.

EPA spokesperson Laura Allen said her agency “does not have any record of a
donation” to the Clinton Foundation.

Another agency, entitled the “Office of Minority Health and Human
Services,” is also listed as having contributed between $1,001 and $5,000.
The Free Beacon was unable to determine what this donation referred to, or
which federal or state office it came from.

The Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Minority Health
(OMH) was unable to locate any donation to the Clinton Foundation. The
Office of Minority Health and Human Services, a state agency in Nebraska
that recently changed its name to the Office of Health Disparities and
Health Equity, said the donation could not have come from their office
because they do no solicit or issue funding.

State agencies in Arkansas have also given financial contributions to the
Clinton Foundation, according to the organization’s website.

The Arkansas Minority Health Commission gave between $1,001 and $5,000.
Michael Knox, executive director of the Arkansas Minority Health
Commission, told the Free Beacon that the donation was for the Clinton
Center’s annual “Head of the Class Bash” in June 2011 that paid for “car
seat inspections, immunizations and health screenings, and backpacks with
school supplies to the children of Arkansas.”

The Arkansas Energy Office is also listed as donating between $500,001 and
$1 million to the Clinton Foundation, though the contribution actually came
from spending authorized by the 2009 stimulus law.

Scott Hardin, director of communications for the Arkansas Economic
Development Commission, told the Free Beacon that the Clinton Foundation
received nearly $800,000 from his office, through a grant funded by the
stimulus.

“The Energy Office distributed more than $50 million in American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds a few years ago and the money provided to
the Clinton Foundation was part of this effort,” he said.

The grant, amounting to $758,123, was provided to the Clinton Foundation in
October 2009, Hardin said.

The funds went to the Clinton Foundation’s Home Energy Affordability Loan
(HEAL) program, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
buildings through “energy-efficiency and monitoring strategies.”

The Clinton Foundation received another stimulus grant on Sept. 28, 2009
for $639,711, through the Department of Energy. The grant also went to the
HEAL program and to “support the implementation of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in Arkansas.”

The project is listed as creating zero jobs.

The Free Beacon found one case where an agency was listed as a Clinton
Foundation contributor, even though it has never donated to the
organization.

The Arkansas Department of Human Services is currently listed for a
donation between $1,000 and $5,000. However, the state agency never paid
the Clinton Foundation, and only helped host a conference at the Clinton
Center. The state agency nonetheless received a gift receipt from the
Clinton Foundation.

In this case, the Clinton Foundation did receive $1,350 from the U.S.
taxpayers, but through another federal agency: the Corporation for National
and Community Service.

Amy Webb, director of communications for the Arkansas Department of Human
Services, told the Free Beacon that her agency helped the Clinton
Foundation host an event honoring AmeriCorps in Little Rock, Ark. last year.

“Our Division of Community Service and Non-profit Support, along with other
local entities, co-hosted an AmeriCorps 20th Anniversary event at the
Clinton Center in September 2014,” she said. “Via a grant, the Corporation
for National and Community Service provided our agency with $1,350 to help
cover costs associated with that event.”

Webb provided an invoice from the Clinton Foundation detailing the $1,350
charge, which she said was for refreshments.

“The money was not a donation to the Clinton Foundation,” Webb said. “In
January, we incorrectly received a ‘gift receipt’ for a donation for the
money we used for that event, and we notified the foundation of that error.”

In all, state and federal agencies have contributed between $1,402,187 and
$1,414,184 directly to the Clinton Foundation.

Together with the health initiative, taxpayers have contributed roughly
$7.4 million to Clinton charities.

The Clinton Foundation admitted it has “made mistakes” in disclosing donors
after a barrage of recent news reports. Among its failures was disclosing a
$2.35 million donation from the chairman of Uranium One, a company acquired
by the Russians and later used to assume control of 20 percent of U.S.
uranium production through a deal that was signed off in part by Hillary
Clinton’s State Department.

The Clinton Foundation is also expected to refile some of its tax forms,
according to a blog post written by Maura Pally, the foundation’s acting
chief executive, who said that the organization “mistakenly combined”
government grants with other donations.

The Clinton Foundation did not return requests for comment.

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE *

Sanders draws warm welcome in New Hampshire
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-says-he-will-register-as-a-democrat-if-needed-for-primary-fight/2015/05/02/39dc71f6-f02d-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html>
// Washington Post // Aaron C. Davis - May 2, 2015

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday gave a version of the same speech about the
nation’s struggling middle class and greedy billionaires that he has
delivered for the past 30 years. But two days into his long-shot bid for
the presidency, the oft-repeated words amounted to something new — a
barometer of frustration on the liberal left that could begin to reshape
the Democratic primary.

With almost 100 people packed into the house of an acupuncturist here and
dozens more craning to listen from outside, Sanders (I-Vt.) had a growing
audience. And the warm reception he received suggested there is room
alongside front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton in the nation’s first
presidential primary state for Sanders’s rumpled and irreverent attacks on
the country’s political establishment.

“My intention in this campaign,” the senator from nearby Vermont began, “is
to talk about the real issues impacting working people throughout New
Hampshire, Vermont and America.” To growing rounds of applause, Sanders
ticked off a list of stagnating wages, dwindling family savings and
out-of-reach college costs. They are all getting worse, Sanders said,
because the political system in Washington is rigged to send an unfair
share to the rich.

Speaking to a convention of labor leaders hours later on a mountaintop,
Sanders drew more applause. He blasted a proposed trade pact with Pacific
Rim countries backed by President Obama and that Clinton first negotiated
as secretary of state as dangerous to what U.S. manufacturing jobs remain.

“Pushed by corporate America, pushed by Wall Street . . . the function of
these trade agreements is to allow companies in America to shut down here,
move to low-wage countries abroad and bring their products back to
America,” Sanders said. “Enough is enough, we do not need another
disastrous trade policy.”

As dozens pushed in for pictures with him after, the scenes followed an
announcement by Sanders’s campaign on Friday that in the first 24 hours
after he launched his candidacy, he raised $1.5 million: A grass-roots
surge from 35,000 online donors who gave an average of just $43.54 apiece.
On Saturday, his campaign said the two-day tally topped $2.1 million, that
most had signed up to continue contributing in monthly installments. A
larger group of 145,000 people had also signed up online to volunteer, the
campaign said.

The first day in New Hampshire also brought a new indication of Sanders’s
seriousness about the race. Congress’s longest-serving independent and a
self-described socialist, Sanders backtracked just two days after
announcing his candidacy to say that he would abandon the “I” beside his
name and register as a Democrat if needed to compete in the party’s primary
in all 50 states.

Outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, the senator rejected any suggestion
that he register as a Democrat. “No,” Sanders said, “I’m an independent.”
But a day later, questions surfaced in New Hampshire about whether he would
be eligible. The Granite State requires candidates to fill out a form
declaring party registration.

“We’re going to fulfill all the rules,” Sanders said, “I made the decision
that the best way to be effective in this campaign, the best way to win was
to do it through the Democratic primary process. We will meet all of the
requirements of all of the states, including New Hampshire,” he said.

In almost every way, Sanders first day on the trail contrasted sharply with
Clinton’s first trip to the state last month. Clinton held a series of
small and often scripted events, one a roundtable in a quiet warehouse
staged with a table and chairs and a place for reporters to watch.

Before Sanders arrived, it was unclear how he would reach a music stand set
up as a podium in a corner of the living room. Elizabeth Ropp, wearing a
People’s Organization of Community Acupuncture T-shirt, took the microphone
to ask anyone feeling claustrophobic to step outside “if they need air.”

Without Sanders having a paid campaign staffer yet in New Hampshire, or
even a campaign office in Vermont, Ropp said she got a call asking to host
earlier in the week “from a friend of a friend” who had started
volunteering for the campaign.

Ropp introduced Sanders as the candidate of the “12-hour filibuster and the
$12 haircut,” referring to his opposition to tax cuts during Obama’s first
term, and his frizzy white, often disheveled hair.

Sanders took the microphone, unfolded notes scratched on a piece of yellow
legal paper, and said he’s the one with ideas to win.

He said he wants a $1 trillion infrastructure campaign to create 13 million
jobs. He said he will soon introduce legislation in the Senate for a
$70 billion
plan to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. The plan could
be funded, he said, by eliminating tax loopholes that allow companies to
keep profits overseas. And he said the nation needs to move toward a
single-payer Medicare system for health care and increase Social Security
benefits

“Our job is to think big, not small,” Sanders said. “Our job is to say that
in the wealthiest country in the history of the world . . . that we can
create a nation in which every person has health care as a right . . . and
can get a higher education,” he said.

“We can create a nation where anybody who wants to can run for office, even
if they are not a billionaire,” Sanders said. After more photos, he piled
into a dented Subaru with three aides and drove away.

Many in both audiences were graying but not as white-haired as Sanders.
There was also a smattering of teens and 20-somethings at each event.

“This is someone who could actually keep a lot of young people like me in
the fold” of the Democratic Party, said Chace Joe Jackson, 23. “Our
generation just isn’t going to have anything like the world that came
before us and actually enjoyed the American middle class for what it was.”

Jackson said he’s been disappointed by Obama and thinks of Clinton as a
“right-leaning, big-business Democrat. . . . When they become president,
they all give in to the status quo. You know that’s not what Bernie Sanders
is going to do.”

Sanders will register as a Democrat if needed
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-says-he-will-register-as-a-democrat-if-needed-for-primary-fight/2015/05/02/39dc71f6-f02d-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html>
// Washington Post // Aaron C. Davis – May 2, 2015

Bernie Sanders, Congress’s longest-serving independent and a self-described
socialist, backtracked just two days into his presidential campaign on
Saturday, saying he would register as a Democrat if needed to compete in
the party’s primary in all 50 states.

Announcing his candidacy Thursday outside the U.S. Capitol, the senator
from Vermont rejected any suggestion that he register as a Democrat. “No,”
Sanders said, “I’m an independent.” But a day later, questions surfaced in
New Hampshire about whether he would be eligible to compete next year in
the nation’s first presidential primary.

New Hampshire requires candidates to fill out a form declaring party
registration. Sanders also rejected the Democratic nomination for Senate
twice in Vermont, New Hampshire news media noted.

On Saturday, after addressing a mosh pit of more than 100 supporters
stuffed in a Manchester home and spilling out into a yard, Sanders said:
“We will do what we have to do” to make sure his name appears on the ballot
alongside Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Sanders’s new openness to registering as a Democrat follows his campaign’s
statement that he raised an impressive $1.5 million in the first 24 hours
of his announcing: A grass-roots surge from 35,000 donors who gave an
average of $43.54 apiece, the campaign reported.

Sanders stressed repeatedly Saturday that he is in the race to win it.
Known in Washington as a pragmatic politician, his party affiliation
appeared to be an early compromise, though he often sits with the
Democratic caucus.

“We’re going to fulfill all the rules,” Sanders said, when asked about the
potential roadblock. “You know, I am the longest-serving independent in
congressional history. I made the decision that the best way to be
effective in this campaign, the best way to win was to do it through the
democratic primary process. We will meet all of the requirements of all of
the states, including New Hampshire,” he said.

Even If that requires registering as a Democrat?

“We will do what we have to do. We are going to be on the ballot in 50
states. You don’t win unless you do that,” Sanders said.

In every other way, Sanders remained the idealist Saturday, acknowledging
his long-shot campaign will rise or fall on an idealistic vision for
bolstering the middle class.

Sanders said he wants a $1 trillion infrastructure campaign to create 13
million jobs. He said he will soon introduce legislation in the Senate for
a $70 billion plan to make public colleges and universities tuition-free.
He suggested funding for the plan could come from eliminating corporate tax
loopholes that allow companies to keep profits overseas. And he said the
nation needs to move toward a single-payer Medicaid system for health care
and increase social security benefits.

“We are going to run a campaign unlike any before,” Sanders said. “I’m
running because this country faces more serious crises than at any time
since the Great Depression.”

Elizabeth Warren praises Bernie Sanders’ prez bid
<https://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/05/elizabeth_warren_praises_bernie_sanders_prez_bid>
// Boston Herald // Prisca Pointdujour – May 2, 2015

Bay State U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren welcomed fellow liberal from the
north, Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, into the presidential sweepstakes
yesterday, even as she continues to resist efforts to draft her into the
race.

“I’m glad to see him get out there and give his version of what leadership
in this country should be,” Warren said while at Middlesex Community
College in Lowell yesterday. “I think that Bernie Sanders is going to play
out a vision for America and that it is important for people to hear what
he has to say.”

Warren has repeatedly said she will not run for president, despite a
nationwide campaign urging her to throw her hat in the ring. Sanders shares
many of Warren’s causes, such as breaking up big Wall Street banks, and
many see him as the party’s only real chance to force Democratic
presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton to tackle more liberal issues.

Sanders will make his first visit to New Hampshire today since launching
his campaign Wednesday.

Meanwhile, Warren also said it’s time to rebuild ties between police and
communities.

“People are angry and frustrated, and they have a reason to be,” Warren
said. “That never excuses violence against the police, but we need to have
a more serious conversation about what’s gone wrong in Baltimore and other
places throughout this country and how to repair that.”

Warren said outrage over Freddie Gray, the Baltimore man who died in police
custody, was due to mounting frustrations.

“It’s something we must address,” she said. “We have shoved this problem
out of the spotlight for years and that’s been part of what’s erupted now
in Baltimore.”

Chris Cassidy contributed to this report.

Bernie Sanders Yells His Mind
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/opinion/gail-collins-bernie-sanders-yells-his-mind.html>
// New York Times – Opinions // Gail Collins – May 1,2015

Our topic today is: Bernie Sanders for president?

“My fifteen minutes of fame,” the Vermont senator said gruffly over the
phone. Gruff is pretty much his normal way of speaking, but Sanders was
actually in a good mood at this point in the conversation. Later, the
volume would escalate.

He announced he was running for the Democratic nomination on Thursday,
first in an email, then in a makeshift press conference on the lawn outside
the Capitol. There are worse approaches. One of the few previous
presidential candidates from Vermont was George Dewey, the hero of the
Spanish American War. Dewey started his campaign off with a statement that
read, in part: “Since studying the subject I am convinced that the office
of the president is not such a very difficult one to fill . . .” It was
pretty much downhill from there.

Sanders’s beginning was more auspicious. His infant campaign raised more
than $1.5 million in donations in the first 24 hours: “Thirty-five thousand
donations averaging $43 apiece!”

For you, concerned citizen, this is nothing but good news. For one thing,
we can now spend the winter entertaining the idea of a President Bernie.
Plus, competition is always better. Hillary Clinton is no longer in danger
of spending the next year just listening to average voters and denying she
feels entitled.

Besides the two announced candidates, there will probably be other
contenders, including former Maryland governor Martin (“former Maryland
governor”) O’Malley. Also interested are ex-Senator Jim Webb of Virginia
and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a former Republican senator turned
former independent governor who is now a Democrat.

Question: What about Elizabeth Warren?

Answer: As a rule, when somebody says they are not running for president
more than 100 times, it is a strong indication that they are not running
for president.

Question: Sanders self-identifies as a “democratic socialist.” Aren’t
people going to think that’s a little extreme?

Answer: This week, the governor of Texas announced he was putting a special
watch on U.S. military exercises this summer, due to public speculation
that the soldiers might take over the state and confiscate everyone’s guns.
Also, the Idaho Legislature recently killed a bill that would have provided
federal aid in tracking down deadbeat dads, due to concern that it might
involve the use of Shariah law. I do not want to hear you calling Bernie
Sanders an extremist.

Sanders said his campaign goal is to “lay down a progressive agenda which
speaks to the needs of working people.” This would include making “the
wealthiest people and corporations start paying their fair share of taxes.”

Now this is a problem for Democrats who envision the senator as a tool to
push Hillary Clinton to the left. We already know she’s going to talk
endlessly about bridging the economic divide. It might help if there were
more specific specifics.

“You don’t know much about me, right?” asked Sanders, launching into
another list of his causes: tax reform, health care, fixing the crumbling
infrastructure.

Continue reading the main story

“I voted against DOMA — you know what DOMA is?” he demanded, referring to
the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, which Clinton once supported during
her husband’s presidency. “I’m not evolving when it comes to gay rights. I
was there!”

The sun was sinking over this conversation. (“You got me riled up here!”)
The problem was that I was talking about his potential as a debating
partner who could turn Clinton into a more progressive candidate, while
Bernie Sanders wants to be regarded as a potential president of the United
States.

“I do resent that,” he agreed. “I am in this race to win.”

Sanders doesn’t really want Democratic voters to compare him with Clinton
to see who has the best positions on the issues. He wants them to decide
who has the most consistent record in fighting for those issues, and there
is absolutely no question in the world that when it comes to consistency,
Bernie Sanders is Mount Rushmore to Hillary Clinton’s Sheila the
Shapeshifter.

Her political life has been a continual, sometimes unedifying, struggle to
get the power to do what she believed were the right things for the
country. His began with a long list of principled and totally hopeless
campaigns whose dismal outcomes he recounts proudly in speeches: “... I
received 2 percent of the vote. Not dissuaded, I ran a year later for
governor of the State of Vermont, and received 1 percent of the vote . . .”

Then came an improbable win for mayor of the small city of Burlington,
which he governed well. Then it was off to the House and the Senate, where
he fought for progressive causes. He has now been in Congress for 24 years
— longer, he likes to point out, than any other independent in American
history.

You’ve got to give him credit. Welcome to the race, Bernie.

Bernie Sanders raises $1.5 million in 24 hours, says his campaign
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-raises-1-5-million-in-24-hours-says-his-campaign/>
// Washington Post // Philip Rucker - May 1, 2015

Advisers to Bernie Sanders have argued that his grassroots network of
small-dollar donors could raise him the roughly $50 million the independent
senator from Vermont will need to run a credible, competitive campaign in
the Democratic presidential primaries.

They may be right.

On Friday, the Sanders campaign announced that it has raised more than $1.5
million online in the 24 hours since he announced his candidacy. It is a
surprisingly heavy haul for a candidate whom some in the Democratic
chattering class have cast off as a gadfly and viewed as unable to wrest
the nomination from the overwhelming favorite, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The donations came from a broad base of supporters -- some 35,000 donors
who gave an average of $43.54 a piece, according to the Sanders campaign.
The campaign also said it signed up more than 100,000 supporters through
its website, building what it calls a "mass movement."

Clinton has not released any details about her fundraising totals, online
or otherwise. But the Sanders haul outpaces the three major Republican
candidates who already have announced. In the first 24 hours since
launching their campaigns, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) raised $1.25 million and
Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) raised about $1 million each,
according to their campaigns.

“This is a remarkable start for Bernie's campaign," Sanders adviser Tad
Devine said in a statement. "People across America are yearning for
authentic leadership that tells them the truth about what is holding back
our nation."

As a self-described socialist, Sanders does not have a deep base of wealthy
donors and corporate PACs who give to his campaigns; he jokes that he
doesn't know any millionaires or billionaires. He said Thursday he is
taking on the "billionaire class" he says are controlling the U.S.
political system, and would make the surge in political spending in recent
years -- especially through super PACs fueled by unlimited donations -- a
major theme of his campaign.

Bernie Sanders Could Curb Hillary's Enthusiasm
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-could-curb-hillary-clintons-enthusiasm>
// U.S. News and World Report The Run 2016 // David Catanese - May 1, 2015

He’s a cantankerous, bespectacled, balding New Yorker who is inclined to
see the glass half-empty.

Born to Jewish parents, he’s devoutly irreligious and fiercely liberal.
He’s not one to engage in small talk, like the stop-and-chat. And his mood
is perpetually sullen, with dashes of cutting humor.

Larry David isn’t running for president. But his political doppelgänger –
Bernie Sanders – is.

One is a renowned comedian currently performing on Broadway. The other is a
grizzled politician – a second-term senator representing Vermont – who will
be putting on his own show in cities like Bedford, New Hampshire, and
Bettendorf, Iowa.

But the similarities between the two – in likeness, demeanor and even
substance – are uncanny.

First, there’s the appearance. Separated by just six years in age, there’s
the wispy white hair split by a shiny cranium. And the trademark glasses,
which do little to hide a face that usually looks either mildly irked or
unimpressed.

Yes, Bernie dons the dark suit and white shirt required of male public
officials, whereas Larry prefers khakis and a plain navy corduroy jacket.
But there’s a striking simplicity to both men’s wardrobes. These are guys
with bigger things to stew on than what they put on in the morning.

Bernie and Larry also share a prickly streak that places Larry in countless
sticky situations on the HBO program “Curb Your Enthusiasm” and could prove
fraught for Bernie in those mandatory warm-and-fuzzy moments on the
campaign trail. Larry can be awkward, amusing and irritating all at once in
daily interactions. And while Bernie is not expected to engage a potential
supporter about the propriety of using a handicapped-accessible restroom
stall, if he’s offered a house tour in an early primary state, as Larry
found, it’s best to zip your lip and endure it.

But Bernie has also shown a proclivity for not playing along.

When he appeared on Bloomberg Politics' “With All Due Respect” program last
fall, he was pelted with a bunch of personality questions meant to “get to
know him” better. Amid a string of inquiries that ranged from his
grandchildren to his athletic ability, Sanders let slip: “I’m not a great
fan of media in general.”

Neither is Larry.

When he was being interviewed by “60 Minutes” for a March episode to
promote his play “Fish in the Dark,” he made clear he wasn’t comfortable.

“I had to be talked into '60 Minutes.' You think I wanted to do this? I
didn’t want to do it! 'Cause I knew you’d be asking questions like this!”
he told interviewer Charlie Rose.

Bernie’s Bloomberg interview took a similar path.

Mark Halperin pitched a question thousands were yearning to know: Was he –
and not Larry – the actual voice of George Steinbrenner on "Seinfeld"?

Of course not.

But Halperin handed Bernie some lines to try it out. Bernie obliged, but
didn’t seem excited.

He bowed his head, averting his eyes, seemingly thinking, “Why did I agree
to do this?”

“Did you do the voice of George Steinbrenner?” Halperin pressed.

“No,” Bernie replied, tapping his hands on the upholstered chair he was
seated in.

Then, the Bernie broadside: “Now that we’ve dealt with the important issues
facing America, what else do we have?”

Personality isn't central to selecting our political candidates, Bernie
said. “What’s more important is there are enormous problems facing this
country and we don’t talk about them.”

It was full curmudgeon. Larry would be proud.

Larry and Bernie are quite copacetic when it comes to their politics, from
tax cuts to climate change.

But Bernie embodies Larry’s dour view of the world – that if it could go
wrong, it probably will.

A challenge for Bernie’s 2016 campaign will be infusing sun into his rather
gloomy outlook of the current political atmosphere.

The Iraq War was “the worst foreign policy blunder in modern American
history,” Bernie's lamented.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates of
political spending showed that the “foundations of American democracy” are
in serious danger, he has warned.

Bernie has also repeatedly suggested that what he’s attempting – to make a
credible run for the Democratic nomination against a billion-dollar
front-runner – may not be possible.

“If that is the case, what a sad state of affairs that is for American
democracy,” he said Wednesday on the lawn in front of the U.S. Capitol.

In February, he stated quite grimly that the game might be over before it
has even started, referring to the libertarian Koch brothers and the
eye-popping sum of money they're planning deploy in the 2016 election.

“Can you take that on? I don't know the answer. Maybe the game is over.
Maybe they have bought the United States government. Maybe there is no
turning back. Maybe we've gone over the edge,” he said.

It conjures up the cover image of Season 3’s "Curb Your Enthusiasm" box
set, in which Larry is staring contemplatively into a glass half-full.

Bernie understands the odds against an avowed socialist. But as the first
official Democratic alternative to Hillary Clinton, he immediately fills a
void for those progressives who feel ignored or taken for granted.

Larry would probably tell Bernie his ultimate goal is out of reach, too
hard to obtain, maybe even silly. But Bernie will raise the uncomfortable
issues – whether it be trade, money in politics or foreign intervention –
that could put Clinton in some sticky situations.

He won’t win, but ultimately, Bernie may – ahem – curb Hillary's enthusiasm.

Baltimore riots hurt O'Malley's already slim chances
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/baltimore-riots-hurt-omalleys-already-slim-chances-117545.html?hp=r2_4>
// Politico // James Hohmann – May 1, 2015

Martin O’Malley’s political career, which started on the streets of
Baltimore, may also end there: Half of Democratic insiders in the early
states believe this week’s riots have hurt the former mayor’s already
long-shot presidential hopes.

The POLITICO Caucus, our weekly bipartisan survey of the most important
activists, operatives and elected officials in Iowa and New Hampshire,
found that Democrats are evenly split over whether racial unrest will be a
minor or significant issue in the presidential campaign.

Story Continued Below

“I really like and respect O’Malley, so it pains me to write that I think
the Baltimore violence will essentially disqualify him as a viable
presidential candidate for a broad swath of Americans,” said a New
Hampshire Democrat, who – like all 73 respondents – completed the
questionnaire anonymously in order to speak candidly. “The renaissance of
Baltimore has been such a huge part of his biography when he speaks to
Democrats, so when your TV shows Baltimore on fire, riot police on the
streets and baseball at an empty Camden Yards, one can only wonder what
kind of lasting progress he made there.”

On the Republican side, six in 10 insiders think the turmoil between
African Americans and the police has injured Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
politically, though three-quarters of Republicans believe it will either be
a non-issue or a minor one.

“Rand is advocating, in part, for reduced sentences for non-violent
crimes,” said an Iowa Republican. “However, all anyone is going to see and
hear is ‘Put more criminals back out on the street,’ and overlay that with
the images that everyone is watching from the mayhem in Baltimore. How does
he argue that being softer on crime would alleviate the rioting???”

Here are the six main takeaways from Week 12 of The POLITICO Caucus:

Changing his travel plans may not have helped O’Malley.

The former mayor and governor canceled paid speaking gigs in Europe to
return home after the rioting on Monday. The attempt at damage control,
which included an op-ed, failed to quell growing doubts about O’Malley’s
rationale for seeking the presidency and spotlighted his controversial
approach to policing during his eight years as mayor from 1999 to 2007.

“Returning to Baltimore was an odd move, especially considering there’s not
much he can actually do about the unrest,” said a New Hampshire Democrat.
“By coming back he also made it easier to link his own police policies as
mayor to the current situation.”

“Any mention of Baltimore will now draw people’s attention to the events of
the last few days — not any of the progress he claims to have made while
mayor,” said an Iowa Democrat.

“This is absolutely a hit on his executive experience,” added another. “He
is running on his ability to turn Baltimore around and to lead Maryland in
a progressive direction. His city is now seen for riots and racial
injustice and his chosen successor [former Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown] lost the
race to succeed him as governor.”

Several Democrats complained about O’Malley’s embrace of zero-tolerance
policing tactics, which have been widely criticized this week by people
like David Simon, the creator of the HBO crime drama “The Wire.” More than
108,400 arrests were made in 2005, according to the Baltimore Sun. For
context, only about 600,000 people live in the city.

“The Anyone-But-Clinton crowd is on the left, and police-racial issues are
a litmus test now,” said an Iowa Democrat.

O’Malley’s campaign-in-waiting said Thursday night that Baltimore saw a
greater reduction of serious crimes during his tenure than any other major
U.S. city. “When O’Malley was elected mayor in 1999, Baltimore was the most
violent, addicted, and abandoned city in America,” spokeswoman Lis Smith
emailed reporters .”His policies — including proactive policing, policing
of the police, increased drug treatment, and earlier intervention with
at-risk youth — fundamentally changed the trajectory of the city of
Baltimore.”

Six in 10 Republicans agreed that the events of this week are damaging to
O’Malley, and many of those who didn’t argued that it’s not damaging
because he was already irrelevant. “It’s difficult for O’Malley to sink any
lower than the 1 percent current polls have him at,” said a Granite Stater.
“Right now, he has the ability to luxuriate in the purity of his
irrelevance.”

Most think Rand mishandled the Baltimore blow-up.

Paul has closely identified himself with criminal justice reform, traveling
to Ferguson, Mo., last year and spending a lot of time engaging with the
African-American community.

More than six in 10 Republicans surveyed said that they thought the
violence in Baltimore would benefit candidates who back more traditional
Republican positions on crime at Paul’s expense.

“The more there is chaos both abroad and at home — the less Republican
caucus-goers are going to take a risk on libertarian-oriented policies that
Paul is selling,” said an Iowa Republican. “On the domestic front, personal
security still trumps civil liberties with GOP voters.”

“The events in Baltimore break down neatly along ideological lines,” added
a New Hampshire GOPer. “For Republican voters, this is another reason to
stress the rule of law and a strong police presence. For Democrats, this is
another instance of the breakdown of race relations and the need for
‘criminal justice reform.’ Both are unhelpful for Rand, who risks looking
soft on crime, and [Hillary] Clinton, who now has to explain the change in
tone on her tough on crime rhetoric from the 1990s to her speech this week
talking about the need for cameras on cops everywhere.”

Democrats were evenly split 50-50 on whether Baltimore is good or bad for
Paul.

The third of Republican insiders who think Baltimore is a plus for Paul
predicted he will ultimately get credit for tackling this tough issue once
the imagery of the moment dies down.

“While the violence is inexcusable, the frustration and peaceful protests
are legitimate,” said an Iowa Republican. “Rand Paul is the only Republican
who’s getting it. If the GOP fails to understand why people are unhappy
with what they’re getting from the criminal justice system, then the
Democrats hold the White House. It really is that simple.”

Another Iowa Republican staked out a more nuanced position: “Baltimore
probably tilts to helpful for Rand to get his message out, but for every
non-traditional supporter he appeals to on the issue, he likely turns off a
social conservative he’s desperately trying to secure.”

Since announcing his presidential campaign last month, Paul has discernibly
shifted his tone. On Tuesday, he told conservative radio host Laura
Ingraham that he was “glad” his train hadn’t stopped in Baltimore on the
way back to D.C. the night before as he expressed concern about “the plight
of police.” Then, during the same radio hit, he blamed the violence on “the
breakdown of the family structure, the lack of fathers, the lack of sort of
a moral code in our society.”

This was too much for many Democratic respondents to The Caucus, who
pointed out that the senator’s 22-year-old son was charged just last week
for driving under the influence of alcohol after crashing into a parked car.

“He would have gotten a pass on the incident regarding his son because it’s
not fair game, but he made it fair game with his remarks about fathers’
responsibilities for their sons in Baltimore,” said a New Hampshire
Democrat. “Voters don’t like hypocrisy.”

There’s bipartisan agreement: Hillary’s tough-on-crime rhetoric from the
‘90s makes no difference now.

Seventy percent of both Republican and Democratic insiders said the
21-year-old crime bill signed by Bill Clinton, which temporarily led to
100,000 more cops on the street while fueling the massive surge in
incarceration, is neither helpful nor hurtful to Hillary Clinton’s
presidential hopes.

After the former secretary of state delivered a speech Wednesday calling
for the end of mass incarceration and recommended police departments have
their officers wear body cameras, Paul issued a press release pointing out
that she was a cheerleader for the policies that created the underlying
problems at First Lady: “Not only is Hillary Clinton trying to undo some of
the harm inflicted by the Clinton administration, she is now emulating
proposals introduced by Senator Rand Paul over the last several years, and
we welcome her to the fight.”

An overwhelming number of Democratic insiders said Bernie Sanders could not
carry their state against the Republican nominee in a general election |
Getty

Two-thirds of Republican insiders don’t think this line of attack has legs,
while one-third said it will be harmful for Clinton.

“Hillary is advocating for sentencing and prison reforms that lighten
punishment for certain crimes,” said an Iowan. “That’s her position, not
some long-forgotten crime bill her husband signed.”

“Opinions on Hillary are set,” said another. “All these issues do is cement
what you already think.”

One in five Democrats said the 1994 efforts will be helpful, while one in
10 said they are harmful.

“Bill Clinton showed that you can reduce crime and offer support to law
enforcement without blowing up race relations in the country,” said a New
Hampshire Democrat.

Democrats are divided over how big of a deal this issue will be in 2016.

About half of Democratic insiders think that the racial unrest will become
a significant issue in 2016, and the other half say it will be a minor
issue.

“This is our 7.8 earthquake,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “Just like
Nepal, we should have expected it, and just like Nepal we did nothing to
prepare but chose to ignore. The difference is Nepal is poor, and we are
rich. A pox on us!”

“We are now likely at a tipping point and can expect to see more marches
and rallies moving toward the presidential elections,” said another.
“Moreover, this is not simply a matter of racial tensions. It also involves
income inequality and the fact that we are leaving millions of our citizens
behind. Our candidates are going to be pressed for their plans to address
these issues.”

The Democrats who said it will be a minor issue explained why it is such a
tough topic to talk about.

“Man, this is complicated,” said another New Hampshire Democrat.
“Libertarian Republicans and progressive Democrats both have been
complaining about the militarization of the police, and the use of Homeland
Security resources to obtain military equipment. On the other hand, most
cops are good cops, and I think most people get that. Candidates will have
to walk a fine line on how to be supportive of racial justice without
throwing good cops under the bus. These guys are out there every day,
working for us and putting their lives at risk, but meanwhile way too many
African Americas are getting killed or incarcerated.”

Republicans were much more likely to say that racial tensions will be a
minor issue.

“They don’t involve constituencies that vote in Republican primaries,” said
a New Hampshire Republican.

“There have been too many incidents for them not to matter, but the
campaign will be about bigger-scope issues,” said another.

Many Republican strategists said the party needs to offer smart solutions.

“Republicans need to be careful to not pigeonhole this simply as a failure
of government and a repudiation of the Great Society program,” said an
Iowan.

Very few take Bernie Sanders seriously.

The Vermont independent senator formally kicked off his bid for the
Democratic nomination on Thursday, but more than 90 percent of Democratic
insiders in the two early states said there is no way Sanders could win
their state’s caucus or primary. GOP insiders answered similarly.

The same overwhelming number said Sanders could not carry their state
against the Republican nominee in a general election.

“A socialist winning outside of Vermont? Hard to believe,” said a New
Hampshire Democrat.

“The Clinton campaign should be ecstatic,” said another. “Sen. Sanders
gives Hillary the benefit of a credible primary opponent who has absolutely
no chance of winning. She can now comfortably continue her progressive
window-dressing while still looking practical and moderate in comparison.”

“He isn’t the right messenger,” said a third. “He will get some support in
our primary. But, people want to win, and New Hampshire Democrats have been
very astute in recent years in nominating candidates who can win, like
[Sen.] Jeanne Shaheen, [former Gov.] John Lynch and [Gov.] Maggie Hassan,
even if the candidates are more moderate than the primary base voters. They
will want Secretary Clinton to be more moderate than Bernie Sanders because
they will want a candidate who can win.”

As a Republican put it, “he is only a fly in the ointment.”

Several GOP insiders lamented that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) did not
get into the race. “Unlike the Senator from the state on New Hampshire’s
southern border, Sanders doesn’t have the polish of a Warren needed to play
in New Hampshire,” said a Republican there. “The Granite State has
typically eschewed the angry candidates — Pat Buchanan in 1996 aside — in
favor of the more composed.”

New Hampshire Democrats are far more likely to believe Sanders will pull
Clinton to the left than the Iowans.

Overall, Democratic insiders were evenly split when asked whether the
Sanders challenge will force the frontrunner to tack left. But opinions
varied by state: A majority in New Hampshire did, but a majority in Iowa
did not.

“He’s just a gnat buzzing around the Scooby Van right now,” said an Iowa
Democrat. “She has written off the college towns and Fairfield to Sanders.
But that is his ceiling.”

“He absolutely will pull her to the left in New Hampshire,” responded a
Democrat there. “He will enjoy significant support in western cities and
towns bordering Vermont — Hanover, Lebanon, Claremont and Keene — and may
earn some key liberal supporters on the college campuses, in Concord and
along the Seacoast too.”

Iowa Democrats said that Clinton, to the extent she goes left, will be
forced in that direction by the outside influence of Warren and others like
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio or O’Malley.

“Clinton has already been pulled to the proverbial left — a great example
is her focus on economic inequalities and criminal justice reform,” said an
Iowa Democrat. “But do I think she’s going to go down the single-payer
route because Bernie is in the race? No. Will she be as hard charging
against Wall Street as Bernie? No. Will this enable him to garner support?
Yes.”

A lot of Republicans said it all depends on how seriously progressive
activists take him. “Folks thought little of Howard Dean in the beginning
as well,” a New Hampshire Republican said of another Vermonter.

“Not sure if HRC will take the bait,” said an Iowa Republican, “but it’ll
be entertaining as hell to watch Sanders try.”

*GOP
 *

Cleveland's 2016 convention plan: Don't be Baltimore
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clevelands-2016-convention-plan-dont-be-baltimore-117569.html>
// Politico // Daniel Lippman – May 2, 2015

City officials are taking steps to make sure demonstrations — or worse —
don’t disrupt the Republicans’ big show.

Could Cleveland be next?

Cleveland, the host city for the 2016 Republican convention, has its own
Freddie Gray incident — the killing by police last year of Tamir Rice, a
12-year-old African American boy who turned out to be brandishing a toy gun.

It has its own Ferguson-style Justice Department investigation, a damning
58-page report that found “the trust between the Cleveland Division of
Police and many of the communities it serves is broken.” The report
condemned the CDP’s widespread use of “unnecessary and excessive deadly
force” symbolized by a militarized sign hung in one district station:
“Forward Operating Base.” In one high-profile 2012 case, two motorists were
killed during a 22-minute car chase in which police shot at the fleeing
vehicle 137 times.

And Cleveland, like Baltimore, consistently ranks among America’s most
segregated cities, with the country’s second-highest rate of children
living in poverty — 54 percent, trailing only Detroit.

Landing the RNC was a major coup, but city leaders now find themselves
trying to avoid a nightmare scenario ahead of next year’s convention: riots
that could disrupt planning and hurt the city’s image.

On Tuesday, Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson emailed a letter to “Community
Leaders” saying the city was “planning for a variety of contingencies and
are being very proactive in both communication and outreach.”

Republicans seeking White House say it’s all about stopping Hillary Clinton
<http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150502/PC1603/150509822/1177/republicans-seeking-white-house-say-it-x2019-s-all-about-stopping-hillary-clinton>
// Post and Courier // Schuyler Kropf - May 2, 2015

Republicans running for the White House did their best to portray a Hillary
Clinton presidency as the third term of President Barack Obama as they
defended religious liberty and an expanded war on radical Islam to the
hundreds of party faithful who gathered for the S.C. GOP State Convention
here Saturday.

“We need to understand that the Obama foreign policy has been an
unmitigated disaster,” former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said as he made his
case for a probable White House run.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said he was particularly offended by Republicans who
stepped away from legislation in Indiana and Arkansas this spring that
would have allowed merchants to decide if they wanted to serve gay patrons
on religious grounds.

“It’s sad to see how many Republicans have run for the hills and hidden in
the caves,” said Cruz, the only one of the five potential candidates here
this weekend who has formally declared a bid.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham did not discuss his own interest in a White House
run, but led the chorus of those taking shots at Clinton and Obama. The
president, he said, has missed “an opportunity to take America to a better
place” during his presidency.

“He ran from the middle of the road, but he governed from the left ditch,”
Graham said, and “this what happens when you elect a commander-in-chief who
doesn’t know what they hell they are doing.”

Among the likely candidates, Graham spoke first at the convention before
heading to New Hampshire for two days of stumping there. He’s expected to
announce a bid by June.

Graham was the only candidate who mentioned the situation in Baltimore
where rioting last week followed the death of Freddie Gray in police
custody. Graham said Republican ideas could aid the city, such as by
closing failing schools.

Bush was also the only candidate to play up his anti-union credentials,
saying he battled teacher unions in Florida. Other speakers included former
Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Both men also took shots at the administration, with Santorum saying that
not enough has been done to appeal to the working class in America, many of
whom are becoming jobless in the changing economy.

“You want to appeal to the people who feel left behind?” he asked. “Make
jobs for the workers,” he answered.

Perry said conservatives live in a world of “reality based thinking” when
it comes to identifying world threats, something he charged the White House
has not handled effectively. “We are in the early years of a struggle with
radical Islamic extremists and it’s going to last a long time,” he said.

Perry also differed with what he identified as the liberal view on gun
control, saying “the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry.” He
drew loud applause for the comment.

The state convention was an opportunity for 1,000 county delegates to get
together under one roof at the Columbia Convention Center to hear speeches,
trade strategies and conduct party business. The biggest internal business
was that Matt Moore was re-elected state party chairman by a wide margin,
turning back a challenge from Anderson County Republican Mark Powell.

Still, the draw was the GOP presidential hopefuls, all of whom have made
previous stump visits to the state in the buildup toward next year’s
first-in-the-South presidential primary, probably on Feb. 20.

While the candidates attacked Obama’s seven years in office, there was
little discussion of how the country could be turned around economically,
beyond cutting taxes and increasing de-regulation.

Globally, all five candidates recommitted their support for Israel, saying
Obama’s foreign policy and pursuit of a nuclear treaty with Iran will make
the world less safe. Several also pointed to Clinton’s role as Secretary of
State in contributing to the decline of U.S. influence abroad.

“You shouldn’t be riding ‘shotgun’ with the person who pulled us back,”
Bush said of Clinton, adding “she has her fingerprints on all these foreign
policy disasters.”

Cruz also returned to his dislike of the Affordable Care Act, saying anger
against it among conservatives is enough to affect the upcoming election.
“Millions of Americans are ready to appeal Obamacare,” he said.

Each of the candidates had about 15 minutes to speak, and they left the
meeting hall right afterward.

While the gathering ended quietly after about four hours, Gov. Nikki Haley
did note that presidential primary fights in South Carolina have a
reputation for getting out of hand. She asked the delegates to keep 2016
friendly.

“Stand up for the person you believe in but make sure you are respectful
about it,” she told the crowd.

Jeb Bush exploits major loophole in campaign finance rule
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-exploits-huge-loophole-campaign-money-rule>
// MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin- May 2, 2015

Today, thanks to a Supreme Court decision that unleashed unlimited money
into politics, even the unlikeliest of long-shot presidential candidates
needs only one very wealthy patron to run a credible campaign. It’s a
system that many campaign finance reform advocates see as messy and
bordering on corrupt. But now, Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is taking
things to an entirely new level: putting off his official entry into the
2016 race so he can raise vast sums for a super PAC that’s supposed to be
entirely independent of his all-but-certain campaign.

“Until he says the magic words ‘I’m running for president,’ he can raise as
much money as he wants.”

The 2016 GOP field is already crowded. Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Marco Rubio
of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky are in, with announcements expected
next week from former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, retired
neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee. Missing from
that group is Bush, an early GOP frontrunner who says he’s still
“exploring” a possible candidacy. Why is he waiting? In a word, money.

By not officially jumping in the race, the former Florida governor doesn’t
have to abide by the “hard money” rules of presidential campaigns, which
cap primary donations at just $2,700 per individual. He’s raising unlimited
funds for his Right to Rise super PAC instead.

Super PACs, which sprang to life in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010
Citizens United decision, can accept unlimited donations from wealthy
individuals and from corporations. The only rule: they must operate
independently of a candidate’s official campaign operation.

The word ‘candidate’ is key. Since Bush isn’t yet an announced candidate,
he is essentially exploiting a loophole in the law and soliciting for his
own super PAC.

According to the Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan group that advocates
for government transparency, Bush has headlined at least 47 appearances
–many of them fundraisers – on behalf of Right to Rise since January.
Indeed, he recently bragged to have raised more money in 100 days
(estimated to be as much as $100 million) than any other political
operation in his party.

It may seem obvious that Bush is competing for the GOP nomination. “But
until he says the magic words ‘I’m running for president,’ he can raise as
much money as he wants,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight
Foundation. “He’s really using the super PAC like we’ve never seen before.”

That’s especially true because Team Bush reportedly has plans to have his
super PAC essentially take control of the many operations that a
candidate’s campaign would typically handle, like expensive television
advertising and direct mail. The advantage is simple: the super PAC can
raise unlimited funds, while his campaign will be subject to much stricter
rules. And by waiting to declare his candidacy, Bush is giving himself
plenty of time to coordinate with the super PAC and come up with a winning
strategy for how it will later spend money on his behalf. According to the
Associated Press, Mike Murphy – Bush’s longtime strategist – is likely to
take the super PAC’s reins when the GOPer officially announces.

A Bush spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

Of course, there are other ways to skirt the spirit of campaign finance
rules too. One popular way in recent cycles has been to score a billionaire
donor who will set up a super PAC for a specific candidate – like Sheldon
Adelson did for Newt Gingrich or Foster Friess did for Rick Santorum in
2012, keeping those candidacies alive far longer than they would have under
the old rules.

“The whole theory behind Citizens United is large money can’t corrupt
because it’s independent … What Jeb Bush is doing undermines that.”

In this presidential cycle, Rubio has already bagged the support of Florida
billionaire Norman Braman, while Ken Langone, the billionaire co-founder of
Home Depot, has lined up behind New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Even Bush
recently acknowledged to msnbc that the conservative, billionaire Koch
brothers will likely play a big role in the 2016 presidential race, and
that if he does run for president he’ll reach out to reach out to every
sector of the party, including the Kochs.

“If you have a big backer, it buys you additional chances to make your
case,” said Rick Hasen, a campaign finance regulation expert and professor
of law and political science at UC-Irvine School of Law.

But even in a post-Citizens United world, Bush’s moves regarding his super
PAC are new territory.

“The whole theory behind Citizens United is large money can’t corrupt
because it’s independent. It might not even help the candidate because it’s
not being done with any coordination,” said Hasen. “What Jeb Bush is doing
undermines that … Giving money to the super PAC is just about the same as
giving it to him.”

Bush is not the only GOPer coming under criticism over how he’s operating
early in the game. Similar complaints have been lobbed against former
Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and
Democratic former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. The Campaign Legal Center
and Democracy 21 have filed complaints with the FEC accusing the four of
“actively organizing and running early presidential bids without abiding by
federal rules related to fundraising limits and disclosure.”

Some allege that what Bush is doing is more than squeezing through a
fundraising loophole, arguing his behavior is flat-out illegal. The liberal
American Democracy Legal Fund this week filed a complaint with the Federal
Election Commission against the ex-governor’s super PAC, alleging it is
breaking campaign finance laws by coordinating directly with Bush.

Is Jeb Bush struggling?

“Bush’s motivation for failing to declare his candidacy is to skirt the
prohibition on federal candidates raising soft money. By failing to declare
himself a ‘candidate,’ he takes the position that he can fundraise for
Right to Rise super PAC, Inc. without violating the law,” the complaint
says. It adds that Bush “triggered” candidate status several months ago
when he began traveling the country to raise money in excess of what would
be reasonably expected for someone who is merely considering running.

Ben Ray, a spokesman for ADLF, said “it is clear this is the mechanism
[Bush] is using to escape campaign finance law and he needs to be held
accountable for it,” asking, “On what planet do we need $10, $20, $30
million for someone who is just thinking about running?”

FEC Spokeswoman Julia Queen verified receipt of the complaint but said the
commission was prohibited from discussing any aspects of an open case.

Several experts said the likelihood that the FEC would take any action
before the next election cycle is unlikely. “The FEC’s wheels turn very
slowly … If we do see any action, it will likely be after the [2016]
election,” said Hasen.

Also the composition of the FEC – made of six committee members split along
party lines – matters. “If there’s a 3-3 split, that means no action is
taken and they close the case,” said Scott Thomas, a former FEC chairman
and Democrat. The three conservatives, Thomas said, would likely cite First
Amendment rights and be “hesitant to find anything that will be a violation
of the law.”

Jeb's secret Jersey mission
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/jebs-secret-jersey-mission-117567.html>
// Politico // Alex Isenstadt – May 2, 2015

NASHUA, NH - APRIL 17: Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush speaks at the First in
the Nation Republican Leadership Summit April 17, 2015 in Nashua, New
Hampshire. The Summit brought together local and national Republicans and
was attended by all the Republicans candidates as well as those eyeing a
run for the nomination. (Photo by Darren McCollester/Getty Images)

Jeb Bush is quietly waging a behind-the-scenes offensive to pick off
disillusioned home-state supporters of Chris Christie, the New Jersey
governor whose presidential prospects have dimmed in recent months.

Bush’s effort to undermine Christie’s network of donors, power-brokers, and
political players is conducted mainly through emails and phone
conversations — and he tracks the progress closely.

At a get-together with donors in Miami last weekend, Bush sat down for a
private conversation with Lawrence Bathgate, a prominent New Jersey
attorney and former Christie donor who is now behind the Florida
Republican. During the talk, Bathgate, a former Republican National
Committee finance chairman, outlined to Bush a plan to have a majority of
the state’s 16 Republican state senators endorse him.

Bush responded with a question. How soon, he wanted to know, would the
endorsements start to roll in? And could some of them be announced sooner
rather than later?

The former Florida governor is said to court Christie boosters with
frequent emails and makes himself accessible to them. “He’s a great
emailer,” said Hersh Kozlov, a major Republican Party fundraiser in New
Jersey and former Christie supporter who’s now with the former Florida
governor.

The attempts to crack the Christie network — both are in competition for
the same group of moderate and establishment Republicans — dates back at
least to January, not long after Bush launched his presidential exploratory
committee. At the time, Bush met with around a dozen New Jersey Republicans
for dinner at New York City’s Union Club. He started out the meeting in a
surprising way, telling those gathered that they should feel free to ask
him anything — no holds barred. One person took him up on the challenge,
posing a question to him about his daughter’s struggle with drug addiction.

For months, Bush and his finance chief, Heather Larrison, have been
reaching out to New Jersey donors. Once a financial commitment is secured,
they typically ask that person for names of friends or associates in the
state who might also want to give.

As Christie’s fortunes have seemed to fade amid his sagging polling
numbers, fiscal problems at home and fallout from the Bridgegate scandal —
on Friday a former political ally of the governor pleaded guilty and two
other former officials were indicted for their alleged roles in the affair
— Bush’s efforts have ramped up.

Last month, Bush landed his biggest catch yet: Joe Kyrillos, a longtime
state senator who chaired Christie’s 2009 campaign. When Kyrillos, a former
New Jersey Republican Party chairman, appeared at a Bush donor event in
Miami last week, he was greeted with a hero’s welcome. At a private dinner,
which was attended by around 350 of the former governor’s biggest
benefactors, the senator was rewarded with a round of applause and a seat
at Bush’s table.

Among the other recent public converts to Bush: Brian Nelson, an
up-and-coming, 37-year-old lobbyist who less than six years ago helped lead
Christie’s gubernatorial transition team and John Crowley, a biotech
executive whose compelling life story was the subject of a 2010 Harrison
Ford movie. Crowley had contributed over $7,000 to Christie’s campaigns.

“I think there is a very broad effort to win over the traditional
fundraising community, especially the people who supported Chris Christie,”
said Crowley, who plans to cut Bush a check. “Here in New Jersey, I think
there is very broad support for Governor Bush.”

So far, Bush has yet to hold a fundraiser in New Jersey or to campaign
there — a decision, those close to him say, reflecting a belief that doing
so would be seen as an intentional provocation to Christie, whose team
keeps an iron-fisted grip over the party apparatus in the state. Most
often, Bush has chosen to hold his face-to-face meetings with the state’s
Republicans across the border in New York City. But that calculus is now
changing. In recent days, Bush’s camp has been in talks with its supporters
in the state about holding an early summer fundraiser there.

Publicly, the Bush team is saying little. Tim Miller, a spokesman, declined
to comment on the push other than to say: “We’re happy to earn the support
of any like-minded individuals across the country that want to support Gov.
Bush.”

Christie’s team insists Bush’s effort will have little overall impact,
arguing that the Florida Republican’s support in the state represents just
a small fraction of the party. Christie continues to maintain the public
backing of the state’s 21 influential GOP county chairmen and a number of
other key players, including Dale Florio, a Trenton lobbyist, Jon Bramnick,
the GOP leader in the state Assembly, and George Gilmore, an attorney and
the Ocean County Republican Party chairman.

“I am not concerned about it. Ninety-nine percent of the state GOP
political establishment will be with Christie if he runs,” said Mike
DuHaime, a Christie adviser. “The few defectors will have their own
personal reasons for doing so, but it will be of no concern in the long
run.”

One reason for that high level of confidence is the reluctance of GOP
officeholders to buck the incumbent governor — constitutionally one of the
most powerful governorships in the nation. Regardless of Christie’s
standing in the presidential race at the moment, his term in office doesn’t
expire until January 2018 — and he has a reputation for playing hard-ball
politics, especially against those he deems disloyal. Many of those
contacted for this story declined to speak for the record out of fear, they
say, of inflaming Christie.

Among many ex-Christie backers, an often-stated reason for defecting is a
longstanding relationship with the Bush family. Kyrillos first met Bush in
1986, back when Bush was serving as chairman of the Miami Dade Republican
Party. Clifford Sobel, a prominent GOP fundraiser, served in the George W.
Bush administration as ambassador to Brazil. Kozlov said he’d forged a
relationship with Jeb Bush ahead of the 2000 presidential campaign. In
1998, Bush flew up to Cherry Hill, N.J. for a fundraiser he was hosting.

“I’ve known Jeb for a long, long time,” he said. “For me, it was a very
easy choice.”

For others, the issue is Christie’s hard-charging personal style. Gail
Gordon, an influential Republican lobbyist in the state who is with Bush,
found herself at odds with Christie after he targeted her husband, a
Democrat in the state Senate, for defeat. Bathgate, who raised money for
George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, clashed with the governor over his
plan to construct sand dunes across the state’s coastline.

Christie, for his part, has remained stoic.

During an appearance on a local radio station this week, Christie was asked
about the Kyrillos defection.

“This is politics,” he shrugged. “It’s not personal.”

“It doesn’t change my view of him,” he added. “I love him.”

No charges, but Christie's troubles persist
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/02/charges-christies-troubles-persist/26793945/>
// USAToday // Michael Symons – May 2, 2015

Although New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie wasn't charged Friday in the George
Washington Bridge scandal, his political problems from the illegal,
intentional lane closures may have gotten worse.

The good news for Christie was that U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman said that
he expects no one else, beyond the three people implicated by his office,
to face criminal charges in connection with the lane closures.

The bad news is, it is now law enforcement, not merely the media or
political partisans, decrying what Fishman described as a political
vendetta — one carried out on behalf of Christie's re-election by people he
entrusted with high-ranking positions of power.

Christie's primary defense since the sinister origins of the September 2013
traffic jams first came to light: He didn't know.

Such an excuse is not very presidential, in the opinion of Claira Monier, a
resident of Goffstown, N.H. Her view should matter to Christie, who has
been courting Republican voters in her state's
first-in-the-nation-presidential primary.

"If you're a president, you have to trust the people close to you. If you
cannot appoint people that are trustworthy and ethical, that raises some
issues about you being an excellent administrator," Monier said. "And I
think the president of the United States has to be a top-notch
administrator."

Early Friday, ending months of speculation, one of the architects of the
politically motivated lane closures pleaded guilty to federal charges that
he conspired to cause the traffic jams that gripped Fort Lee over four days
during the busy first week of school.

David Wildstein, the former director of capital projects for the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, admitted his role in causing the lane
closures at the approach to the George Washington Bridge.

Wildstein also identified two alleged co-conspirators, Bridget Anne Kelly,
a former deputy chief of staff to Christie, and Bill Baroni, the former
deputy executive director of the Port Authority.

Kelly and Baroni denied any criminal wrongdoing following word of their
indictment Friday, contending that Wildstein was lying. Windstein said the
trio acted in concert, as part of a plant to punish the Democratic mayor of
Fort Lee for not endorsing Republican Christie's 2013 re-election.

All three — Wildstein, Kelly and Baroni — were longtime Christie insiders.

Brigid Harrison, Montclair State University political scientist, said it's
"almost irrelevant" that Christie didn't consent to the retaliation scheme;
he enabled the atmosphere where people thought such conduct was allowed.
She said Christie was already on shaky political ground and his opponents
now have been handed a hammer.

"This is a real serious blow to his presidential bid," Harrison said. "It
is not that a scandal of this type is insurmountable, but when you are at
4% of the GOP vote share nationally and key members of your staff are
indicted, that is as close as you can come to a death knell."

Adding to the uncertainty is that there are likely more shoes to drop.
Fishman was careful to limit his statements Friday to the GWB lane
closures, not the other Port Authority issues his office is investigating,
as evidenced by subpoenas disclosed by the authority.

Fishman made reference to unindicted co-conspirators who could be revealed
later. Wildstein's agreement to plead guilty to two counts of conspiracy
was signed in January, so he has been cooperating with federal
investigators for many months.

Gov. Chris Christie's former deputy chief of staff

Gov. Chris Christie's former deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne Kelly.
(Photo: Mel Evans, AP)

At least one avenue of inquiry led nowhere. Federal authorities told
attorneys for public officials being investigated for possibly threatening
to withhold Superstorm Sandy aid — unless a Hoboken development was
approved — that their clients were in the clear.

But if charges are eventually brought against former Port Authority
Chairman David Samson, for example, that would shine still more light onto
Christie's inner circle, as Samson was his 2009 campaign counsel. Some of
the subpoenas issued in the wide-ranging investigations are focused on
potential conflicts of interest in actions Samson took at the authority.

"Hillary Clinton is embroiled in scandal. Scott Walker is embroiled in
scandal. But they're their party's front-runners," Harrison said. "If
you're a stronger candidate, you can weather a storm like this. But the
fact of the matter is that the governor is really damaged goods."

Christie's allies see things differently. They say investigations by the
outside counsel hired by Christie's office, the state Legislature and the
U.S. Attorney's Office all found he wasn't involved in the lane closures.

But few allies stepped forward to defend the governor: Only Christie's
office and the Republican Party state chairman issued supportive
statements, compared with 10 critical ones from Democrats.

At a minimum, Christie now knows more about the GWB scandal's scope as he
mulls whether to run for president, said Joseph Marbach, the incoming
president of Georgian Court University and a former president of the New
Jersey Political Science Association.

"It certainly is a poor reflection on the part of any leader when you've
got folks working for you either operating without your consent or without
your knowledge, particularly when they're engaged in wrongdoing, as
apparently Wildstein was, and it remains to be seen what Baroni and Kelly's
roles have been," Marbach said.

Bill Baroni, former deputy executive director of the Port Authority.
(Photo: Julio Cortez, AP)

He added: "You could certainly be criticized about how you're managing your
office. To the governor's credit, when he apparently did find out, he took
action in relieving people, Kelly in particular, of their jobs. But is that
too little, too late? I guess that's what people will have to evaluate."

Baroni and Kelly were indicted on conspiracy and wire fraud charges. Both
made lengthy statements Friday in which they maintained their innocence and
lashed out at Wildstein. Wildstein's lawyer repeated assertions that the
governor knew about the lane closures and that there was proof to that
effect.

Christie's campaign hopes aren't over, said Seton Hall University political
scientist Matthew Hale. The latest developments did not contradict what's
been known for 16 months. And so long as wealthy donors like Home Depot
cofounder and billionaire Ken Langone continue to back him, fundraising
through the early states, in the GOP primaries, won't be an issue.

"He has an easy answer to everything that we heard today, and that is that
everything that came out today is something that we already know, that we
already heard. He's got a response, and I think that means he can keep
going," Hale said. "We didn't see a smoking gun."

"I don't by any stretch think he's got a good shot," Hale said, "but I
think he has a shot."

That will depend on early-state voters like Monier. She attended Christie's
recent speech in New Hampshire about Social Security and Medicare and
thought it was excellent. But Monier said she has too many questions right
now about Christie to support him, at least until those issues play out.

"Every time something negative hits the news, it raises questions about
Christie and the stereotypes some of us in New Hampshire have of New Jersey
politicians," Monier said. "Whether it's true or not, it does exist. It
raises concerns. It will take away from his message."

As Ben Carson bashes Obama, many blacks see a hero’s legacy fade
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-ben-carson-bashes-obama-many-blacks-see-a-heros-legacy-fade/2015/05/02/b9ce53c8-e850-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html>
// Washington Post // Robert Samuels - May 2, 2015

The black man courting crowds of white conservatives doesn’t seem like the
same guy that H. Westley Phillips once idolized. Phillips still relishes
the day he heard Ben Carson inspire minority students at Yale University
with his story of persistence. He can still feel the nervous anticipation
he had while waiting in line to shake Carson’s hand.

After the speech, Phillips followed Carson’s path and began to study
neurosurgery.

“I had come from a public school in Tulsa and came from a single-parent
household and thought I was the admissions mistake,” said Phillips, now 27.
“But he gave me the comfort to know that if I did struggle — and I thought
I would — that I wouldn’t have been the first, and there are ways to handle
it. The message he gave was this backup artillery when times were hard.”

For many young African Americans who grew up seeing Carson as the
embodiment of black achievement — a poor inner-city boy who became one of
the world’s most accomplished neurosurgeons — his emergence as a
conservative hero and unabashed critic of the United States’ first black
president has been jarring.

Carson has been a black icon since 1987, when he became the first person to
successfully separate twins conjoined at the backs of their heads. He was a
rare and much-desired role model: a black man who became known for his
intellect, not for telling jokes or shooting basketballs.

Carson poses for a photo with Page High School students Lizabeth Schaede,
Anna Bateman and Atie Thomas while signing his book after a speech at the
Carolina Theatre in Greensboro, N.C. (Jerry Wolford/For The Washington Post)

Posters of Carson hung on bulletin boards in classrooms. Reading “Gifted
Hands,” his 1992 autobiography, was practically a rite of passage.

But now retired from his medical career, Carson, 63, has become known more
widely since using his speech at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast to
offer a conservative critique of U.S. health-care and spending policies,
while standing a few feet from President Obama.

In the ensuing months and years, Carson’s attacks grew sharper — deriding
Obama’s signature health-care law as the “worst thing to have happened in
this nation since slavery” and, in the pages of GQ, likening Obama to a
“psychopath.” Carson’s 2014 book, “One Nation,” assails a decline of moral
values in America and its government.

As Carson prepares to announce his candidacy for president on Monday in his
home town of Detroit, his political base is now whiter and more rural.

Carson’s personal accomplishments — and the work he has done to help black
communities — still garner respect and pride among African Americans. Yet,
while he has been a conservative for as long as he has been famous, many
worry that he risks eroding his legacy in their community and transforming
himself into a fringe political figure.

Some black pastors who were Carson’s biggest promoters have stopped
recommending his book. Members of minority medical organizations that long
boasted of their affiliations with him say he is called an “embarrassment”
on private online discussion groups.

Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, delivers his speech at the Carolina Theatre
in Greensboro, N.C. (Jerry Wolford/For The Washington Post)

“Has he lost his sense of who he is?” said the Rev. Jamal Bryant, a
prominent black pastor in Baltimore, where Carson lived for decades when he
was director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. “He does
not see he is the next Herman Cain.”

Mark Terrelonge, 26, who is in his final year at Stanford University School
of Medicine, said he feels his heart sink every time another clip of Carson
shows up on his Facebook feed.

Reading “Gifted Hands” as a teenager, Terrelonge said he saw Carson’s story
as an affirmation of his own ambitions to become a doctor. Never before had
he heard of a black man in the upper echelons of medicine. But Terrelonge,
who is gay, was stung when he heard Carson say that homosexuality was a
choice.

“I don’t know how to say it exactly,” Terrelonge said. “I don’t want to
attack him because he’s done great things in medicine, but the role-model
aspect of him has kind of diminished in my life.”

Carson, too, is trying to fully understand his new place in black America.
He spoke recently at the National Action Network, the civil rights group
headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who once ran for president as a Democrat.
Carson also issued a statement criticizing Baltimore demonstrators
protesting after the death of Freddie Gray — urging parents to “please take
control of your children and do not allow them to be exposed to the dangers
of uncontrolled agitators on the streets.”

In an interview, Carson said he laments that many in the black community
“drank the Kool-Aid and think I have forsaken them.”

“People write things. They say things. It saddens me,” Carson said. “There
are forces in this country that really like to foster division and
conflict, particularly in the black community, because they don’t want the
synergy of them working together. Because that would advance them.”

The admiration many blacks have long felt for Carson differentiates him
from past black conservative presidential candidates such as Cain, the
former pizza executive who briefly rose in the polls during the 2012
primary season, Carson’s political supporters say. He has won the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded by Republican President George W.
Bush, and the Spingarn Medal, the top honor given by the traditionally
liberal NAACP.

His stature, Carson supporters say, helps him combat the perception that
the far right is exclusive and out of touch. Critics, these supporters say,
underestimate Carson’s potential impact on the race at their own peril.

“I would be elated if the left felt this too shall pass and he is just the
chocolate flavor of the election cycle,” said Vernon Robinson, a fellow
black conservative and chairman of the National Draft Ben Carson for
President Committee. So far, Robinson said, the group has raised $16
million.

“Despite everything so far,” Robinson said, “he still has a reservoir of
residual admiration.”

Carson’s renown — and his stature in black America — dates to his early
years as a pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins. Even then, Carson said,
he always felt a sense of duty to help advance his race.

When the hospital started to receive publicity in the late 1980s for its
attempt to separate German twins conjoined at the back of the head, Carson
took the unusual step of asking not to be initially identified as the lead
surgeon.

He said he worried that the procedure might not be treated as
groundbreaking or important if the media and the broader public saw a black
man in charge.

“Historically, when black people had done things of a scientific nature,
many times either it wasn’t appropriately covered or someone else received
most of the credit,” he said.

“And I was thinking what more of a tremendous thing it would be for young
black kids to know something of this magnitude and this complexity was done
by someone who looked like them,” Carson said.

After the surgery, Carson — young and soft-spoken — stepped forward.
Intrigued journalists became “more interested in me than they were in the
twins,” Carson recalled with a chuckle.

Someone suggested he write an autobiography. Agents kept calling for him,
Carson said, “and then I thought to myself, ‘I should write a book.’ ”

“Gifted Hands” chronicles his unlikely journey into medicine. His mother, a
devout Seventh-day Adventist, raised Carson and his brother alone. She
taught them that they could be anything they wanted to be. Carson was the
worst student in his class and suffered a debilitating anger after his
father walked out on his family, he wrote.

The autobiography described how Carson’s mother barred television from the
house and mandated her children read two books a week. He wrote that he
prayed to God to cleanse him from his angry feelings. His grades soared,
and he went on to graduate from Yale and then the University of Michigan
Medical School.

He became the youngest director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins
and the first black person to hold the position.

Carson said his agent expected the memoir to sell about 14,000 copies.
According to its publisher Zondervan, the Christian arm of HarperCollins,
it has sold 1.7 million.

Religious leaders in the black community emphasized the spiritual overtones
and recommended the book to their youth groups. Teachers saw the narrative
of achievement and social mobility and taught the book in their schools.

The legend of Ben Carson took flight. He became a regular speaker at
graduations and churches, encouraging parents to find positive role models
for their children — particularly black men. He asked them to instill pride
by teaching minorities about the many inventions of black people, including
the traffic light, the gas mask and the hair products of entrepreneur Madam
C.J. Walker.

He founded a nonprofit called the Carson Scholars Fund. The group has
distributed nearly $700,000 for scholarships to middle- and high-schoolers,
awarding them with big trophies so academic success could be put on the
same plane as athletic success.

Carson has also raised money to refurbish libraries in nearly 150 of the
country’s poorest schools. A Detroit public school was named for him, as
was a medical school in Nigeria. By 2009, “Gifted Hands” was adapted to a
made-for-TV movie.

Matt Dean Campbell, 25, remembers being tucked into bed growing up in South
Florida as his mother read “Gifted Hands” to him. His mother, a domestic
worker, struggled to pay the bills, but she wanted to imbue her son with
stories of uplift, he said.

Campbell, now a high school teacher near Miami, said he has drawn on that
message any time he has faced adversity. He was one of the slowest
sprinters on his track team at the University of Michigan, Campbell said.
He graduated as the captain. He continued pushing himself, because “that’s
what Ben Carson would do.”

Sara McLaughlin, a teacher in Virginia Beach who works with troubled
middle-schoolers, thought the book would be perfect for her class. Students
wrote essays about Carson’s resilience and got queasy when they watched the
surgery scenes from the movie.

“Is this the same Ben Carson who is running for president?” she recalled a
student asking.

Then came more questions: But he’s not a politician, he’s a doctor. Why
would he run? A reading assignment became a civics lesson.

McLaughlin said she could offer no answer.

“It’s funny,” she said. “A lot of people are asking the same thing.”

Presidential politics was not originally in Carson’s plans, he said.

Retirement, he said, meant relaxing in his Florida home, playing golf,
maybe a television appearance here or there.

That all changed after his appearance at the 2013 National Prayer
Breakfast. It was the second time Carson was invited to speak at the event.
The first time, in 1997, he made quips about the unfairness of HMOs. But
this time, he went further. With repeated references to his tendency to be
politically incorrect and offend the “PC police,” he offered an alternative
view of health-care reform in which people would simply have private
accounts to pay for their own care with pre-tax income. He railed against
the debt and tax policies that seek to force the wealthy to pay a higher
share than others — endorsing a flat tax, similar to tithing.

Carson, who does not often speak with notes, insisted that this was not a
political speech but an exhale of frustration of the state of the country.
But then new admirers started suggesting he run for president. Within days,
the Wall Street Journal published an editorial proclaiming “Ben Carson for
President.” He began thinking maybe he should.

The political turn was unexpected for many who knew him. The Rev. Frank
Reid of Bethel AME Church in Baltimore found it “astounding.” When they
were at Yale together, Reid said, Carson was universally regarded as
brilliant and hard-working. Reid could not recall Carson participating in
student activism because he was too busy studying with his future wife,
Candy, in the library.

When Carson first promoted “Gifted Hands,” Reid invited him to his church
so his congregation could hear the story. But if Carson were to speak
today, Reid said he would ask him to come in for a “family session, with
our leaders, behind closed doors, to find out what is really going on.

“I am hedging about what to say, because you cannot take away the impact
that he’s had,” Reid said. “But before we turn on the brother, we have to
hear him out. As shocking as some of the things he’s said are, I would
rather have a discussion than attack someone who has done respectful work.”

[The worst thing Ben Carson could do for ‘Ben Carson’ is run for president]

Carson says he is willing to put his legacy aside to do what he thinks is
best for the country. Still, it matters to him.

Sitting at the Sheraton Hotel in New York last month, Carson seemed anxious
as he prepared to address the National Action Network a few hours later.
This audience, a mostly black group seeking the advancement of black
people, used to be an easy crowd for Carson. But times had changed.

“I have no idea how they are going to receive me,” Carson said.

As Carson waited to go on stage, Sharpton pleaded with the crowd to give
him a fair hearing. Carson got some applause when he reiterated his belief
that marriage was between a man and a woman. He said it was “a bunch of
crap” for critics to say he doesn’t like black people anymore.

“I love black people. My wife is a black woman,” he said.

Then came the Carson of old, borrowing parts of the speeches he used to
give in the 1990s.

He talked about the need for black role models and the importance of
teaching young people about those black inventors. His voice shook as he
described the horrors of growing up in neighborhoods crippled by drugs and
overrun by rodents, and of losing families members to gun violence. He
asserted that hard work and faith were able to lift him — and anyone else —
out of poverty.

The crowd rose to their feet.

The next week, Carson returned to more comfortable terrain for a
prospective GOP presidential candidate: the convention of the National
Rifle Association. There, he spoke of how he thinks the need to control gun
violence on the streets does not outweigh the need to combat “radical
Islamic terrorists.”

Days later, he appeared at a fundraiser for a faith-based medical clinic in
the lush upstate South Carolina city of Greenville. He talked about the
importance of putting God first and speaking honestly. The emcee of the
event said Carson would help fill in the gap of having “good, godly leaders
to stand up for what is right.” The neurosurgeon received another standing
ovation.

Carson then sat at a table to sign copies of his books. A line of mostly
white attendees formed. Near the end was Landry Assinesi, a 19-year-old
student at Piedmont College in Georgia who came back home to listen to
Carson speak.

Assinesi said he never read “Gifted Hands,” but he devoured “One Nation.”
Reading Carson’s words, Assinesi said he found a new political hero.

Carly Fiorina to launch presidential campaign Monday
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/carly-fiorina-to-launch-presidential-campaign-monday/>
// CBS News // Stephanie Condon – May 1, 2015

Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, will announce on Monday
that she's seeking the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

Fiorina will be the first woman to throw her hat into the ring for the GOP
nomination. The other announced Republican candidates so far include Sens.
Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida. On the
Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie
Sanders of Vermont have announced their candidacies.

Despite HP, Fiorina touts business experience for possible 2016 bid

After Fiorina officially announces her candidacy, she'll take questions
Monday afternoon during a live, online "town hall" event, via the app
Periscope.

The next day, the former tech executive speaks at TechCrunch in New York
City. After that, she embarks on a tour of the early-nominating states: She
stops in Iowa on Thursday, New Hampshire on Friday and South Carolina on
Saturday.

Also, Fiorina's new book will be released on Tuesday. Fiorina's share of
all proceeds from the book are going to a charitable foundation, according
to a spokesperson for the candidate.

Fiorina, who lost a bid for the U.S. Senate in 2010, has touted her
business experience as an asset in the race.

Ted Cruz Says He Has Asked the Pentagon for Answers on Jade Helm 15
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-02/ted-cruz-says-he-has-asked-the-pentagon-for-answers-on-jade-helm-15>
// Bloomberg // David Weigel – May 2, 2015

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said Saturday that he'd been
hearing concerns about Jade Helm 15, a domestic military training exercise
that has become a fount of conspiracy theories, and that he wanted
questions about it to be answered.

"My office has reached out to the Pentagon to inquire about this exercise,"
Cruz, a Texas senator, told Bloomberg at the South Carolina Republican
Party's annual convention. "We are assured it is a military training
exercise. I have no reason to doubt those assurances, but I understand the
reason for concern and uncertainty, because when the federal government has
not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy in this administration, the
natural consequence is that many citizens don't trust what it is saying."

The paranoia about Jade Helm, which started on websites like Alex Jones's
InfoWars, had started with familiar fulmination about a mass seizure of
firearms or a cover-up for American "death squads." This week, Texas
Governor Greg Abbott channeled the concerns of voters in the Southwest,
asking the Texas state guard to monitor the exercise for any violations of
freedom. "It is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional
rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed,"
said the governor.

Not every Republican was so concerned. Last week, Kentucky Senator Rand
Paul told Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson that he'd "gotten a few questions"
about Jade Helm and would "look at it." Today, South Carolina Senator
Lindsey Graham told Bloomberg that he had never heard of the Jade Helm
panic.

Cruz was more plugged in. "I have a great deal of faith and confidence in
Governor Abbott," said the senator. "He is a long-time friend and mentor of
mine. You know, I understand a lot of the concerns raised by a lot of
citizens about Jade Helm. It's a question I'm getting a lot. And I think
part of the reason is we have seen, for six years, a federal government
disrespecting the liberty of the citizens. That produces fear, when you see
a government that is attacking our free speech rights, or Second Amendment
rights, or religious liberty rights. That produces distrust."

Later, in his speech to the convention, Cruz told South Carolina
Republicans about his fights in Texas and Washington for religious liberty.
The backlash to Indiana's religious-freedom law, he said, was a "perfect
storm of the Democratic Party and big business coming together." Anyone who
doubted that gay-marriage supporters could declare culture war on
Christians needed only look at the 2014 fight between Houston pastors and a
city that was trying to pass a gay rights ordinance.

"Just because you're paranoid," said Cruz, "doesn't mean they're not out to
get you."

F.E.C. Can’t Curb 2016 Election Abuse, Commission Chief Says
<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0&referrer=>
// New York Times // Eric Lichtblau – May 2, 2015

The leader of the Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with
regulating the way political money is raised and spent, says she has
largely given up hope of reining in abuses in the 2016 presidential
campaign, which could generate a record $10 billion in spending.

“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,” Ann M. Ravel, the
chairwoman, said in an interview. “I never want to give up, but I’m not
under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It’s worse
than dysfunctional.”

Her unusually frank assessment reflects a worsening stalemate among the
agency’s six commissioners. They are perpetually locked in 3-to-3 ties
along party lines on key votes because of a fundamental disagreement over
the mandate of the commission, which was created 40 years ago in response
to the political corruption of Watergate.

Some commissioners are barely on speaking terms, cross-aisle negotiations
are infrequent, and with no consensus on which rules to enforce, the
caseload against violators has plummeted.

The F.E.C.’s paralysis comes at a particularly critical time because of the
sea change brought about by the Supreme Court’s decision in 2010 in the
Citizens United case, which freed corporations and unions to spend
unlimited funds in support of political candidates. Billionaire donors and
“super PACs” are already gaining an outsize role in the 2016 campaign, and
the lines have become increasingly stretched and blurred over what
presidential candidates and political groups are allowed to do.

Watchdog groups have gone to the F.E.C. with complaints that probable
presidential candidates like Jeb Bush and Martin O’Malley are skirting
finance laws by raising millions without officially declaring that they are
considering running.

Ms. Ravel, who led California’s state ethics panel before her appointment
as a Democratic member of the commission in 2013, said that when she became
chairwoman in December, she was determined to “bridge the partisan gap” and
see that the F.E.C. confronted such problems. But after five months, she
said she had essentially abandoned efforts to work out agreements on what
she saw as much-needed enforcement measures.

Now, she said, she plans on concentrating on getting information out
publicly, rather than continuing what she sees as a futile attempt to take
action against major violations. She said she was resigned to the fact that
“there is not going to be any real enforcement” in the coming election.

“The few rules that are left, people feel free to ignore,” said Ellen L.
Weintraub, a Democratic commissioner.

Republican members of the commission see no such crisis. They say they are
comfortable with how things are working under the structure that gives each
party three votes. No action at all, they say, is better than overly
aggressive steps that could chill political speech.

“Congress set this place up to gridlock,” Lee E. Goodman, a Republican
commissioner, said in an interview. “This agency is functioning as Congress
intended. The democracy isn’t collapsing around us.”

Experts predict that the 2016 race could produce a record fund-raising haul
of as much as $10 billion, with the growth fueled by well-financed outside
groups. On their own, the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H.
Koch have promised to spend $889 million through their political network.

With the rise of the super PACs and the loosening of legal restrictions on
corporate spending, campaigns and groups are turning to creative new
methods of raising money. Writing in March in The Washington Post, Ms.
Ravel charged that some candidates — she did not name names — appeared to
have been amassing large war chests at fund-raisers this year without
acknowledging that they were at least considering a presidential run, which
would trigger campaign finance limits and disclosure.

She said it was “absurd” to think that such politicians were not at least
considering a White House run under federal law.

“It’s the Wild West out there in some ways,” said Kate A. Belinski, a
former lawyer at the commission who now works on campaign finance at a law
firm. Candidates and political groups are increasingly willing to push the
limits, she said, and the F.E.C.’s inaction means that “there’s very little
threat of getting caught.”

As a lawyer in Silicon Valley who went after ethics violators in California
during her time there, Ms. Ravel brought to Washington both a reformer’s
mentality and a tech-savvy background, and she has used Twitter and other
media to try to attract young people and women to politics.

But her aggressive efforts have angered some Republicans, who charged that
an F.E.C. hearing she scheduled for next week on challenges facing women in
politics was not only outside the commission’s jurisdiction but a thinly
veiled attempt to help the presidential bid of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ms.
Ravel called the accusations “crazy.”

Some disputes between the commissioners have gotten personal.

A disagreement over how to treat online political ads, for instance, turned
tense when Ms. Ravel received anonymous online threats over charges that
she was trying to “regulate” the Internet. She angrily confronted Mr.
Goodman, charging that he had unfairly “fanned the flames” against her by
mischaracterizing her position in an interview he did on Fox News. But Mr.
Goodman said he had no regrets about challenging her position, which he saw
as opening the door to greater regulation of Internet activities.

Relations between the two have been difficult ever since.

Last fall, Ms. Ravel did join Republicans on the commission — and took some
criticism from the left — in a 4-to-2 decision that eased rules growing out
of the Citizens United decision and a related case. But she has had little
success in persuading Republicans to vote with her on enforcement measures.

She said she was particularly frustrated that Republican commissioners
would not support cases against four nonprofit groups — including
Crossroads GPS, founded by Karl Rove — accused of improperly using their
tax-exempt status for massive and well-financed political campaigns.

A surge in this so-called “dark money” in politics — hundreds of millions
of dollars raised by nonprofits, trade associations and other groups that
can keep their donations secret — has alarmed campaign-finance reformers
who are pushing to make such funding public.

But Mr. Goodman said the problem was exaggerated. He and other Republicans
defend their decisions to block many investigations, saying Democrats have
pushed cases beyond what the law allows.

“We’re not interested in going after people unless the law is fairly clear,
and we’re not willing to take the law beyond where it’s written,” said
Caroline C. Hunter, a Republican commissioner. Democrats view the law “more
broadly,” she said.

The commission has not always been so hamstrung. In 2006, it unanimously
imposed major fines against high-profile groups — liberal and conservative
— for breaking campaign finance laws two years earlier by misusing their
tax-exempt status for political fund-raising and campaigning. The penalties
put political groups on notice, and experts credited them with helping curb
similar abuses in the 2008 campaign.

These days, the six commissioners hardly ever rule unanimously on major
cases, or even on some of the most minor matters. Last month at an event
commemorating the commission’s 40th anniversary, even the ceremony proved
controversial. Democrats and Republicans skirmished over where to hold it,
whom to include and even whether to serve bagels or doughnuts. In a rare
compromise, they ended up serving both.

Standing in front of a montage of photos from the F.E.C.’s history, Ms.
Ravel told staff members and guests that there was a “crisis” in public
confidence, and she stressed the F.E.C.’s mandate for “enforcing the law.”
But the ranking Republican, Matthew S. Petersen, made no mention of
enforcement in his remarks a few minutes later, focusing instead on
defending political speech under the First Amendment.

As guests mingled, Ms. Weintraub — the commission’s longest-serving member
at 12 years — lamented to a reporter that the days when the panel could
work together on important issues were essentially over.

She pointed to a former Republican commissioner standing nearby — Bradley
A. Smith, who left the agency in 2005 — and said she used to be able to
work with commissioners like him even when they disagreed on ideology.

Laughing, Mr. Smith assumed a fighting stance and yelled at Ms. Weintraub:
“Let’s go right now, you speech-hating enemy of the First Amendment!”

A few feet away, Mr. Goodman was not laughing. As Ms. Weintraub condemned
the F.E.C.’s inertia, he whispered a point-by-point rebuttal to show that
things were not as bad as she made them sound.

With the commission so often deadlocked, the major fines assessed by the
commission dropped precipitously last year to $135,813 from $627,408 in
2013. But like most things at the F.E.C., commissioners differ over how to
interpret those numbers.

Republicans say they believe the commission’s efforts to work with
political groups on training and compliance have kept campaigns within the
legal lines and helped to bring down fines.

The drop in fines “could easily be read as a signal that people are
following the law,” said Ms. Hunter, the Republican commissioner.

Ms. Ravel scoffed at that explanation.

“What’s really going on,” she said, “is that the Republican commissioners
don’t want to enforce the law, except in the most obvious cases. The rules
aren’t being followed, and that’s destructive to the political process.”

Why Does Rand Paul Keep Missing His Moment?
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-01/why-does-rand-paul-keep-missing-his-moment->
// Bloomberg // David Weigel - May 1, 2015

Can two years of hard work be undone with a few seconds of talk radio
chatter? Rand Paul's campaign is about to find out.

Its problems started on Tuesday morning, right after what seems to have
been the apex of civil unrest in Baltimore. President Obama had spoken out
about the angry, occasionally violent reactions to the death of 25-year old
Freddie Gray. Paul, asked by Laura Ingraham to critique the president,
talked briefly about "the breakdown of the family structure," then tried to
land a joke.

"I came through Baltimore on the train yesterday," he said. "I'm glad the
train didn't stop."

The Ingraham comment was published first by Brendan James at Talking Points
Memo. It took a little time for the "train" line to become a problem. By
Wednesday morning, The Washington Post was placing the comment into a
narrative about how Paul's "language seems to have shifted" on criminal
justice. By Wednesday evening, Gawker was asking why Paul wouldn't "tell
the truth," and admit that all Amtrak trains were still stopping in
Baltimore. (The area around Baltimore's Penn Station was perfectly calm
throughout the unrest.) And by Thursday night, the most popular story on
Politico was about how "Rand Paul blew it on Baltimore," complete with
quotes from black leaders saying that the Kentucky senator had been exposed
as a phony.

Paul's campaign aides were alternately baffled and apoplectic. "We’re
listening and learning every day and we learned from this," said Paul
advisor Elroy Sailor in one of several defensive clean-up interviews.
"We’re also leading this conversation." This was one reason for the harsh
tone of a Wednesday campaign statement, criticizing Hillary Clinton's
criminal justice speech by accusing her of "emulating proposals introduced
by Senator Rand Paul over the last several year." Paul's team was quietly
furious at how years of work on criminal justice reform—five of Paul's
bills are waiting for votes—was tossed aside for a quick story about a guy
"missing his moment."

The problem is that Paul never used to miss these moments. In 2013 and
2014, as Paul established himself as a Republican leader on NSA reform,
drone warfare, police abuse and the war on drugs, he seemed to weigh in on
everything. In those years, a call or email to the right spokesman would
elicit either a quote, a plea to hold on while the quote was composed,
or—surprisingly often—a link to the column Paul had just written. He wrote
three pieces for Time magazine, a few more columns for Politico, and
eighteen pieces for Breitbart, most of them to start or win arguments that
were in the news.

The last of these columns ran in February—which happens to be when his
communications chief, Brian Darling, left for the private sector. Darling
declined to speak on the record, but it's easy to infer that Paul's missed
a step since his Senate communications team was reduced to one person,
Jillian Lane. Last week, Paul responded to drone strikes that had killed
turncoat American citizens—an issue he'd become an expert on—with a short
statement and a brief discussion on Fox and Friends.

Three weeks earlier (as noted in every "Rand Paul blows it" column), Paul
arrived in Charleston, South Carolina for a speech and addressed the
killing by police of Walter Scott in some media interviews. His comments to
CNN, the New York Times, and Bloomberg were overwhelmed when he did not
explicitly mention Scott during the speech itself. "In the midst of this
national discussion on an issue that he wants to be known for," snarked
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, "Senator Rand Paul, bravely today, while he was in
South Carolina, said nothing about it."

In Paulworld, this feels like a pile-on, both unfair and unlearned. The
senator simply isn't inclined to leap into the story of the day. He largely
eschews the hallway interviews that other senators use to quickly make
news. He prefers to sit and compose an argument, then shoot it into the
conversation, on his own terms. It took him days to respond to the Ferguson
unrest, and he followed up his column on it with a personal visit to the
city. Where was the backlash then?

There was no backlash, because Paul was not yet a candidate for president.
The hunger for him to react is insatiable now; the press that dubbed him
the "most interesting man in politics" and a "one-man think tank" is less
forgiving. In his first month as a candidate, Paul missed three major
opportunities to lead on his causes.

Columba Bush, Wife of Jeb Bush, Takes on Greater Role in Campaign
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/05/01/columba-bush-wife-of-jeb-bush-takes-on-greater-role-in-campaign/>
// Wall Street Journal // Rebecca Ballhaus - May 1, 2015

Columba Bush, the famously private wife of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush,
appears to be taking on an increasingly prominent role in her husband’s
nascent presidential campaign.

Columba Bush, the famously private wife of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush,
appears to be taking on an increasingly prominent role in her husband’s
nascent presidential campaign.

Later this month, Mrs. Bush will headline a fundraiser for her husband’s
leadership PAC, Right to Rise, in Miami. This week, she attended a retreat
for Mr. Bush’s donors at an oceanfront luxury hotel in Miami Beach, where
she gave a heartfelt speech about her husband, according to those present.
Her name has also been popping up with increasing frequency in fundraising
emails — last week she asked supporters to “join with my family and commit
to stopping Hillary today.”

Mrs. Bush’s rising prominence in her husband’s campaign is notable because
she has often avoided the public eye. She rarely gives interviews to the
press, and her reluctance to join her husband in the media spotlight
reportedly weighed on Mr. Bush’s decision to run for president.

Any presidential candidate’s spouse is bound to get a hefty share of media
attention. In 2012, for example, Ann Romney’s dressage avocation yielded
fodder for critics and late night comedians. Comedian Stephen Colbert
cracked, “This is exactly what Mitt needs. He’s had a little trouble
relating to Joe Sixpack.”

President Barack Obama’s wife Michelle actively campaigned for her husband
in both campaigns and was considered a significant asset. But she, too,
learned the hard way about the perils of the spotlight, facing criticism in
2008 for telling voters she was proud of her country “for the first time in
my adult life.” GOP nominee John McCain’s wife, Cindy, quickly declared to
audiences later that week: “I’m very proud of my country.”

Mrs. Bush, who is from Mexico, is likely to draw attention as Mr. Bush
seeks to appeal to the Hispanic voters who in recent election cycles have
spurned the Republican Party. Mr. Bush, who argues that he is uniquely
qualified to win over that part of the electorate, recently spoke about his
love for his wife to a group of Hispanic evangelicals in Houston.

The May 18 Miami fundraiser—a rare event raising money for the Bush PAC,
not the super PAC of the same name—will be hosted by three current and
former members of Congress, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart
and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. The event at the Jorge Mas Canosa Youth
Center costs $25 to attend. Fundraisers for Mr. Bush’s super PAC, by
contrast, have carried ticket prices ranging up to $100,000.

Individuals can give unlimited amounts to super PACs, while leadership
PACs—which are largely intended to raise money to give to other candidates
but can also pay for expenses considered unrelated to a campaign—can only
accept up to $5,000 per individual.

With Bridge Case Charges, a Cloud Descends on Christie’s White House Hopes
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/nyregion/charges-in-bridge-scandal-pose-trouble-for-chris-christie.html>
// New York Times // Michael Barbaro – May 1, 2015

In an era of maddeningly careful politics, Gov. Chris Christie rocketed to
national stardom as brazenly incautious. His excesses defined him: the
scorching rants, the seductive oversharing, the caustic insults and endless
public feuds.

Harmless theatrics, he said.

But the in-your-face instincts and boundary-breaking behavior that Mr.
Christie brought to public life found a vindictive host in the fiercely
loyal circle around him, as the federal indictment of a top appointee and a
former deputy chief of staff in the George Washington Bridge lane-closing
scandal laid bare on Friday.

The 37-page charging document recounts a ruthless act of political
retribution: To punish a small-town mayor for refusing to endorse Mr.
Christie’s 2013 re-election, the governor’s confidants unleashed a major
traffic jam that gridlocked ordinary commuters, emergency responders and
children on the first day of school.

Nowhere does the indictment say Mr. Christie, a Republican, knew of the
scheme or was involved in it.

Yet it was a crime of political vengeance, the indictment makes clear, that
was conceived in furtherance of Mr. Christie’s political ambitions, and
carried out in his name.

Now, the growing risk for Mr. Christie is that the very belligerence that
electrified voters, the press and the Republican Party, and catapulted him
into a credible contender for the White House, may wind up putting the
presidency out of his reach.

Brigid Harrison, a professor of political science at Montclair State
University who has studied Mr. Christie closely for years, said the
indictments of Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni, once two of the
governor’s most loyal and trusted lieutenants, spelled the death knell for
his national aspirations.

“Even if he is not directly connected to the indictments,” Professor
Harrison said, “he is guilty of creating a political culture in which
corruption was allowed to flourish.”

Mr. Christie faces the specter of a lengthy and embarrassing criminal trial
overshadowing the 2016 presidential campaign, in which the star witness —
David Wildstein, a onetime Christie loyalist who pleaded guilty on Friday
to two counts of conspiracy — still maintains the governor was aware of the
lane-closing plot as it happened.

Even so, Mr. Christie treated the outcome of the federal investigation as a
personal exoneration.

“Today’s charges make clear that what I’ve said from day one is true,” the
governor posted on Twitter. “I had no knowledge or involvement in the
planning or execution of this act.”

But exoneration of the man is not exoneration of his leadership style.

Mr. Christie and his staff have a history of punishing those who have
crossed him. There was the state college professor whose budget was vetoed
after he failed to sign off on a project that Mr. Christie favored. The
mayor of Jersey City whose meetings with the governor’s staff were
summarily canceled hours after he said he would not endorse Mr. Christie’s
re-election. The attempt, even before the lane closings, to freeze out the
mayor of Fort Lee for failing to back Mr. Christie.

 “There was a level of arrogance,” Ms. Harrison said, “that would seem to
be coming from the top down.”

Mr. Christie, whose bipartisan popularity and fund-raising prowess were
once the envy of his party, is now a man without a clear path to the
Republican nomination. His poll numbers are sagging badly. Voters openly
taunt him at public events about the bridge episode. Donors fret about his
viability. And longtime allies are defecting to rival campaigns.

Two weeks ago, State Senator Joseph M. Kyrillos of New Jersey, a trusted
Christie friend who served as chairman of his 2009 campaign for governor,
declared his support for Jeb Bush.

In candid moments, close allies of Mr. Christie acknowledge that his shot
at winning the White House, which seemed so plausible a year ago, may have
passed.

Mr. Christie is fond of talking about the “kill shot” in politics: the
fatal moment when a candidacy switches from viable to moribund. But over
the past year, the governor has suffered a series of smaller, but still
significant, wounds: He oversaw nine downgrades of New Jersey’s credit
rating; the repeated overestimation of state revenue projections; and the
failure to make a $1.6 billion payment to New Jersey’s deeply underfunded
pension system.

A growing number of Republican operatives say that Mr. Christie has, in a
sense, already bled out.

“Politically, he’s been dead for a year,” said Rick Wilson, a longtime
Republican political strategist, who is not aligned with any campaign for
the 2016 race.

“It wasn’t just the bridge,” Mr. Wilson continued. “It was that there were
any number of better, more conservative, more electable candidates.”

New Jersey, he added, “isn’t the kind of economic success story that he
could build a campaign around.”

As a parade of comparatively unblemished Republican rivals declare their
candidacies, Mr. Christie has put off an announcement until late spring or
early summer.

Presidential candidates have weathered messy campaign-season scandals. In
1992, Bill Clinton survived revelations of a longtime sexual affair with
Gennifer Flowers, the existence of which he vigorously denied.

But Americans are historically most forgiving of personal scandals
involving deeply contrite officials. The problem for Mr. Christie is that
the closing of access lanes to the George Washington Bridge stand as a
unique case of public betrayal, an act mystifying in its meanness and
unsettling in its indifference to the thousands of motorists involved.

From the start, Mr. Christie treated the closings as a nuisance, suggested
the episode did not merit his attention and derided those who wondered
whether his administration had played a role.

“I was the guy out there, in overalls and a hat,” he declared mockingly
during a news conference in early December 2013. “I actually was the guy
working the cones out there.”

Within a few weeks, damning emails emerged showing that Ms. Kelly, his top
political aide, had been deeply involved.

Those close to Mr. Christie vow that he will push ahead with a presidential
campaign, regardless of his standing in the polls or his fund-raising
totals.

He is a practiced political gambler with a history of defying odds.

Little was expected of him when President George W. Bush chose Mr.
Christie, a little-known corporate lawyer and Republican fund-raiser, to
take on the high-profile job of United States attorney for New Jersey in
2001. He turned it into a national platform for fighting public corruption.
He faced daunting electoral math in 2009 when he challenged a wealthy,
incumbent Democratic governor, Jon S. Corzine, in a reliably blue state.
Mr. Christie prevailed, then won re-election by an overwhelming margin.

These days, friends said, Mr. Christie is realistic about his chances in a
crowded Republican nominating contest. He has devoured the polls. He has
assessed the field.

But no matter the outcome, they said, Mr. Christie feels he has one more
in-your-face battle left to wage.

Ted Cruz, Barack Obama and the biggest vote-missers in the Senate
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/01/ted-cruz-barack-obama-and-the-biggest-vote-missers-in-the-senate/>
// Washington Post // Philips Bump – May 1, 2015

When Ted Cruz missed the confirmation vote for Attorney General Loretta
Lynch, his spokesman dismissed criticism by pointing out that Cruz had
already "made the case against her." On Thursday, Cruz himself explained it
away by saying that an "absence is the equivalent of a no vote." In which
case Cruz has had a lot of "no" votes lately; as we pointed out, he's
missed 70 percent of the votes this month.

When we noted that, defenders of Cruz were quick to demand that we compare
Cruz’s absenteeism to Barack Obama’s. Which: That ship has sailed? But
regardless, we compared Cruz to Obama and other confirmed and likely 2016
candidates with Senate experience, using data at GovTrack to do some
exploration.

First and foremost: Cruz has missed the most votes over his career of any
2016 candidate, but Obama's brief Senate career was much worse. Still, it's
not really a fair comparison yet, for reasons we'll discuss.

We actually ran this data for every member of the Senate who'd been born in
the year 1900 or later, which revealed some interesting patterns. (And
which provides the yellow "average" bar above.) Here is a selection of that
400-plus group, showing how regularly each missed votes.

Missed votes

1. Maryon Allen: 43.4% (355 total votes)

2. Ross Bass: 35.8% (497 total votes)

3. David Clark: 35.7% (677 total votes)

6. Eugene McCarthy: 31.2% (3,135 total votes)

7. Barry Goldwater: 30.8% (10,807 total votes)

10. Mike Gravel: 29.5% (6,264 total votes)

24. Barack Obama: 24.2% (1,300 total votes)

25. George McGovern: 23.8% (7,891 total votes)

36. Al Gore: 19.8% (2,731 total votes)

57. Walter Mondale: 16.3% (5,149 total votes)

64. John Edwards: 15.7% (1,980 total votes)

114. Ted Cruz: 10.7% (825 total votes)

131. Hillary Rodham Clinton: 9.5% (2,616 total votes)

150. Marco Rubio: 8.3% (1,311 total votes)

222. Lindsey O. Graham: 4.5% (3,984 total votes)

279. Rand Paul: 3.1% (1,311 total votes)

290. Bernie Sanders: 2.9% (2,664 total votes)

327. Jim Webb: 2% (1,839 total votes)

332. Rick Santorum: 1.9% (4,156 total votes)

428. Charles E. Grassley: 0.3% (10,923 total votes)

430. Benjamin L. Cardin: 0.3% (2,664 total votes)

433. Olympia J. Snowe: 0.2% (5,995 total votes)

436. William Proxmire: 0.1% (12,108 total votes)

You'll notice that a number of the most frequent vote-missers were also
presidential candidates (including Mike Gravel, who ran a bit later).
Obama's misses almost certainly link to his success on the national stage;
he's the only one of the candidates on our graph who spent a full year of
his time while in the Senate campaigning non-stop, given that he won his
party's nomination. So it's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison with
the nascent Cruz campaign.

Congrats to William Proxmire, by the way, Democrat of Wisconsin. He barely
ever missed a vote at all.

Since we had the data in-hand, we decided to also see who the most positive
and negative members of the Senate had been. And something surprising
happened.

But first, here are the 2016ers (plus a 2008er) who had the highest
percentage "yes" and "no" votes.

That "no" chart is particularly interesting. All the Republicans higher
than average, save Rick Santorum; all of the Democrats below. Have we
stumbled onto some greater truth about the parties?

No. There's a reason Santorum is the outlier on the right. He served longer
-- and at a different time.

Here are the top lists among all senators for "yes" and "no" votes.

Senators voting "yes"

1. John Walsh: 93.5% (340 total votes)

2. Dean Barkley: 85.7% (14 total votes)

3. Joe Donnelly: 82.2% (825 total votes)

4. Cory Booker: 80.8% (600 total votes)

5. Angus King: 80.2% (825 total votes)

6. Heidi Heitkamp: 79.8% (825 total votes)

7. Martin Heinrich: 79.8% (825 total votes)

8. Tim Kaine: 79.5% (825 total votes)

9. Tammy Baldwin: 79.5% (825 total votes)

10. Mazie Hirono: 79.5% (825 total votes)

86. Jim Webb: 65.5% (1,839 total votes)

100. Rick Santorum: 64.5% (4,156 total votes)

101. Hillary Rodham Clinton: 64.4% (2,616 total votes)

103. Bernie Sanders: 64.3% (2,664 total votes)

263. Lindsey O. Graham: 55.7% (3,984 total votes)

311. Barack Obama: 52.4% (1,300 total votes)

392. Marco Rubio: 45.2% (1,311 total votes)

409. Rand Paul: 43.3% (1,311 total votes)

440. Ted Cruz: 36.6% (825 total votes)

Senators voting "no"

1. Mike Lee: 55.9% (1,311 total votes)

2. Tim Scott: 55.4% (825 total votes)

3. Hugh Mitchell: 54.1% (242 total votes)

4. Deb Fischer: 53.5% (825 total votes)

5. Rand Paul: 53.3% (1,311 total votes)

6. Ted Cruz: 52.7% (825 total votes)

19. Marco Rubio: 46.5% (1,311 total votes)

81. Lindsey O. Graham: 39.7% (3,984 total votes)

237. Rick Santorum: 33.5% (4,156 total votes)

279. Bernie Sanders: 32.6% (2,664 total votes)

295. Jim Webb: 32.3% (1,839 total votes)

415. Hillary Rodham Clinton: 26.1% (2,616 total votes)

429. Barack Obama: 23.5% (1,300 total votes)

A number of recent senators top both lists! What gives?

Partisanship. Lee, Scott, Walsh and Booker got to the Senate recently, when
it was controlled by Democrats and when there weren't very many votes. So
Democrats voted yes, along with party leaders, most of the time.
Republicans voted no. In the 2016 field are a number of Republicans who are
new to the Senate and a number of Democrats who didn't serve very long.
(Staying in the Senate long enough to see control switch parties is a good
way to diversify your voting patterns.)

To put a fine point on it, here's how the total number of votes for each of
our 2016ers (and that Obama fella) compare to the average number of votes
cast by those 400-plus senators.

They're all new kids, which basically every graph above reinforces. Can a
new kid to the Senate who missed a lot of votes win the presidency, just
like that?

Hard to say. It hasn't happened in almost seven years.

Rubio: A bad Iran deal 'almost guarantees war'
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/politics/marco-rubio-iran-war/> // CNN //
Alexander, Jaffe - May 1, 2015

Sen. Marco Rubio on Friday warned that a bad deal with Iran on its nuclear
program "almost guarantees war," and defended his controversial amendment
to the Senate's bill requiring congressional approval for the final deal.

"The argument the White House uses is if you're not in favor of this deal,
you are in favor of war," Rubio said at the National Review Institute Ideas
Summit. "I would argue that a bad deal almost guarantees war, because
Israel is not going to abide by any deal that they believe puts them and
their existence in danger."

Speaking to a crowd of conservative scholars and donors, the Republican
presidential contender said that Iran would "exploit any loophole in a deal
that it can find." He predicted a future in which Iran used the West's
"short attention span" to snooker investors into pouring money into the
country, which it would ultimately just use to attack the West.

Rubio mused that Iran would plot: "We'll blow up a bomb in one of their
cities. We'll blow up their embassies in Latin America. We'll kill
Americans. We're going to punish them -- a stronger Iran."

The final deal hasn't yet been released, but Rubio said he doesn't like
what he's heard of the framework. And he defended his effort with Sen. Tom
Cotton (R-Arkansas) to use a procedural tactic to try to force a vote on an
amendment that would require Iran to recognize Israel's "right to exist."

That tactic has stalled activity on a bipartisan bill requiring
congressional approval on the final deal, raising doubts about its passage.

"The criticism of that is that there are a bunch of countries in the Middle
East that don't recognize Israel's right to exist, which is true," Rubio
said. "But none of them are trying to build a nuclear weapon. And none of
them have billions of dollars of sanctions, and if we lift those sanctions,
we are handing over billions of dollars to the Iranian regime."

He also weighed in on immigration policy, accusing President Barack Obama's
policy allowing children brought to the U.S. illegally to remain here of
being abused by drug traffickers.

"I've had leaders of the Northern Triangle in Central America -- Honduras,
Guatemala and El Salvador -- tell me that DACA was used by trafficking
groups in the Northern Triangle to recruit people to send their children
here illegally," Rubio said.

The senator again distanced himself from the failed 2013 bill that he
helped shepherd through the Senate. He now backs a piecemeal approach to
reform, and said the first step has to be securing the border. After that,
Rubio floated the possibility of revising legal immigration limits every
year "on the basis of what our economic needs are," and suggested after
securing the border and modernizing the legal immigration system, there
should be a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

That pathway would require illegal immigrants have lived in the U.S. for a
decade or longer and not violated any laws, and they would need to undergo
a background check, pay a fine, start paying taxes and learn English.

"In exchange for all of that, what you would get is the equivalent of a
non-immigrant, non-permanent work visa to be in the US," he said.

After holding that status for a period, Rubio said immigrants could apply
for full citizenship.

Marco Rubio Courts Right on Iran and Immigration
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/01/marco-rubio-courts-right-on-iran-and-immigration/>
// First Draft - New York Times // Ashley Parker - May 1, 2015

Senator Marco Rubio, who described the possibility of his becoming
president as “an increasingly optimistic hypothetical,” spent Friday
morning answering questions both immediate and, yes, hypothetical at the
National Review’s ideas summit.

On the Iran bill sputtering its way through the Senate, the Florida
Republican defended the so-called poison pill amendments he was offering,
including one that says Iran must recognize Israel’s right to exist as a
precondition for any nuclear deal.

“The criticism of that is there are a bunch of countries in the Middle East
that don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist, which is true,” Mr. Rubio
said. “But none of them are trying to build a nuclear weapon, and none of
them have billions in dollars in sanctions, which, if we lift those
sanctions, we are turning over billions of dollars to the Iranian regime.”

Mr. Rubio also warned that he fully expected Iran to cheat on any deal.

“Iran is going to exploit any loophole in the deal they can find,” he said,
adding that “the West has a very short attention span,” focusing on an
issue for a few weeks before moving on.

“At some point, in a couple of years, in five years, six years, eight
years, whatever it may be, a stronger Iran can then re-emerge and say, ‘You
know what, guys? We believe that our enemies have nuclear weapons, too, so
we believe we need to build one,’ ” he added.

On immigration, an issue that has dogged Mr. Rubio as he has transitioned
from an architect of a broad bipartisan immigration bill to a Republican
candidate for president, the senator called for increased security at the
nation’s southern borders; beefing up internal enforcement; and overhauling
the nation’s legal immigration system.

But after those things are accomplished, Mr. Rubio said, he could support a
pathway to legal status for the 11 million undocumented immigrants already
in the country, as he laid out a vision that largely mirrorred the Senate
immigration compromise he helped to write.

“I think a reasonable way to approach it is, if you are in this country a
decade or longer, have not otherwise violated our laws, you would have to
come forward, undergo a criminal background check,” Mr. Rubio said. “You
would have to pay a fine for having broken our laws, you would have to
start paying taxes, you would have to learn English.”

In exchange, he continued, those undocumented immigrants could then receive
a visa that would allow them to legally work in the United States.

“You’d have to be in that status for a significant period of time, and at
some point, if you choose, you could apply for permanent residency, but
you’d have to do it through that modernized legal immigration system and
you’d have to do it just like everybody else,” he said.

Huckabee gears up for presidential announcement with new video
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/huckabee-gears-presidential-announcement-new-video>
// MSNBC // Emma Margolin – May 1, 2015

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee broke through the closed doors of “Bill
Clinton’s Arkansas” and is ready to take on another Clinton in 2016, boasts
a new video that will introduce the Republican as a presidential candidate
during his official announcement next week in Hope, Arkansas.

The video, entitled “Nailed Shut,” casts Huckabee as a come-from-behind
leader who fought “huge Democratic majorities” in his state and will
continue to “fight for what matters most.”

“Every day of my life in politics was a fight, and sometimes it was an
intense one,” Huckabee says in the two-minute, 18-second spot, which was
released Friday. “But any drunken redneck can walk into a bar and start a
fight. A leader only starts a fight that he’s prepared to finish.”

“Any drunken redneck can walk into a bar and start a fight. A leader only
starts a fight that he’s prepared to finish.”

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee

The governor will officially announce his candidacy on May 5 at an event in
Hope, Arkansas – a city that featured prominently in President Bill
Clinton’s 1992 campaign, which dubbed him “The Man from Hope.” Though
Huckabee will be the fourth Republican to join the race and will have to
take on Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Marco Rubio of
Florida in the primaries, the video makes clear that the former governor
sees Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as his primary foe.

“On his first day in office, Gov. Huckabee’s door was nailed shut. It was
in Bill Clinton’s Arkansas,” says Rex Nelson of the Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette in the video. “You had all the apparatus of the Democratic
party aligned against Mike Huckabee, and all of a sudden this Republican
comes out of nowhere and wins.”

A former Baptist pastor, Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses during his 2008
presidential bid, thanks in large part to overwhelming support from
Christian conservatives. In the past few months, the governor has made
headlines for his sometimes perplexing remarks about gay marriage,
religious freedom, swear words, and even Beyoncé.

But the culture wars were nowhere to be found in Friday’s video, save for a
promise to “lead with moral clarity in a dangerous world.” Instead,
Huckabee highlights his commitment to protecting Social Security and
Medicare, helping Americans earn their “maximum wages,” and keeping “all
options on the table in order to defeat the evil forces of radical Islam.”

Kasich Undecided on 2016: 'Without Resources, You Can't Do It'
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/kasich-undecided-2016-without-resources-you-cant-do-it-n352151>
// NBC News // Mark Murray - May 1, 2015

At a lunch on Friday with reporters, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said he's still
weighing a presidential bid, but he explained that his ability to raise
money will largely determine if he runs. "Without the resources, you can't
do it," he said. "I've tried it before," referring to his short-lived bid
in 2000.

Kasich, a Republican, declined to lay out any date or timetable for a final
decision. "There is not a date, but we'll know."

Last month, Kasich told NBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press" that he was
"more and more serious" about a White House bid. "Look, all my options are
on the table here. And I'm, you know, more and more serious, or I wouldn't
be doing these things." That includes forming a 527 political organization
as he mulls a potential run.

Also at the lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, Kasich
defended expanding Medicaid under the federal health-care law in his state
- which angered some conservative Republicans. "I got money that I can
bring home to Ohio," he said.

Kasich also said he believes that marriage is between a man and woman. But
if the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage in the state - voters in 2004
passed a constitutional amendment banning it in Ohio - he would attend a
gay wedding, if invited by friends. "I have a number of friends who are
gay," he said. "They know how I feel about it."

Ohio's Kasich says 2016 presidential run depends on money
<http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NM4DD20150501?irpc=932> //
Reuters // Steve Holland – May 1, 2015

Ohio Governor John Kasich said on Friday his 2016 presidential aspirations
depend on whether he can raise enough money to compete with a host of
rivals for the Republican nomination.

Kasich, 62, is considering a run for his party's nomination, which would
make him a potentially potent force in the Republican field as he
represents an important swing state in presidential elections.

But with more than a dozen Republicans either already in the race or about
to enter it, Kasich could easily be just another face on a crowded stage
searching for his own breakout moment.

Kasich, a former chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee
who was re-elected as Ohio's governor in November, sounded like a
presidential candidate during a 45-minute session with reporters at a lunch
sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

Kasich, who considered running for the White House in 2000 before bowing
out of the race, said he was optimistic that he will be able to move
forward with launching a campaign, but did not indicate when he would make
up his mind.

"I'm going to determine whether I’ll have the resources to win. If I don't
have the resources and I can’t see a path to victory, I’m not going to do
that," Kasich said.

Kasich, who served 18 years in Congress, touted his experience as a key
selling point for why Republican voters would want to give him a look.

A fiscal conservative with an independent streak, he said he would want to
take on the role of problem-solver.

"The country's got a lot of problems. I think whether you’re a Republican
or a Democrat, the anxiety is not much different," he said.

Kasich's decision to expand Medicaid, a government-funded health program
for the poor, in Ohio through President Barack Obama's signature 2010
healthcare law has drawn scorn from conservatives.

Many Republican governors have opted not to expand Medicaid out of
opposition to the law, also known as Obamacare. The White House says that
position deprives the residents of those states of the federal dollars that
would be available to them.

Kasich defended his decision, saying the money is being used to treat
10,000 mentally ill inmates in Ohio prisons.

"Here's what I'm faced with. I've got money I can bring home to Ohio ...
It's not Washington's. It's the money that belongs to the people of our
state," he said.

Kasich also was unwilling to give his unabashed support to free trade
legislation that Obama and Republicans are trying to get passed in
Congress, saying he was concerned about its impact on the U.S. labor market.

Kasich wades into presidential waters, says he’s an unconventional
Republican
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/01/kasich-wades-into-presidential-waters-says-hes-an-unconventional-republican/>
// Washington Post // Philip Rucker - May 1, 2015

Ohio Gov. John Kasich waded into the presidential waters on Friday, casting
himself as an unconventional Republican who governs as a compassionate
reformer and arguing that among a field of nearly two dozen White House
hopefuls, he would stand out as the most experienced.

Although not formally a candidate, Kasich signaled he has the will to run
for president in 2016, if not necessarily the resources. The governor said
he has been talking to prospective donors to gauge whether, in an
historically deep and competitive field of GOP contenders, he can raise the
millions of dollars necessary to wage a competitive primary campaign.

"If I don't have the resources and I don't see a path to victory, I'm not
going to do that," said Kasich. He's had the presidential bug before,
running briefly in 1999 before dropping out in the face of the George W.
Bush juggernaut. Kasich boasted of what he sees as unique political
strengths -- "I'm a retail guy," he said -- but acknowledged, "Either I got
it or I don't." If he calculates that he cannot raise the resources to run,
he added jokingly, he could still live out his dream of being a PGA
tournament golfer.

Kasich's comments came during an hour-long luncheon with reporters at a
downtown Washington hotel hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

Should he run, Kasich said, his campaign would focus on restoring
productive relationships -- both among Republicans and Democrats on Capitol
Hill and among the United States and its allies in Europe, the Middle East
and elsewhere. He said foreign alliances have deteriorated and suggested
that the last Bush presidency shared in the blame with President Obama,
although he did not cite Bush specifically.

"I think those relationships have eroded over time -- not just with Obama,
[but] over time," Kasich said. "We don't have the deep relationships we
need in order to be unified and send strong messages."

Kasich sharply criticized Obama's nuclear negotiations with Iran, arguing
that the president is so "in love" with getting a deal that he was giving
in to the Iranian regime. He compared it to going to a car dealership and
"you're so hungry to get that car you'll pay anything for it."

More broadly, Kasich said, "I'm not a believer in nation-building. We
should have a military that's mobile, that's lethal, where we can go and
exert force and then come home."

Kasich also said he was looking at sweeping changes to the tax code,
including reducing the corporate tax rate. He said he has been talking with
Steve Forbes, the wealthy publishing executive who ran unsuccessfully for
president as a Republican in 1996 and 2000, about his flat tax idea.

Kasich declined to draw contrasts with his potential Republican primary
opponents; when one reporter asked him to compare his record in Ohio with
Gov. Scott Walker's in Wisconsin and Gov. Rick Snyder's in Michigan, he
snapped, "I'm not going to take your bait." But he suggested that being the
governor of the premier general election battleground state gave him an
edge. "You can't be president if you don't win Ohio," Kasich said.

Kasich has made a mark with his efforts to lift up Ohio's poorest
residents. He expanded Medicaid in his state, a move that drew the ire of
some fellow Republican governors, and has enacted mental health, criminal
justice and educational programs designed to help what he calls people
living in the shadows.

"My view of it is all people are made in the image of God and everybody
deserves respect," he said. "To me, there's no lost human beings."

On the issue of gay rights, which has left many Republican leaders twisted
in rhetorical knots, Kasich voiced some openness to accepting same-sex
marriages as legal.

"I am for marriage defined as between a man and a woman," Kasich said. "If
the Supreme Court changes that, those changes have to be respected. I have
a number of friends who are gay. I like them."

Asked whether he would attend a friend or relative's gay marriage, Kasich
said he would. "I don't usually go to weddings of people that I don't know,
okay? I don't go to 'em. But if somebody that I like is getting married in
the traditional sense or in the non-traditional sense, I'm not hung up
about it. I'll be celebrating with them."

Would-be presidential candidates like Pataki test waters with a wink
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flirters-in-presidential-race-are-again-dancing-around-the-subject/2015/05/01/93904c50-eac8-11e4-9a6a-c1ab95a0600b_story.html?wpmk=MK0000205>
// Washington Post // David A. Fahrenthold – May 1, 2015

The tall man in a blazer burst into the Chipotle in the middle of the
afternoon. He had a smile, a TV camera following him, and the jovial air of
a man who expects to be recognized.

“George Pataki, from New York,” he said, shaking hands with the first two
diners he met. “We’re doing the non-Hillary tour. We’re actually saying
‘hi’ to people.”

Then the tall man moved on, to quiz the next table about their food.
(“Chicken burrito? I gotta try something new.”) When he was gone, the first
two diners wondered: Who was that? Do they not have Chipotle where he lives?

“It’s like, ‘Oh, I’m from New York,’ ” said Aaron Lee, 22. “What are you
doing here, then?”

Officially, what George E. Pataki is doing is flirting — for the fourth
time in 16 years — with the idea of running for president of the United
States.

The Republican ex-governor of New York is raising money, visiting
early-primary states and telling people that he’s close, close, close to
making a decision. “I’m strongly leaning toward making the run,” he told a
radio station in New Hampshire. The first three times he considered
running, he didn’t.

This is the flirting season in American politics: Right now, more than 20
politicians are officially “considering” or “exploring” a run for
president. The key to understanding this strange every-four-years ritual is
to understand that there are actually two kinds of flirting.

For the big-name candidates, the presidential flirt is a useful, temporary,
legal dodge. They will run. They are basically running already. But they
don’t want to admit it yet, because that would bring on tighter fundraising
rules.

For the others — particularly the eight or so who had fallen out of the
political spotlight — the flirt can be an end in itself. It allows them to
experience some of the most pleasant parts of a campaign: audiences, media
attention, a chance to raise money. And then it lets them escape before
they have to face the less-pleasant parts. Like getting crushed.

“I make a joke that every four years, there’s the Olympics, there’s the
World Cup and I come to New Hampshire thinking about running for
president,” Pataki told a crowd of 15 people during a speech at a Sea-Doo
and snowmobile dealership in Laconia, N.H.

Nobody laughed. Then Pataki said this election was different: “This time,
in all honesty, I see things differently.”

That might be true. But it is also the thing you have to say if you’re a
good flirt.

Pataki, 69, has already lived a remarkable political life. He is the son of
a postman, who unseated liberal icon Mario Cuomo (D) in a 1994 governor’s
race — one of New York’s legendary upsets. Pataki then won second and third
terms by large margins. He led New York through the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks and the rebuilding of Ground Zero.

But he has not held office since 2007. Since then, his political star has
faded somewhat.

“Who is Bloomberg?” a “Jeopardy!” contestant said in January while looking
at a photo of Pataki.

The category was “New York governors,” and the clue was “He took New York
into the 21st century.”

“No,” host Alex Trebek said. The other two contestants stared blankly at
the same photo, without buzzing in, until time ran out.

Another sign: There used to be a museum about Pataki in his hometown of
Peekskill, N.Y.. It opened after he left office, complete with an exhibit
where schoolkids could see Pataki’s actual gubernatorial desk.

Then, in 2013, it closed. Its leaders thought maybe more schoolkids would
visit if it was a Web site.

“Basically, it would be like a monkey flying out of a unicorn’s
[posterior],” if Pataki won the 2016 Republican nomination, said
Florida-based GOP strategist Rick Wilson. If he got into the GOP primary,
Pataki would face obstacles that go far beyond his meager name recognition.
He is pro-choice. He signed strict gun-control laws. He let state
government spending grow rapidly.

In recent polls, his best showing has been 1 percent.

“Let’s just say a meteor strikes the first debate, and kills everyone
except Pataki, who is stuck in traffic. Let’s hypothesize for a moment,”
Wilson said. He thought. No. It still wouldn’t be Pataki. They’d find
somebody else.

But despite those long odds, Pataki came to New Hampshire last month for
his eighth flirting-related visit since September. He is planning a ninth
visit next week.

“I know I can appeal — not just to Republicans and conservatives — but to
independents and intelligent Democrats as well,” Pataki told an audience of
eight College Republicans at the University of New Hampshire.

This is the heart of Pataki’s pitch to voters. He’s a Republican who won
big in a blue state. He’s a reformer who would tame Washington’s
bureaucracy. “I go there today, and it’s like I’m on an alien planet,”
Pataki said of Washington. “They are an insular world. They talk a language
you don’t understand.”

In New Hampshire, Pataki’s crowds were not big. At the official opening of
his super PAC’s office in Manchester, for instance, 25 people turned up.
And one of them turned out to be an incognito staffer for Donald Trump.
Think about that. If this was an intentional act of flirter-against-flirter
espionage (which the Trump staffer denied), it might be the most pointless
dirty trick in the history of American politics.

Nevertheless, wherever Pataki went, the crowds were pleasant and admiring.

“Under a Pataki administration,” one man asked him at a diner, how would
Middle East policy change?

“You’d change everything,” Pataki told him.

This is one of the things that makes flirting worthwhile: for an
ex-politician, it is an unlocked door back into the American political
arena.

That can mean new audiences for men used to audiences. The same College
Republicans, for instance, had recently hosted a 2016 flirter whose odds
are even longer than Pataki’s: former Virginia governor James Gilmore III
(R). Gilmore left office in 2002.

“I mean, thank God for Wikipedia,” said UNH senior Elliot Gault, 22.

And the same kind of magic works on the news media. Before former Rhode
Island governor Lincoln Chafee (D) announced he was exploring a
presidential run on April 9, The Washington Post had not quoted him about
anything in nine months.

Since then, The Post has quoted him eight times. Er, nine.

“Clinton is just too hawkish,” Chafee said in an interview, repeating his
signature attack line on the Democratic front-runner, former secretary of
state Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The other great thing about flirting is the money. While you flirt, you can
raise it. And if you don’t run, you can spend it anyway.

In 1999, for instance, Pataki flirted with a campaign, then gave up and
endorsed George W. Bush. In 2007, he did it again. “I was very serious
about it” that time, Pataki says now. “But: Mayor Giuliani.” The former New
York City mayor was in the race, and Pataki didn’t think there was room for
two New Yorkers. So he got out.

Both times, Pataki raised more than $1 million in donors’ money. Both
times, the New York Times reported, Pataki spent it — giving to allied
Republican candidates, paying for Pataki’s travels, and paying a circle of
Pataki’s own advisers, strategists and fundraisers.

Then came 2012.

“I was very serious about it,” Pataki says. “But everywhere I went, people
had committed to Mitt Romney.” He pulled the plug but still raised and
spent more than $600,000 via a political nonprofit.

This year, Pataki is raising money again — for a super PAC called “We the
People, Not Washington.” Among those leading the fundraising are several
Pataki associates who got paid from the money he raised in past
flirtations. Aides wouldn’t say how much he’d raised or spent this time.

“Because he was my friend, I wouldn’t feel cheated [if Pataki didn’t run].
I’m never one to say that a guy should be a suicide lunatic,” said Peter
Kalikow, a New York real estate titan who donated to Pataki’s super PAC
this year. In the last presidential cycle, Kalikow was a major backer of
another long shot: pizza executive Herman Cain.

Pataki’s aides say they have a strategy ready if their man really gets into
the race. He’ll stand out in the debates with his genial wit and executive
experience. Then he’ll surge in New Hampshire, by appealing to
libertarian-leaning . . .

Wait.

Perhaps we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

 “When I heard the name, I was like, ‘Pataki. Pataki. Pataki.’ But I didn’t
know that he was the mayor of New York,” Tony Coutee, 42, a crane operator
who was at the second table Pataki visited in that Manchester Chipotle,
said incorrectly. After Pataki left his table, Coutee said, “I Googled him
and found out.”

“So he is running?” asked Coutee’s lunch companion, Jason Soto, 35.

Yes, Coutee said.

While the two of them were talking, Pataki was into a full-blown,
campaign-style restaurant schmooze. He bumped elbows with the grill man. He
walked back to greet employees in the walk-in cooler (“He just shook my
hand and I said I didn’t want to be on camera, and he asked if I was on
parole,” one said, bewildered.) Pataki went through the line and loudly
asked if he could leave a tip.

Then he came back and sat down with Coutee and Soto. “I’m trying the
chicken burrito,” Pataki told them.

The two men quickly got up to leave.

“Kinda normal,” Soto said of this only-in-flirting-season interaction, a
pseudo-conversation with a pseudo-candidate, who never said what he was
running for. “But abnormal.”

*TOP NATIONAL NEWS *

Thousands Gather Peacefully in Baltimore in a Mix of Anger and Jubilation
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/baltimore-braces-for-more-protests.html?google_editors_picks=true>
// New York Times // Sheryl Gay Stolberg – May 2, 2015

This beleaguered city took on a festive, almost celebratory feel Saturday
as thousands of people of all ages and races rallied peacefully in front of
City Hall to call for an end to police mistreatment of black men, but also
an end to the curfew imposed by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake amid riots
set off by the death of Freddie Gray, who sustained a fatal spinal cord
injury in police custody.

The gathering, bookended by marches through city streets, felt at times
like a street carnival, with a dash of black power militancy. It came a day
after six police officers were charged in the death of Mr. Gray, 25. The
rally stood in stark contrast to the looting and arson that took place here
Monday night, and the scattered violence after a similar demonstration on
April 25.

As one speaker after another addressed the crowd on a grassy plaza in front
of City Hall, Julian Burke, 23, a painter, handed out balloons, saying,
“We’re spreading good vibes.” A group called Food Not Bombs served free
vegan meals.

Not long after the 10 p.m. curfew began, the police used pepper spray and
made several arrests. Credit Ruth Fremson/The New York Times

“The public got an answer yesterday,” Ms. Adams said, explaining the change
in mood. “I just hope that the changes stick. I’m really hopeful that it
doesn’t turn.”

The presence of thousands of camouflage-clad National Guard troops and
armored vehicles was a sign that the city was not quite back to normal.
While many protesters called for an end to the citywide curfew that Ms.
Rawlings-Blake put in place Tuesday night — and the American Civil
Liberties Union of Maryland said it had “outlived its usefulness” — Police
Commissioner Anthony W. Batts said it would remain in effect Saturday night
“for everyone’s safety.”

The mood changed again at night. Not long after the 10 p.m. curfew began,
someone threw a water bottle at a passing truck carrying National Guard
troops, and a lone, shouting pedestrian would not leave the intersection of
West North and Pennsylvania Avenues. The police used pepper spray to subdue
the man, who was then thrown down and dragged by his hair. A small group of
other people began throwing rocks and bottles across the intersection
toward police officers, who made several arrests.

In his first public comments since Marilyn J. Mosby, the state’s attorney
for Baltimore City, announced she would prosecute six officers for charges
including murder and manslaughter, Mr. Batts defended his department, but
said he would not “tolerate any misconduct.” He refused to comment on
specifics of the case, but said, “Now we will have the confidence that the
truth will come out.”

As Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland called for a statewide “day of prayer and
peace” on Sunday, a spokesman for Ms. Rawlings-Blake, Kevin Harris, said in
an interview that the mayor was re-evaluating the curfew on a daily basis
and was “very encouraged the demonstrations over the last few days have
been peaceful.” He added, “We know that the curfew is having an economic
impact on the city.”

Many people here, especially those who work night shifts, say the 10 p.m.
to 5 a.m. curfew has been difficult for them. In West Baltimore on
Saturday, J. R. White, 36, who owns a car detailing business, said the
restrictions were forcing him to cut back his hours. “They need to end that
now,” Mr. White said after taking a selfie photo in front of a makeshift
graffiti memorial to Mr. Gray at the spot where he had been arrested.
“People can’t pay the bills if they can’t work.”

Thousands of people gathered at a rally at City Hall in Baltimore a day
after six police officers were charged in the death of Freddie Gray while
he was in custody.

Even though the scene outside City Hall was calm, Governor Hogan’s office
announced in an email sent during the demonstration that the National Guard
had increased its presence in the city. Mr. Hogan’s office said 3,000
soldiers and airmen had been deployed, up from 2,500 on Friday.

Saturday’s protest and rally had been called by Black Lawyers for Justice,
a Washington-based group whose leader, Malik Shabazz, clearly makes
Baltimore’s mainstream black leadership nervous. Mr. Shabazz, a former
chairman of the New Black Panther Party, has been labeled an extremist by
the Southern Poverty Law Center, which calls him a “racist black
nationalist” who is “particularly skilled at orchestrating provocative
protests.”

A protest he led on April 25 turned briefly violent after he told
demonstrators at City Hall to go out into the streets of Baltimore and
“shut it down!” But on Saturday, it was Mr. Shabazz himself who was shut
down, by members of the crowd who shouted, “It’s not about you!” and
implored him to “let the youth speak!” when his own speech went on at
length.

The march was organized by Malik Shabazz, president of the Washington-based
group Black Lawyers for Justice and a former chairman of the New Black
Panther Party.

When the rally ended, a boisterous but peaceful crowd marched back toward
West Baltimore, pooling at West North and Pennsylvania, where a CVS
drugstore was looted and burned on Monday night. The intersection had been
blocked earlier in the week by officers in full riot gear; now the crowd
broke into a happy call-and-response chant: “Take back! Baltimore! Take
back! Baltimore!”

Someone turned on a loudspeaker, and the crowd began to dance.

Earlier in the day, volunteers handed out bags of supplies and food at the
Simmons Memorial Baptist Church, a block from the intersection, where the
sign on the church proclaimed, “Praying for the Freddie Gray Family.”
Joyous Jones, a church lay leader wearing an “I Bleed Baltimore” T-shirt,
said that the food giveaway was a regular event but that more people turned
out to help Saturday, and more companies, including the grocery chains
Trader Joe’s, Safeway and Giant, donated food.

A Young Leader in Baltimore

Melech E. M. Thomas, a divinity student and community organizer in
Baltimore, said his generation has an important role to play in
transforming the city.

By Axel Gerdau and A. J. Chavar on Publish Date April 29, 2015. Photo by
Axel Gerdau.

“It makes me feel warm, to see so many people helping,” she said.

City officials had been bracing for Saturday’s demonstration, but the day
got off to an almost sleepy start. Just past noon, a small crowd, including
a group of New Yorkers, started gathering near the intersection of Mount
and Presbury Streets, in Gilmor Homes, at the spot where Mr. Gray had been
arrested.

A few blocks away, children played with a toy car on a stoop, and church
members emerged from the Mt. Pisgah C.M.E. Church after attending the
funeral of their bus driver.

“It’s gonna be peaceful. Yes, it is,” said Delphie Horne, 86, who sat in a
wheelchair with her granddaughter, Michelle Lennon, 12, at her side. Ms.
Lennon shook her head shyly when asked if she expected to attend the
protest and rally at City Hall.

Across the street, the Guard troops stood ready. Another church member,
Sharon Ann Hargrove, 62, who works as a tax preparer here, stopped to thank
them. “I know y’all give up your life every day for us,” she told them.
Turning to a reporter, she added, “They’re not our enemies.”

Continue reading the main story

But on the minds and lips of many was Ms. Mosby’s announcement. “I think
they charged the officers just to calm the city down,” said Tajhi Cooper,
22, a lifelong resident of the Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood. “But I
don’t think they’re going to get convicted.”

Cleaning Up Baltimore

After a night of violent clashes with the police, protests, vandalism and
arson, Baltimore residents aim to put their city back together.

By A.J. Chavar on Publish Date April 28, 2015.

The protests, he said, were “showing that we want change, that we want
something different.”

Many people came with a sense that they were watching history unfold, with
origins in the civil rights era but an ultimate path still unknown. Several
hundred marched from the Gilmor Homes to meet the much larger group that
had massed at City Hall.

Crystal Miller, 47, marched down Pennsylvania Avenue with the youngest of
her eight children, 18-month-old Noah, on her hip. “It could have been my
children,” said Ms. Miller, who has four sons and four daughters.

Ms. Miller, who is in a training program to get a certificate for nursing
home care, said Friday’s charges had spurred her to march. She said she had
feared that the officers would not be charged and that the city would be
ablaze in anger.

“I was scared. I was praying on it,” she said, adding that she hoped Mr.
Gray’s death would inspire lawmakers to expand the use of police cameras
from cars and bodies to the interior of transport vans. “They need video
cameras in these vans,” she said. “That would stop some of this.”

Amid the celebration, there was an undercurrent of anger, not only over
police treatment of black men, but over the lack of jobs and recreation
centers, as well as dilapidated housing for Baltimore’s poor.

“Eye Contact is NOT a Crime,” one sign said — a reference to police
admissions that Mr. Gray had been arrested after a lieutenant made eye
contact with him, which contributed to Ms. Mosby’s assertion that the
officers had made an illegal arrest.

Salesmen hawked T-shirts with the phrase “Black Lives Matter.” There was
also a thread of the 1960s; black power advocates raised their fists, and
communists distributed Marxist literature.

Rashaan Brave, a division chief in the Baltimore Parks and Recreation
Department; Rashad Vance, who teaches in a middle school and at Morgan
State University; and Travis Vance, a civil engineer, all of whom live in
Baltimore, made their way on bicycles to City Hall. Each was trying to
understand the aftermath of Mr. Gray’s death, the anger of youths and ways
to help them.

“This is history. I just wanted to be involved,” said Rashad Vance, 32.
“I’ve been telling my students, ‘Protest, but nonviolently.’ ”

Correction: May 2, 2015

An earlier version of this article misstated the start and end times of the
curfew in Baltimore. It is 10 p.m. to 5 a.m., not 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

SurveyMonkey CEO, husband of Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, dies suddenly
<http://www.cnet.com/news/surveymonkey-ceo-husband-of-facebooks-sheryl-sandberg-dies-suddenly/>
// CNET // Scott Olson – May 2, 2015

Goldberg's brother, Robert Goldberg, announced the news in a post on
Facebook, requesting that people share their memories of David via the site.

"No words can express the depth of loss we feel, but we want his children
to learn how much he meant to all of you," Robert Goldberg wrote.

There has also been an outpouring of support and condolences across the
tech community, including from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who called
Goldberg "an amazing person."

Goldberg had a long, varied career, which spanned companies like Capitol
Records and Yahoo before he ultimately became chief of SurveyMonkey. As CEO
there, Goldberg oversaw a company with about 500 employees, which has grown
to become a recognizable Web-based survey platform. The service is used by
more than 20 million people worldwide and receives 2.8 million survey
responses every day, with 473,000 surveys deployed every month.

He began dating Sandberg in 2002, and they married two years later. Though
both had successful careers, Sandberg often discussed how they divvied up
household responsibilities. Their partnership was key to her successful
career, she has said.

One of the keys to their success was that they both left work at about 5:30
p.m. every day. Goldberg told The Los Angeles Times two years ago that both
he and Sandberg worked hard to ensure their home life didn't suffer despite
their high-profile jobs. "I am at home with my kids from 6 to 8. If I have
a work dinner, I'll schedule to have dinner after 8. But we're working at
night," he said. "You'll get plenty of emails from me post-8 p.m. when my
kids go to bed."

Tech VIPs paid tribute to Goldberg on Saturday.

"Dave's passing is unfathomable," Jim Lanzone, chief executive of CNET
parent CBS Interactive, said of his longtime friend. "There was no one like
him. A lot of people try to be as good a person as Dave Goldberg, but no
one else I know pulls it off. It's just a huge, huge loss for family,
friends and our community as a whole."

Twitter CEO Dick Costolo, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, PayPal co-founder
Max Levchin and former MySpace President Jason Hirschhorn offered elegies
via Twitter:

Six officers charged in death of Freddie Gray
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/overnight-calm-in-baltimore-as-tensions-remain-and-protests-expected/2015/05/01/00e07e7a-efe6-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html>
// Washington Post // By Lori Aratani, Paul Duggan and Dan Morse – May 1,
2015

Six police officers were charged Friday in the death of Freddie Gray as
Baltimore’s top prosecutor acted with surprising swiftness in a case that
ignited protests and rioting here. She described how Gray allegedly was
arrested illegally, treated callously by the officers, and suffered a
severe spine injury in the back of a police van while his pleas for medical
help were ignored.

Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby publicly delivered her
stunning, detailed narrative of extensive police misconduct in the latest
of several cases nationwide that have fueled anger over heavy-handed law
enforcement tactics in low-income communities.

Her decision to file charges brought joy and relief to low-income West
Baltimore and beyond, at least temporarily. By nightfall, thousands of
residents had taken to the streets in peaceful demonstrations.

One officer is accused of ­second-degree murder, and three others were
charged with manslaughter.

Events leading to Gray’s arrest and hospitalization View Graphic

“To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America, I have
heard your call of ‘No justice, no peace,’ ” Mosby declared. Her
announcement of the charges came after days of angry yet nonviolent marches
in the city and overnight rioting and looting on Monday, mostly in West
Baltimore.

“Your peace is sincerely needed as I work to deliver justice on behalf of
this young man,” Mosby said of Gray, 25, who died in a hospital April 19 —
a week after three of the officers took him into custody on a West
Baltimore street in what Mosby said was an illegal arrest. She said Gray
was carrying a folding knife, which is legal in Maryland.

Gray’s family said it was “satisfied” by the filing of the charges. Richard
Shipley, Gray’s stepfather, also issued a plea for demonstrators to
assemble peacefully this weekend.

“Where there is no justice, there is no peace,” Shipley said. “But let us
have peace in pursuit of justice.”

An attorney for Baltimore’s police union reacted angrily to the charges,
calling them “an egregious rush to judgment” and saying that “these
officers did nothing wrong.”

Except for the allegedly illegal arrest — which resulted in false-
imprisonment charges­ against the three officers who first encountered Gray
— allegations in the case stem not so much from what the six officers did
to Gray as from what they failed to do after he was taken into custody the
morning of April 12.

Mosby said Gray, in handcuffs, was placed in the back of a police van but
was not secured by a seat belt, as required by police rules. At one point
during a trip that involved four stops, he was removed from the van and
then put back in “on his stomach, headfirst, onto the floor,” Mosby said.
After the first stop, Gray “suffered a severe and critical neck injury as a
result of being handcuffed, shackled by his feet and unrestrained” by a
seat belt, she said.

Some of the officers checked on Gray in the van, Mosby said, and Gray asked
for medical attention several times. However, Mosby said, “despite Mr.
Gray’s seriously deteriorating medical condition, no medical assistance was
rendered or summoned.” She said Gray was taken by ambulance to a hospital
only after suffering cardiac arrest.

The officer who drove the van faces the most serious charge: second-degree
murder, punishable by up to 30 years in prison. Three other officers,
including a lieutenant, are accused of involuntary manslaughter, which
carries a possible 10-year term.

In addition, those four officers, along with two others, were charged with
second-degree assault and misconduct in office. Three of the six also are
accused of false imprisonment.

Gray was black, as are three of the accused officers. Three of the officers
are white.

By late Friday, the six officers had been released on bail, online court
records show. This is the start of what is expected to be a protracted
legal process.

The union attorney, Michael E. Davey, representing Fraternal Order of
Police Lodge 3, told reporters, “We have grave concerns about the fairness
[and] integrity of the prosecution” of the six officers.

“No officer injured Mr. Gray, caused harm to Mr. Gray, and they are truly
saddened by his death,” he said.

Mosby, a daughter and granddaughter of police officers, has been the city’s
elected top prosecutor since January. The unexpected announcement of the
charges Friday was greeted with applause by many community leaders and
residents who said police misconduct occurs routinely in poor sections of
the city.

The charges came less than two weeks after Gray’s death — a stunningly
rapid turnaround for such an investigation.

It was more than three months between the Aug. 9 shooting death of Michael
Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch’s
announcement that a grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson police
officer Darren Wilson. Nearly five months after Eric Garner died during his
arrest by New York police officer Daniel Pantaleo, a Staten Island grand
jury declined to issue an indictment.

Studies have found that in cases in which officers are charged,
particularly in incidents that occurred on duty, prosecutors historically
have had a hard time getting guilty verdicts because juries are often
sympathetic to police officers.

The accused Baltimore officers are Lt. Brian W. Rice, 41, a 17-year member
of the force; Sgt. Alicia D. White, 30, who joined the department in 2010;
Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr., 45, a member of the department for 16 years;
and Officers Garrett E. Miller, 26, Edward M. Nero, 29, and William G.
Porter, 25, all of whom joined the force in 2012.

Rice, Miller and Nero were on bicycle patrol the morning of April 12 when
Rice “made eye contact” with Gray near North Avenue at Mount Street in West
Baltimore, Mosby said. She said Gray then ran, with the officers in
pursuit, before he was caught a few blocks away on Presbury Street.

Gray “was then placed in a prone position with his arms handcuffed behind
his back,” Mosby said. “It was at this time that Mr. Gray indicated that he
could not breathe and requested an inhaler, to no avail.”

Miller and Nero moved Gray to a sitting position on the sidewalk and
frisked him, finding the folding knife “clipped to the inside of his pants
pocket,” Mosby said. She said Gray was then placed “back down on his
stomach, at which time [he] began to flail his legs and scream” as Miller
and Nero forcibly restrained him.

The van arrived, driven by Goodson, and Rice, Miller and Nero loaded the
handcuffed Gray into the back, without securing him with a seat belt, Mosby
said. She said the van initially was bound for a police facility downtown.
After a short distance, though, Goodson stopped on Baker Street so that
Rice, Miller and Nero could “complete required paperwork.”

There, Rice, Miller and Nero took Gray out of the van and placed shackles
on his ankles, and then returned him to the van, headfirst, on the floor,
Mosby said.

She said Gray suffered a critical neck injury after the van left Baker
Street. After traveling nearly a mile, Goodson stopped the van at Mosher
Street and Freemont Avenue “in order to observe Mr. Gray,” Mosby said.
“Despite stopping for the purpose of checking on the status of Mr. Gray’s
condition, at no point did he seek or did he render” medical aid.

Goodson stopped again after several blocks, at Dolphin Street and Druid
Hill Avenue, and radioed to a dispatcher that he needed to check on the
condition of his prisoner, Mosby said. She said Porter, on patrol, met
Goodson at the intersection.

She said Goodson and Porter checked on Gray, “who at that time requested
help and indicated that he could not breathe.” Porter asked Gray “if he
needed a medic, at which time Mr. Gray indicated at least twice that he was
in need of a medic.”

Porter helped Gray off the floor and onto a bench, Mosby said, but neither
officer summoned medical help for him. Instead, Goodson, “in a grossly
negligent manner,” chose to drive to North and Pennsylvania avenues to pick
up another man who had just been arrested, Mosby said. “Once the wagon
arrived, Officer Goodson walked to the back of the wagon and again opened
the doors . . . to make observations of Mr. Gray.”

White met the van at North and Pennsylvania avenues. She “observed Mr. Gray
unresponsive of the floor of the wagon” and “spoke to the back of Mr.
Gray’s head,” Mosby said. “When he did not respond, she did nothing
further, despite the fact that she was advised that he needed a medic.”

The van eventually arrived at the Western District police station, where
officers left the ailing Gray in the van while the other prisoner was
processed, Mosby said. By the time White and two other officers, who were
not charged, went to remove Gray from the van, he had suffered cardiac
arrest and “was no longer breathing at all.”

Goodson was charged with second-degree murder under the legal theory of
“depraved heart,” which doesn’t require an intent to kill. He also was
charged with involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter by vehicle,
second-degree assault and misconduct in office.

“Depraved-heart murder requires what I call super-gross negligence,” said
Robert Bonsib, a Greenbelt defense lawyer and former prosecutor who is not
involved in the case.

The most serious charge against White, Porter and Rice is involuntary
manslaughter. Each also was charged with second-degree assault and other
crimes. Nero and Miller were charged with second-degree assault, false
imprisonment and misconduct in office.

“This appears to be a complicated set of facts,” Bonsib said.

Glenn F. Ivey, a former Prince George’s County state’s attorney, said this
about Mosby: “What she’s saying is, [Goodson’s] actions were outrageous,
and he should have known the actions, or inaction, could cause Mr. Gray’s
death.”

DOT issues final rules on flammable oil trains
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/obama-safety-regulations-train-oil-derailments-117550.html>
// Politico // Elana Schor and Kathryn A. Wolfe – May 1, 2015

The Obama administration imposed tougher safety regulations Friday for
trains carrying crude oil, responding to growing alarm about a series of
fiery derailments that killed dozens of people in a small Canadian town and
have rattled U.S. communities from North Dakota to Alabama to Virginia.

Details of the rules provoked a furious rebuke from the railroad industry’s
main lobbying group, which called DOT’s mandate for advanced brakes “a rash
rush to judgment,” while oil refiners said its requirements for
retrofitting tens of thousands of older tank cars by as early as 2018 are
“unrealistic” and may disrupt commerce. On the other hand, the rules fall
far short of some environmental groups’ call for banning oil train
shipments altogether, and they don’t require oil companies to process their
fuel to make it less volatile before shipping it.

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said the long-awaited regulations are
meant to absorb the lessons of the oil train accidents of recent years,
including the July 2013 derailment and explosion that incinerated 47 people
in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. The rules are also a response to the huge surge in
oil production that has taken root in heartland states like North Dakota,
thanks to the shale revolution that has made the U.S. a growing oil and gas
superpower.

“Since 2008, we have seen a staggering, staggering 4,000 percent increase
in the transport of crude by rail,” said Foxx, who was accompanied by
Canadian Transport Minister Lisa Raitt.

“The truth is, 99.9 percent of these shipments reached their destination
safety,” Foxx said, quoting a statistic that the railroad industry likes to
cite. But he added: “The accidents involving crude and ethanol that have
occurred, though, have shown us that 99.9 percent isn’t enough. We have to
strive for perfection.”

Acting Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg dismissed the railroad
industry’s objections to the newly required braking systems, which will
have to be in place as early as 2021.

“We are not an agency with a goal of making things convenient or
inexpensive for industry,” she said. “Our entire goal and mission is
safety.”

Friday’s announcement came one day after the first anniversary of an oil
train derailment and explosion in Lynchburg, Va., that dumped crude into
the James River.

Last year saw an all-time record of 144 oil train incidents in the U.S. —
up from just one in 2009 — causing a total of more than $7 million in
damage. The trend has continued this year, including derailments and
breaches in West Virginia, Ontario and Illinois, all of which involved a
newer model of tank car that had been billed as more sturdy and
puncture-proof.

While members of Congress largely welcomed the new rule, several faulted
DOT for not getting the most dangerous tank cars off the tracks faster.
They said the department should also require oil companies to make their
fuel less prone to explosions and should force railroads to provide more
information to state and local emergency responders.

“The new DOT rule is just like saying let the oil trains roll,” said Sen.
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), whose state has seen protests against crude rail
shipments. “It does nothing to address explosive volatility, very little to
reduce the threat of rail car punctures, and is too slow on the removal of
the most dangerous cars.”

Cantwell, the top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
said she would look for legislative options to mandate even tougher
standards, perhaps through the appropriations process or an upcoming
passenger rail authorization.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) agreed that DOT needs to do more. “While I am
glad that the administration is finally taking steps to protect our
communities, I have serious concerns with these rules,” she said in a
statement. “Inadequate tank cars will be allowed to continue carrying
volatile crude oil until 2020 and in some cases—indefinitely.”

“The good news is that the standards for tank cars are tough and provide
certainty, but the phase-out timeline lets the railroads take too long to
implement it,” said Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York.

In a more positive vein, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said the new tank car
standards “appear to move in the right direction and should help prevent
future tragedies.” And Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the top Democrat on
the House Transportation Committee, said that “at first glance, this rule
will provide certainty to manufacturers, shippers, and railroads and better
protect the American public” — though he noted that “the National
Transportation Safety Board first recommended replacing and retrofitting
these cars more than 20 years ago.”

The Association of American Railroads would not rule out challenging the
regulations in court, even though it welcomed the tank car requirements
overall and noted that it had been advocating tougher standards for years.
In particular, the group objected to DOT’s mandate for the oil-carrying
trains to use electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, saying there’s no
evidence they would reduce accidents.

“The DOT couldn’t make a safety case for ECP but forged ahead anyhow,”
railroads association President Ed Hamberger said in a statement. “This is
an imprudent decision made without supporting data or analysis. I have a
hard time believing the determination to impose ECP brakes is anything but
a rash rush to judgment.”

Foxx maintained that the brakes could prevent a repeat of incidents like a
December 2013 collision in which an oil train slammed into a derailed grain
train, setting off a series of explosions outside Casselton, N.D.

“ECP brakes can reduce how long it takes a train to stop,” Foxx said. “They
can prevent cars from slamming into each other, they can decrease the
number of cars that derail, they can greatly reduce the probability that
tank cars will puncture. This is proven technology.”

Besides the brake provisions, the rules also include stiffer construction
standards for rail tank cars made after Oct. 1 and permanent versions of
the speed limits that DOT had previously announced.

The oil industry group American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers said
it’s concerned that DOT’s “aggressive retrofit schedule is unrealistic and
may be disruptive to transporting crude oil to markets across the country.”
It also repeated its call for DOT to take on what it calls the “root causes
of train derailments: track integrity and human error.”

Important aspects of the rules go beyond what the oil and railroad
industries had suggested — for example, new tank cars designed to transport
crude that are made after Oct. 1 will have to have steel walls that are
9/16th-inch thick, compared with the half-inch thickness both industries
had jointly called for last fall. And the rule requires trains to use the
advanced electronically controlled pneumatic brakes that they had
aggressively fought against — within eight years at the most.

The rules also make permanent the provisions of an emergency order DOT
issued last month that limits oil trains containing at least one
older-model tank car to only 40 mph in “high-threat” urban areas. All
crude-by-rail service would be restricted to 50 mph, in line with a
voluntary speed limit that railroads adopted in 2013.

The regulations also include provisions affecting ethanol, another
flammable liquid frequently shipped by rail.

DOT said the rules would impose $2.5 billion in costs from 2015 to 2034,
while the benefits would range over the same period range from $912 million
to $2.9 billion.

Timothy Butters, acting chief of DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, said regulators are still looking at the issue of
decreasing the volatility of the fuel before it can be shipped. “We need
the science to drive that,” he said.

West Virginia’s two senators, Republican Shelley Moore Capito and Democrat
Joe Manchin, urged Foxx and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz in a letter
Friday to move faster on studying oil volatility.

The rules came well beyond the date that Foxx originally promised lawmakers
— he had said repeatedly in hearings last year that it would not be allowed
to go into 2015. Friday’s announcement comes amid serious and growing
pressure from lawmakers in both chambers to get a handle on the issue,
especially against the backdrop of Canada’s own actions on oil trains,
which at times seemed faster and more aggressive than DOT’s.

Congress attempted to prod DOT into action last year by setting a Jan. 15
deadline to complete the crude-by-rail regulations, but the administration
blew past that deadline. While Democrats pressed DOT for the strongest
possible rules, Republicans have amplified concerns from the oil industry
and other shippers that an unattainable retrofitting timeline for tank cars
could lead to further delays and congestion.

Last May, DOT issued a “safety advisory” asking — but not requiring —
shippers of Bakken crude to discontinue using older DOT-111 models of tank
cars and instead use newer cars with the model name CPC-1232. But weeks
earlier, Canada had announced a series of mandates including the phase-out
or retrofitting of DOT-111 tank cars in the next three years, prompting
grousing among U.S. regulators.

“When can we expect the U.S. DOT to raise the bar, to up the ante?” asked
NTSB member Robert Sumwalt during a safety forum around the time Canada
acted.

“Right now in three years, those communities that live alongside railroad
tracks that are transporting crude oil in Canada, those communities will
ostensibly have a higher level of safety than will those communities here
in the U.S.,” he added at the time. “So when is the DOT going to step up to
the plate?

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS *

Why Larry Flynt Is Endorsing Hillary Clinton
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-01/why-larry-flynt-is-endorsing-hillary-clinton>
// Bloomberg // John Heilemann - May 1, 2015

The Hustler honcho has long supported Democrats–and thinks Clinton could
get a chance to shift the balance of the Supreme Court.

When Larry Flynt is feeling righteous, he describes himself as a crusader:
for civil liberties in general and free speech in particular, against
capital punishment, political correctness, and hypocrisy in high places. In
more mischievous moments, the sobriquets he applies are earthier,
funnier—and more on point. His 1996 autobiography was titled An Unseemly
Man: My Life as Pornographer, Pundit, and Social Outcast. The slogan of his
quixotic 2003 campaign for the California governorship was “the smut
peddler who cares.” But now Bloomberg Politics can exclusively report that
the impresario behind the Hustler empire is adding a new element to his
persona: Flynt is officially ready for Hillary.

The bestowal of Flynt’s blessing on Clinton occurred this week in his
sprawling, surreal aerie—with its jumbled-up mix of American southern and
Italianate décor, the place has the look of an unholy, Hollywood Babylon
hybrid of Tara and the Uffizi—high above Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles.
Flynt’s people had lured me out West with the promise that he had something
of import to say about the Democratic front-runner. It took little
prompting to get it out of him. “I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton for
president!” Flynt declared.

Flynt’s backing of Clinton is, on the face of it, unsurprising. His support
for Democrats at the presidential level has been lifelong and unfailing;
one of his better friends in politics is California Governor Jerry Brown,
who, as it happened, was next in line to see Flynt after I exited the
building. His famous/infamous practice of trawling for the sexual
indiscretions of public figures—which reached its apogee during the
impeachment furor around Bill Clinton and claimed the scalp of House
Speaker-to-be (and then not-to-be) Bob Livingston—has been directed almost
entirely at Republicans. On his desk the day we met were galleys from the
next issue of Hustler, including an column that confers on George W. Bush
the honorific “A--hole of the Century.”

Few Clinton supporters will take issue with the animating impulse behind
Flynt’s endorsement: the future makeup of the Supreme Court. “We’ve had a
right-leaning court for half a century,” he says from the gold-plated
wheelchair he’s occupied since being shot and paralyzed in 1978. “But if
Hillary gets in, chances are she’s going to have an opportunity to appoint
two, maybe three justices … and we could shift the balance there.”

But no small number of Clinton’s ardent fans, and especially those who
regard her as a feminist icon, may find it unsettling—or queasy-making—to
have a man who has made a vast fortune in the skin trade squarely in her,
and their, corner. For his part, Flynt brushes off the apparent
incongruity. He thinks of himself as a feminist (of a kind), he tells me,
though he acknowledges that “people in Gloria Steinem’s world, they
don’t–they think I’m the misogynist of the century.” As for his candidate,
Flynt laughs and says, “I’m sure that Hillary doesn’t necessarily approve
of everything I do.”

For Clinton, a raft of endorsements from Capitol Hill to Hollywood have
been a rare bright spot in a campaign launch filled with poor reviews and
worse headlines. But whatever her private views of Flynt and his
profession, it beggars belief that she and her team will be issuing any
press releases touting the latest bold-faced name to clamber aboard her
bandwagon.

Flynt is well aware of that most politicians prefer to keep their distance
from him, and that Hillary will likely be among them. And he professes not
to care. “Hillary doesn’t need no help from me,” he says. “All she needs to
do is start fighting back”—in particular against Clinton Cash author Peter
Schweizer, whose campaign against Hillary Flynt likens to that of his bete
noire Jerry Falwell against Bill Clinton in 1992. “One of the biggest
evangelists in the world put out a video accusing President Clinton of
murder—[and Schweizer’s book] is the same kind of smear tactic.”

That Flynt holds a special place in his heart for 42 is evident, and Flynt
claims that the feeling is mutual. In 2006, the two men ran into each other
at a fundraiser in Las Vegas for Jimmy Carter’s son, Jack, who was running
for Senate in Nevada. According to Flynt, Bill Clinton—apparently still
grateful for the porn king’s role in the downfall of Bob Livingston, a key
moment in the deflation of the impeachment bubble—walked over, shook
Flynt’s hand, and said, “You’re my hero.” As I prepare to leave, Flynt
shows me a photo on his desk of him and Clinton from the fundraiser, noting
that the former president has denied the quote in question. “He can say
whatever he wants,” Flynt chuckles. “I have three witnesses.”

Veep Creator on Hillary Clinton and the Intense Pressure to Say Nothing:
Candidates running now define themselves by their inaction
<http://time.com/3843404/presidential-candidates-inaction/> // Hollywood
Reporter // Armando Iannucci – May 1, 2015

It’s possibly no coincidence that Hillary Clinton started her presidential
run the same week that astronomical scientists at the University of Hawaii
in Manoa announced the discovery of a Supervoid, a structure in space 18
billion light-years across and “distinguished by its unusual emptiness.”
The Supervoid sits in a part of the cosmos known as the Cold Spot, where
there’s far less matter to observe than elsewhere throughout the universe.

It’s a perfect analogy for how Hillary Clinton’s opponents seek to
characterize her: as someone who is profoundly visible yet hard to
identify. She is politics’ Dark Matter: We know she’s there, but we just
can’t describe her. Is she on the left or the right, is she a friend of the
rich or the poor, is she a testosterone-fueled superhawk or a grandmatronly
van-driver popping into Chipotle for a chat with the staff?

Yet Hillary’s identity problem is prominent only because she has been on
the public stage for so long. It’s a magnified version of a debilitating
crisis of identity that sits at the heart of national American politics,
the real Supervoid that constricts and confines most presidential
candidates: and that is, the intense pressure to say nothing. Knowing that
your every speech and interview sits in the digital archive, ready to be
analyzed by an army of opponents with time to spare and money to spend, can
kill spontaneity dead. Far better to sit contentious debates out. If you
hold public office, be careful how you vote on any piece of legislation, no
matter how obscure. Your voting record will be used by your opponents just
as savagely as if it were a criminal one.

And far better to stand for president before you’ve done anything. It
worked for Obama, who moved swiftly in the space of two years from senator
to president and kept out of trouble as much as he could while still in the
Senate chamber. It’s the same be-a-senator-for-a-few-years-then-jump
strategy now being used by Marco Rubio. When you’ve not got much to show
for yourself other than your face, you enter the presidential race without
baggage and with the opportunity to attack all those who have. You enter
not as someone with a legacy but someone who is a brand. The difference
with Hillary is that she’s been around a lot longer, so she has had more
time in which to try not doing very much. That’s a tougher challenge, and
the fact she’s more or less managed it shows what a formidable candidate
she’s going to be.

When I first started researching Veep, my comedy show for HBO with Julia
Louis-Dreyfus playing Vice President Selina Meyer, I was much taken by the
portrayal of LBJ in Robert Caro’s monumental biography of the president.
What hooked me was the tragicomic dilemma of a once-powerful senator found
sitting in his vice president’s office twiddling his thumbs and waiting for
something to do. Looking at it again, I’m reminded of a state of politics
now gone: When Johnson was major­ity leader, he got things done. Here was a
Democrat, working alongside a Republican White House under Eisenhower and
getting legislation passed by extending a hand across the aisle. He
sometimes twisted the arm that was extended back; the negotiations
certainly weren’t pretty, but they did achieve positive results. This was a
time when the two parties in Congress talked to each other and found common
ground. It’s worth remembering the Constitution is predicated on people at
opposite ends of the political spectrum being forced to compromise.

Now, though, that doesn’t happen. The conversation is stalled, the vote
delayed, the bill dropped. Which is why candidates running now define
themselves by their inaction: “Vote for me because I voted against this, I
stopped it from happening, I got this overturned, I will oppose this
measure, I’ll make sure this is thrown out.”

This is the ultimate Supervoid now at the heart of politics. It’s the
reason why for most presiden­tial candidates today, the only significant
thing they can say about themselves is that they are running for president.

Iannucci is the creator and executive producer of HBO’s ‘Veep.’

This article originally appeared on The Hollywood Reporter.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HRCRapid" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.                
👁 1 💬 0
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
5945c2cb313c1c0232bf26fc217e25441546f283b56e4a732a58ddf645e6f5c9
Dataset
podesta-emails
Document Type
Comments 0

Loading comments…