podesta_email_00533.txt

podesta-emails 63,186 words email

D6 P21 V16 P19 P22

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *H4A News Clips* *June 4, 2015* *SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS* Today Hillary Clinton will give a speech at the Barbara Jordan Gold Medallion Presentation in Houston, Texas. Clinton will call for swift action to restore the Voting Rights Act and will discuss ways to make it easier for voters to access the voting booth and cast their ballots. Clinton will also attend two fundraisers while in Texas. Jeb Bush is expected to announce his candidacy for president on June 15th. *LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS* There was not 2016 coverage on any network tonight. Instead they covered the hurricane growing and tornado threats, new evidence in the home of the family that was killed in Washington DC, and the price of cancer medication. *SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS....................................................................... **1* *LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS...................................................................... * *1* *TODAY’S KEY STORIES................................................................................... **4* *Hillary Clinton to Speak at Latino Leaders Conference* // Latin Post // Robert Ugarte - Jun 04, 2015 4 *Clinton to call for at least 20 days of early voting nationwide* // WaPo // Anne Gearan – June 3, 2015 5 *Hillary Clinton Is Alone at the Top of Democratic 2016 Hill Endorsements* // National Journal // Alex Brown – June 2, 2015............................................................................................................................... 6 *SOCIAL MEDIA................................................................................................ **7* *Matt Corridoni (5/3/15, 3:18 pm)* - "We can already trade & we should...[but #TPP] is bad for us as a country." - @GovernorOMalley taking a clear stance, once again, on trade..................................................... 7 *Lisa Lerer (5/3/15, 5:24, pm)* - Law school seminar or Lincoln Chafee’s presidential announcement? 7 *Trip Gabriel (5/3/15, 7:50 pm)* - Carly Fiorina releases her net worth: $59 million. Effective federal tax rate: 20 percent....................................................................................................................................... 7 *Ari Berman (5/3/15, 8:12 pm)* - Would be very big deal if every state had 20+ days of early voting, as HRC wants. 14 states have no early voting http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-pol…......................... 8 *HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE.......................................................................... **8* *Heroin epidemic leaves mark on 2016 presidential race* // WaPo // Katie Zezima – June 3, 2015.... 8 *Hillary's Popularity Rollercoaster* // Politico // Jack Shafer – June 3, 2015.................................... 11 *Hillary Clinton is Too Liberal for Bill Clinton* // Politico // Alan Greenblatt – June 2, 2015............ 12 *Concerns about Clinton records dates back to her tenure at State* // CNN // Laura Koran – June 3, 2015 14 *Axelrod: Clinton “Hurt” By Only Doing “Sporadic” Events, Challenge Is For Her To Take “Risks”* // Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski & Megan Apper – June 3, 2015....................................................................... 15 *Democrats Wage a National Fight Over Voter Rules* // NYT // Maggie Haberman & Amy Chozick – June 3, 2015................................................................................................................................................. 19 *Clinton to propose at least 20 days of early voting in every* state // USA Today // David Jackson – June 3, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 22 *Hillary Clinton to Attack G.O.P. Rivals on Voting Rights* // NYT // Amy Chozick – June 3, 2015..... 22 *Hillary Clinton Works For The Support Of An Old Ally: The Teachers Union* // Buzzfeed // Ruby Cramer – June 3, 2015......................................................................................................................................... 23 *Democrats finally get a contest as Hillary Clinton draws challengers* // WaPo // Philip Rucker, Robert Costa & Anne Gearan – June 3, 2015....................................................................................................... 26 *Clinton pollster downplays Hillary's sinking poll numbers* // Politico // Nick Gass – June 3, 2015. 29 *The Beltway’s Clinton derangement syndrome: What I saw inside a Hillary campaign briefing* // Salon // Joan Walsh – June 3, 2015................................................................................................................ 30 *When it comes to the Clintons and Wall Street: Democratic opponents are silent* // McClatchy // Anita Kumar & Greg Gorden – June 3, 2015....................................................................................................... 33 *21 New ‘Clinton Cash’ Revelations That Have Imperiled Hillary Clinton’s Campaign* // Breitbart – June 3, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 34 *Iowa Poll: Bill and George W. May Not Hurt Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush* // Bloomberg // David Knowles – June 3, 2015...................................................................................................................................... 41 *Clinton rivals pounce as her ratings fall* // WaPo // Philip Rucker, Robert Costa and Anne Gearan - June 3, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 42 *Bush and Clinton seem inevitable. Except to voters*. // Yahoo News // Matt Bai - June 4, 2015..... 46 *Why Hillary Can't Run on Her State Department Record* // Bloomberg // Josh Rogin – June 3, 2015 48 *Americans split on whether Clinton cares about their needs* // AP // Julie Pace & Ken Thomas – June 3, 2015................................................................................................................................................. 51 *Campaign Reporters Told There Will Be ‘NO Opportunities To Interview Hillary Clinton’* // The Daily Caller // Chuck Ross – June 3, 2015......................................................................................................... 53 *Whoa, If True: Hillary Clinton Blows Off Autograph-Seeking Voter* // Bloomberg // David Weigel – June 3, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 53 *Georgina Bloomberg is backing Hillary for President * // NY Daily News // Annie Karni – June 3, 2015 55 *Bill Clinton to Give Secret Address to Health Insurers* // The Weekly Standard // Michael Warren – June 3, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 56 *2016 Democratic White House hopefuls jockey for Hispanics’ support* // The Washington Times // S.A. Miller – June 3, 2015.............................................................................................................................. 56 *Meet the woman who's guiding Hillary Clinton's stance on police reforms* // Fortune // Nina Easton – June 3, 2015......................................................................................................................................... 59 *The campaign to put Julian Castro on Hillary Clinton's VP shortlist* // GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI and ANNIE KARNI // Politico – June 4, 2015................................................................................................ 61 *Hillary Clinton Cannot Afford to Lose Black Voters* // National Jounal // EMILY SCHULTHEIS – June 3, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 64 *Emily’s List Focuses Its ‘Madam President’ Program on Clinton* // NYT // Jonathan Martin – June 3, 2015 66 *Clinton campaign snares Box CEO in courting young tech millionaires* // Reuters // Sarah McBride – June 3, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 67 *Clinton campaign opens five more Iowa offices* // The Des Moines Register // Tony Leys – June 3, 2015 69 *OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE............................................ **69* *Chafee to unveil presidential run, puzzling longtime allies* // AP – June 3, 2015........................... 69 *Lincoln Chafee expected to announce longshot presidential bid* // WaPo // Jose DelReal – June 3, 2015 71 *Launching '16 bid, Chafee refuses to rule out talks with IS* // AP // Lisa Lerer – June 3, 2015........ 72 *Iraq War focus for Lincoln Chafee campaign launch* // CNN // Dan Merica – June 3, 2015............. 74 *In Presidential Bid, Lincoln Chafee Calls For Metric System* // WSJ // Byron Tau & Reid Epstein – June 3, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 76 *Does Anybody Remember Lincoln Chafee's Facebook Password?* //............................................. 77 Bloomberg // Ben Brody – June 3, 2015..................................................................................... 77 *President Obama’s popularity numbers are running well behind historic norms* // WaPo // Scott Clement – June 3, 2015...................................................................................................................................... 78 *O’Malley’s Mangled Wage Statistic* // FactCheck // Brooks Jackson – June 3, 2015....................... 79 *Martin O’Malley counters Hillary Clinton: I’m not new to immigration reform* // Politico // Jonathan Topaz – June 3, 2015.............................................................................................................................. 81 *Martin O'Malley: Makes No Sense To Keep 11 Million In Shadow Economy* // NBC News // Suzanne Gamboa – June 3, 2015............................................................................................................................. 83 *Martin O'Malley Wrongly Says That Wages Haven't Gotten Better For Americans* // HuffPo // Brooks Jackson – June 3, 2015............................................................................................................................. 85 *O’Malley on the Stump* // NYT // June 3, 2015........................................................................... 87 *Martin O’Malley Calls For More Restrictions on NSA Surveillance* // TIME // Sam Frizell – June 3, 2015 87 *O’Malley super PAC to air early television ads in Iowa* // WaPo // John Wagner – June 3, 2015.... 88 *Wall Street Execs Take Aim at O’Malley Campaign Hypocrisy* // Fox News // Charlie Gasparino – June 3, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 89 *Sanders Calls for 'Political Revolution'* // The Weekly Standard // Michael Warren – June 3, 2015. 91 *Bernie Sanders Calls for More and Earlier Debates* // NYT // Alan Rappeport – June 3, 2015........ 93 *Sanders slams Jeb Bush over Social Security remarks* // The Hill // Rebecca Shabad – June 3, 2015 94 *GOP................................................................................................................ **95* *Jeb Bush to announce presidential bid June 15 in Miami* // Miami Herald // PATRICIA MAZZEI AND ALEX LEARY – June 4, 2015............................................................................................................... 95 *Jeb Bush, Taking His Time, Tests the Legal Definition of Candidate* // NYT // Eric Lichtblau & Nick Corasaniti – June 3, 2015.............................................................................................................................. 97 *With some donors doubting Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio seizes an opening* // WaPo // Matea Gold & Sean Sullivan – June 3, 2015............................................................................................................................ 100 *Why Jeb Bush Can't Bank On Faith Like His Brother Did* // NPR // Don Gonyea – June 3, 2015.. 102 *There will be blood: Prepare for nasty Jeb Bush — but don’t expect any fingerprints* // Salon // Jim Newell – June 3, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 104 *Fox News Poll: Bush, Walker, Carson top GOP pack, support for Clinton down* // Fox News // Dana Blanton – June 3, 2015............................................................................................................................ 106 *Republican Conservative Base Shrinks* // Gallup // Frank Newport –June 3, 2015...................... 108 *Rick Santorum Wants Pope Francis To Stop Talking About Climate Change* // HuffPo // Ed Mazza – June 3, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 110 *George W. Bush tops Obama on favorability in new poll* // The Hill // Mark Hensch – June 3, 2015 110 *Texas’ Economic Hiccup Complicates Rick Perry’s 2016 Pitch* // WSJ // Nathan Koppel & Colleen Mccain Nelson – June 3, 2015............................................................................................................................ 112 *Scott Walker Says 2016 Announcement Coming After Budget Wrap at End of June* // Ali Elkin – June 3, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 114 *Wisconsin Abortion Ban Would Allow Father To Sue For Emotional Distress* // HuffPo // Laura Bassett – June 3, 2015........................................................................................................................................ 114 *Scott Walker dead set against path to citizenship but has no answer for what to do with 11 million undocumented residents* // Tampa Bay Times // Alex Leary – June 3, 2015....................................................... 115 *Rand Paul calls out Jeb Bush for defending NSA* // Politico // Katie Glueck – June 3, 2015.......... 117 *When Rand Paul steps in it* // Politico // MANU RAJU – June 4, 2015........................................ 118 *Scott Walker: Women Mostly Worry About Rape Pregnancies 'In The Initial Months'* // Talking Points Memos // Ahiza Garcia – June 3, 2015...................................................................................................... 121 *Rand Paul: GOP Isn't Entirely Responsible For Creating ISIS* // HuffPo // Sam Levine – June 3, 2015 121 *'I use them, they use me': Local politicians profit from presidential hopefuls in early-voting states* // LA Times // Seema Mehta – June 3, 2015.................................................................................................... 122 *TOP NEWS.................................................................................................... **125* *DOMESTIC................................................................................................. **125* *Inequality a Major Issue for Americans, Times/CBS Poll Finds* // NYT // Noam Scheiber & Dalia Sussman – June 3, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 126 *Working dads make more money than working moms in every state* // WaPo // Danielle Paquette – June 3, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 129 *Republican Senators Will Sponsor A Bill To Protect Pregnant Workers For The First Time Ever* // Think Progress // Bryce Covert – June 3, 2015.................................................................................................. 130 *House GOP votes to block administration on immigration* // AP // Erica Werner – June 3, 2015.. 131 *INTERNATIONAL...................................................................................... **131* *ISIS Making Political Gains* // NYT // Anne Barnard & Tim Arango – June 3, 2015....................... 131 *Cuba officially off U.S. terror blacklist* // CNN // Kevin Liptak – June 3, 2015.............................. 134 *OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS................................................................ **136* *Romney defeating Bush in GOP establishment primary* // The Hill // Brent Budowsky – June 3, 2015 136 *Hillary Clinton is political, but her foundation isn’t* // Boston Globe // Dan Payne – June 3, 2015 137 *Democrats, Don’t Freak Out!* // Slate // Jamelle Bouie – June 3, 2015....................................... 138 *A ‘favorable’ way to stop Hillary Clinton’s ‘trust’ fall* // WaPo // Jonathan Capehart – June 3, 2015 140 *MISCELLANEOUS........................................................................................ **141* *Lanny Davis: Hillary Clinton and the frenzy of the media* // The Hill // Lanny Davis – June 3, 2015 142 *TODAY’S KEY STORIES* *Hillary Clinton to Speak at Latino Leaders Conference <http://www.latinpost.com/articles/57404/20150604/hillary-clinton-visiting-las-vegas-later-in-june-to-speak-at-latino-leaders-conference.htm> // Latin Post // Robert Ugarte - Jun 04, 2015 * Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party's top presidential contender, will return to Nevada later in June to give a speech at a large conference of Latino political leaders. She continues to be a favorite among Latinos and continues to push for the community's backing. Clinton, the first Democratic candidate to vie for the party's nomination, will return to Las Vegas on June 18 in a dash of appearances spanning the country. The Associated Press reports Clinton will attend the 32nd annual National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) conference, speaking in front of various Latino leaders from across the nation. The NALEO conference "presents a unique opportunity for Latino policymakers to meet with their colleagues from all levels of government to address the challenges and opportunities facing our communities and our nation," according to its website. Clinton will speak at around 11:30 a.m. local time and the conference is only accessible to those attending and the media. Because of the conference's focus, Clinton will undoubtedly be talking about Latino issues, but the topics have not been revealed as of yet. The NALEO conference website adds that Congresswoman Dina Titus, D-Nevada, Nevada Sen. Mo Denis, D-Las Vegas, Nevada Sen. Ruben Kihuen, D-Las Vegas, and Assemblywoman Irene Bustamante Adams, D-Las Vegas, will also speak. The last time Clinton visited Las Vegas she proclaimed her administration would work towards establishing a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the nation. "We cannot wait any longer for a path for full and equal citizenship," she said in early May, calling the Republicans' plan for legal status as "code for second-class status." Despite winning over many Latinos and retaining her place as the darling of the Democratic electorate, Clinton has begun slipping in the polls. A CNN/ORC poll released on Tuesday showed the Democratic candidate's numbers have started going down. In March Clinton's favorability rating stood at 53 percent; however, at the end of May, it has fallen to 46 percent as her "unfavorable" rating rose to 50 percent. Yet, among non-whites Clinton remains strong with 65 percent. The poll showed Clinton continued to surpass her Republican opponents as the favored candidate. In the past month, Clinton has made an effort to include Latinos in her campaign, having included Lorella Praeli and Xochitl Hinojosa, both well-known Latino leaders. Clinton's visit to Las Vegas is part of a series of trips to states with early caucuses or primaries. The Las Vegas Review-Journal explains Clinton will be in Iowa from June 13 to 14, in New Hampshire on June 15, and in South Carolina on June 17. *Clinton to call for at least 20 days of early voting nationwide <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/03/clinton-to-call-for-at-least-20-days-of-early-voting-nationwide/> // WaPo // Anne Gearan – June 3, 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to call for an early voting period of at least 20 days in every state. Clinton will call for that standard in remarks Thursday in Texas about voting rights, her campaign said. She will also criticize what her campaign calls deliberate restrictions on voting in several states, including Texas. The former secretary of state's address at historically-black Texas Southern University in Houston comes as Democrats pursue legal challenges to voting rule changes approved by Republican legislatures in several states. Clinton and her allies claim the changes are aimed at narrowing the electorate in ways that benefit Republicans. “This is, I think, a moment when we should be expanding the franchise,” Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said in an interview. “What we see in state after state is this effort by conservatives to restrict the right to vote.” The legal effort began late last month with lawsuits in Wisconsin and Ohio, both presidential battleground states. “This lawsuit concerns the most fundamental of rights guaranteed citizens in our representative democracy — the right to vote,” lawyers wrote in a federal complaint filed Friday in Wisconsin. The challenge to a cutback in early voting in Wisconsin was filed by lawyers including Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, who is the Clinton campaign’s top lawyer. Elias was not acting on behalf of the campaign, although all Democrats including Clinton could benefit if early voting were expanded. “That right has been under attack in Wisconsin since Republicans gained control of the governor’s office and both houses of the State legislature in the 2010 election,” the lawsuit alleges. *Hillary Clinton Is Alone at the Top of Democratic 2016 Hill Endorsements <http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-is-alone-at-the-top-of-democratic-2016-hill-endorsements-20150602> // National Journal // Alex Brown – June 2, 2015* Hillary Clinton has racked up a slew of congressional endorsements in her presidential bid. Her rivals either can't compete on the Hill or are only doing so quietly. Clinton's endorsement tally already stands at triple digits—nearly half of all sitting Democrats. But lawmakers say they've heard little outreach from Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, Clinton's underdog rivals to lead Democrats' 2016 ticket. Even the group that provides the underdogs' best chance at winning allies says the phone has stayed firmly on the hook: Both Sanders and O'Malley are running to Clinton's left, but the Congressional Progressive Caucus says it has heard no calls for support from either candidate. Instead, caucus cochair Raul Grijalva has thrown his support behind Clinton, as have fellow liberals like Reps. Rosa DeLauro and Jan Schakowsky. While members say they would welcome the chance to hear from presidential hopefuls, it appears those candidates have decided the road to the nomination doesn't run through the Beltway—at least yet. "We've certainly had opportunities in the past to have some of those declared candidates come before us," said House Democratic Caucus Chair Xavier Becerra, citing an O'Malley appearance on the Hill last year. "Certainly this caucus will invite any declared candidate for president to come before us and address the caucus members, because the members are very interested." Haley Morris, a spokeswoman for O'Malley, said his team has already started a thorough outreach campaign. But when it comes to Washington Democrats backing Clinton, she said, O'Malley is "not worried about establishment backing establishment." Observers say there could be several reasons for the quiet on Capitol Hill. First, at this early stage in the race, candidates are far more focused on fundraising and building a ground game than getting members of Congress on board. "I haven't really seen any [outreach] at all," said Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland. "There will probably be more action here when the primaries start coming up." Ruppersberger, who has not yet made an endorsement, cited his close ties to both Clinton and O'Malley as his reason for staying out of the primary so far. Meanwhile, the candidates likely realize that Congress, too, has its focus elsewhere right now. "This is appropriations season," laughed Ruppersberger. And eight months out from Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus, most members are unlikely to get behind a candidate who has yet to challenge Clinton in the polls. But even with many members in wait-and-see mode, Clinton's challengers have already seen many of their potential allies back the front-runner—including in the home states of Clinton's rivals. In O'Malley's home state of Maryland, with its clout-heavy congressional delegation, Clinton has earned several high-profile endorsements: Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen, both Marylanders, have endorsed Clinton. Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin back Clinton as well. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont has endorsed Clinton, leaving undecided Rep. Peter Welch as Sanders' only remaining home-state endorsement opportunity. Meanwhile, the entrance of former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee into the race hasn't stopped half a dozen Virginia and Rhode Island members from backing Clinton over their long-shot contenders back home. Of course, no congressional endorsement will change Clinton’s status as the favorite, and her challengers may be content to watch her rack up Capitol Hill endorsements as they paint her as a creature of the Washington establishment. While O’Malley will tout his state executive experience, Sanders—an independent and self-described socialist—will likely have little trouble distancing himself from the other candidates. *SOCIAL MEDIA* *Matt Corridoni (5/3/15, 3:18 pm)* <https://twitter.com/mattcorridoni/status/606178152084344832>* - "We can already trade & we should...[but #TPP] is bad for us as a country." - @GovernorOMalley taking a clear stance, once again, on trade* *Lisa Lerer (5/3/15, 5:24, pm)* <https://twitter.com/llerer/status/606209944589893632>* - Law school seminar or Lincoln Chafee’s presidential announcement?* *Trip Gabriel (5/3/15, 7:50 pm)* <https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/606246594065891328>* - Carly Fiorina releases her net worth: $59 million. Effective federal tax rate: 20 percent.* *Ari Berman (5/3/15, 8:12 pm)* <https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/606236976157761536>* - Would be very big deal if every state had 20+ days of early voting, as HRC wants. 14 states have no early voting http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-pol <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-pol>…* *HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE* *Heroin epidemic leaves mark on 2016 presidential race <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/drug-epidemic-shapes-messages-on-the-presidential-campaign-trail/2015/06/03/2f63761c-00d0-11e5-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html> // WaPo // Katie Zezima – June 3, 2015 * When aspiring presidential candidates step into Mayor Ted Gatsas’s office here, he doesn’t let them leave without telling them about what he calls one of the most pressing, dire issues his city faces: drug abuse. “Every candidate that comes in here, what I say to them is, ‘It’s not only an issue here in Manchester, New Hampshire. It’s a national issue,’ ” said Gatsas (R). “If we don’t get our arms around it, it’s going to take over our country.” The nation is in the throes of an epidemic of prescription-drug and heroin abuse — a wave that’s leaving its mark on the 2016 presidential campaign, too. Hillary Rodham Clinton has told supporters that drug abuse and mental health will be key issues in her Democratic presidential campaign, and she launched a policy-focused outreach effort on the issue. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) recently participated in a round-table discussion at a drug treatment facility here. Republican Carly Fiorina has spoken movingly about losing a stepdaughter to addiction. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has made reforming drug laws and the criminal-justice system a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. And former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) said he learned about New Hampshire’s heroin problem while touring as a potential presidential candidate. Drug addiction and treatment are no longer problems acknowledged only with infrequent stump lines. They are driving a sustained conversation on the presidential campaign trail. And that conversation revolves around ending — not stepping up — the war on drugs. It centers on the language of addiction and treatment, on the sharing of deeply personal experiences and on calls from candidates for the criminal-justice system to be restructured to make the government’s response to illegal use less punitive. It is being driven by voters such as Pamela Livengood of Keene, N.H., who told Clinton last month that she has had to take on the care of her grandson because of drug abuse. “Grandpa and I have guardianship of him because of all the growing drug problem in our area that my grandson’s mother can’t be quite so responsible,” Livengood said carefully. “So we’ve picked it up and took over, but we also need to see more for substance abuse help in our area. There are very limited resources here.” Clinton responded that she was “really concerned because, Pam, what you just told me and I’m hearing from a lot of different people.” She described drug use as a “hidden . . . quiet epidemic,” different from the headline-grabbing phenomenon of the 1980s, that is “striking in small towns and rural areas as much as any big city.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of deaths nationwide involving heroin increased from 3,041 in 2008 to 8,260 in 2013, the most recent year for which statistics are available. In 2013, 16,235 people died from overdosing on prescription opiates; in 2008, 14,800 people died. Drug overdoses were the nation’s leading cause of injury death in 2013,according to the CDC. Among people 25 to 64, overdoses caused more deaths than traffic accidents. Here in New Hampshire, the state’s medical examiner has called heroin abuse “the Ebola of Northern New England.” New Hampshire recorded 325 drug overdose deaths last year; about 90 percent of them involved opiates, according to the medical examiner’s office. The state also has seen a rapid increase in the number of deaths from the painkiller fentanyl, which is often mixed with heroin. “I am not at all surprised that it’s coming up in community conversations around New Hampshire, because this is the community conversation that is happening in New Hampshire right now,” said Tym Rourke, chairman of the commission on alcohol and other drug abuse prevention set up by Gov. Maggie Hassan (D). Christie held a roundtable discussion last month at the Farnum Center, a drug abuse treatment facility here and relayed a story he often tells, about how a law-school classmate struggled with an addiction to prescription painkillers. The friend died in a New Jersey hotel room with an empty vodka bottle and an empty painkiller bottle. “This is a treatable problem,” Christie said. “And we need to start talking about it like an illness, not like some moral failure.” On the same trip, the New Jersey governor discussed addiction at a Manchester pizza place that had recently experienced the death of an employee from a heroin overdose. For years, Christie — a former prosecutor — has been advocating treatment over incarceration for low-level drug offenders, sometimes framing that approach as part of being “pro-life for the whole life.” In response to a surge in opioid deaths in New Jersey, Christie signed a bill in April to establish a statewide task force. He has expanded drug courts and broadened access to naloxone, a drug that can reverse the effects of an opiate overdose. Paul has made reforming drug laws one of the signature issues of his time in the Senate and in his presidential campaign, often telling audiences that the war on drugs has failed — that it has “created a culture of violence and put police in an impossible situation,” as he said in Las Vegas in April — and that low-level drug offenders should go into treatment rather than being jailed. Carly Fiorina’s stepdaughter Lori Ann Fiorina died in 2009 at age 35 after struggling for years with alcohol and drug addiction. Hours after announcing her presidential bid last month, Fiorina said the country must change the way it deals with people who are addicted to drugs. “Drug addiction shouldn’t be criminalized,” she said on a conference call. “We need to treat it appropriately.” For all the talk, there’s little yet in the way of policy plans. The first votes of the 2016 campaign are still months away, and so far, no candidate has come up with concrete proposals on how he or she would handle the epidemic from the Oval Office. Over the past week, Clinton’s campaign has started to move in that direction. Campaign advisers held Google hangouts with treatment providers, law enforcement officials and others in Iowa and New Hampshire, and Clinton asked voters to share their thoughts on and experiences with substance abuse with her in a Facebook chat. The campaign has said it will use the information to develop policy proposals. Clinton herself has spoken about addiction numerous times in New Hampshire and brought it up at a campaign event in Iowa. The former U.S. secretary of state said she had heard all over Iowa about two issues: mental illness and drugs. “The drug epidemic, meth, pills in Iowa — and then I got to New Hampshire and at my very first coffee shop meeting I heard about the heroin epidemic in New Hampshire,” Clinton said in Mason City, Iowa, last month. “This is tearing families apart, but it is below the surface. People aren’t talking about it, because it’s something that is hard to deal with.” During a stop in Davenport, Iowa, on Saturday, Clinton rival Martin O’Malley was asked by two women in the audience about the issue. Both were wearing T-shirts with a photo showing one of the women’s sons, who had died of a heroin overdose. “Sadly, many of us are becoming much more expert on the tragedy of heroin overdose deaths in our country because of what’s happened recently,” said O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, who hugged both women. O’Malley sought, with limited success, to combat the issue during his tenure as governor, which ended in January. In 2014, 578 people in Maryland died of heroin overdoses, a 25 percent increase over 2013 and more than twice the number who died from using the drug in 2010. One question Republican candidates will face — but which Clinton and O’Malley will not — is how they plan to cover addiction treatment if they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That law mandates that insurance plans make substance-abuse and mental-health treatment essential benefits. But even under the ACA, treatment is often hard to come by, and barriers to access remain. A report issued last month by the National Alliance on Mental Illness suggested that some patients are still being denied care. “The issue is, [candidates are] talking about it, but are they committed to making sure that adequate funding and services are available for these people?” said Dedric L. Doolin, senior deputy director of the Area Substance Abuse Council in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Doolin wants candidates to ensure long-term treatment will be funded. Here in Manchester, Gatsas, the mayor, said he is bringing together law enforcement officials, treatment providers and others to try to tackle the issue locally. But they will not be the only ones hearing from the mayor, who said he plans to continue to press the issue with current and prospective presidential candidates. He predicts that his constituents will, too. Candidates now “hear it even more on the stump, because people want to know, ‘What are you going to do?’ ” *Hillary's Popularity Rollercoaster <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/hillary-clintons-popularity-rollercoaster-118606.html%3Fhp=t4_r%23.VW-tv1zBzGc> // Politico // Jack Shafer – June 3, 2015 * Political journalists abhor a vacuum, especially the vacuum that forms 17 months before a presidential election, attaches itself to their brains like a sea lamprey and sucks hard. Oh, political journalists have so much to write about this distant from a general election. There are speeches to cover, fundraising numbers to chase, campaign jockeying to chronicle, backstories to collate, campaign staff rosters to collect, press management schemes to detect and vats of wonkery to fry. Such coverage is all necessary and good, but at this point even the press hounds will concede that they’re mostly barking at dust and vapor, waiting for the field to thin and for primary ballots to be cast so they can write more concretely about the race. (After all: Just how much public appetite is there for in-depth coverage of George Pataki or Lincoln Chafee?) Until then, journalists casting for something tangible to hang their thoughts upon are reaching for poll data—like the figures released this week from CNN/ORC and Washington Post/ABC News, which show Hillary Clinton’s “favorability” numbers crumbling to a 14-year-low of 46 percent. “The honeymoon is over for Hillary Clinton, according to two new polls,” reported the National Journal. “As revelations mount, Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers plunge,” proclaimed the Atlantic Journal-Constitution. The conservative press, including Breitbart and the Washington Examiner danced on the new polls. “Is Hillary ‘Likeable Enough’?” asked National Review. While glory awaits the journalist who buries Hillary Clinton, carves her tombstone and tidies her grave, the makings of her demise cannot be read in these poll results. Clinton rides a favorability rollercoaster, and has been riding it hard for the past 23 years, as the American Enterprise Institute’s Karlyn Bowman and her team demonstrate in a recent analysis of Clinton polling data. As an infographic they produced indicates, Clinton favorability numbers vary with the role she’s playing. Her numbers grew steadily in the campaign year of 1992 and higher still when she became First Lady in 1993. First ladies, notes Bowman, “generally receive positive marks.” But Clinton’s numbers suffered whenever she stepped outside of the traditional First Lady function to join the policy and politics tussle (the healthcare debate) or became attached to White House “scandals” (Travelgate, Whitewater, Lewinsky, et al.). As a U.S. senator (2001-2009), Clinton’s numbers varied much less, dropping some during her 2008 run for president. Then came her secretary of state years (2009-2013), when she exuded diplomacy and did her soaring best in the polls. Her numbers descended again as she became identified with the Benghazi attack in 2013. How to best interpret Clinton’s latest decline? When asked to rate Hillary Clinton on a favorable-unfavorable continuum, it has usually mattered to respondents what Clinton’s duties were. Now that she’s running for president, it’s predictable that some of the respondents who liked Clinton enough to give her a favorable rating when she was a self-effacing, team-playing diplomat might not like her enough to give her a favorable rating when they view her as a private citizen prepping a presidential candidacy. (This timeline from the Pew Research Center ties Clinton career “milestones” to her favorability ups and downs.) Clinton’s numbers could easily go lower, of course, given the twin backdrops of the email controversy and the Clinton Foundation coverage. Also, in the coming months, as the Republican field winnows out, the remaining candidates will increase the frequency of their attacks on Clinton, their most credible opponent on the Democratic side, and lower her favorability still more. But it’s hard to imagine a favorability-ratings veteran like Hillary Clinton panicking at this week’s or next week’s numbers. As the wise man once said, Clinton operates in glacial time, and has the patience to build support—and favorability—as the campaign throttles up. She has almost 30 years of hand-on experience handling political calamities and downturns. Plus, as low as her favorability ratings have dropped, they’re still about 15-to-20 percentage points higher than several of her Republican opponents. It’s always easier for a politician to survive a trough when she has so much experience living on the crest. *Hillary Clinton is Too Liberal for Bill Clinton <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/democrats-too-liberal-for-bill-clinton-118555.html?ml=m_pm#.VW8LklzBzGc> // Politico // Alan Greenblatt – June 2, 2015* The biggest irony of the 2016 campaign is Hillary Clinton running as the sort of liberal Bill Clinton once ran against. The Democratic party has moved too far left to accept the former president, or at least the version of Bill Clinton that dominated Democratic politics back in the 1990s. The overarching project of his political career was to pull the party back toward the center. Barney Frank recalls, while Clinton was in office, getting no response to a letter he'd sent to "The Democratic President of the United States" because the post office classified it as "addressee unknown." Within a few years of Clinton's reign, politicians such as Paul Wellstone and Howard Dean began to refer to themselves as representatives of the "Democratic wing" of the Democratic Party. To succeed today, Hillary Clinton—like any national Democrat—must win over that wing. But doing so will encourage Republicans to paint her as too beholden to the party's liberal, urban, heavily minority base. If those attacks succeed and she loses, it will be back to the future for the GOP. That line of attack is why Bill Clinton self-consciously sought to ditch the losing liberal policies of the party's previous presidential nominees, such as Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale. Democrats lost five out of the six presidential elections between 1968 and 1988, going 0-for-3 by the time Clinton ran in 1992. There was a lot of talk at the time about the GOP holding a "lock" on the Electoral College. Clinton and other so-called New Democrats thought they could regain voter trust by taking a tougher line on social and spending issues. Hillary Clinton is doing the opposite. She is being dragged left by younger voters and minority groups, who make up essential elements of today's Democratic coalition and tend to favor federal solutions more readily, according to polls, than older, whiter voters. The party's votes now overwhelmingly come from big cities, territory in which Democratic mayors such as Bill De Blasio in New York and Eric Garcetti in Los Angeles have made addressing income inequality central to their mission through measures such as lifting the minimum wage and building more affordable housing. President Obama, having grown convinced that Republicans intend to give him nothing, responded to the GOP's big victory last fall by making deals with Cuba and Iran and moving left on issues such as immigration, free community college and paid family leave. (Unpaid family leave was one of President Clinton's earliest legislative accomplishments.) It all shows how far the party, and the Clintons, have come. The most resonant phrases from Bill Clinton's day—aside from the sex stuff—were the exact opposite of any progressive call to arms, such as "end welfare as we know it" and "the era of big government is over." But the era of big government being over—if that chime ever indeed did sound—is long since done. Put aside the expansions of federal programs that took place under Obama and George W. Bush. Although Obama and some other Democrats were willing to entertain thoughts a few years ago of trimming Social Security as part of a bigger budget deal, pledging to preserve or even expand the program has once again become a litmus test for party officials. As president, Bill Clinton not only signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (an act for which he has since repented). He also signed a welfare law that cut off immigrants from receiving many benefits. Legal immigrants. Imagine any national Democrat agreeing to either of those things today. "They've moved left partly because they've won," says Lara Brown, a political scientist at George Washington University. "Parties typically go as far toward their core ideology as they can, as long as they keep winning." President Clinton did champion many progressive causes, including universal health care (a botched effort run by Hillary Clinton), gun control and expansion of the earned-income tax credit, an anti-poverty program Clinton himself wished had a zippier brand name. But Clinton also argued that by melding liberal principles and conservative ideas, voters who had written off the Democratic Party would again listen to its message, which remained broadly populist on economic matters. Clinton believed Democrats had to shed any lingering hippie image and talk tough on crime. When still the governor of Arkansas, Clinton left the campaign trail in 1992 to preside over the execution of a cop killer who was mentally impaired. He also went out of his way to distance himself from civil rights leader Jesse Jackson—his "Sister Souljah moment." Triangulation (remember that?) wasn't just about Clinton positioning himself to the left of old-line liberals. He picked the Republicans' pockets on their most popular issues, forcing them out alone on a limb to defend their most extreme positions. "Back when he ran in 1992, my party, the Democratic Party, had lost three consecutive elections, one of them in which we carried only one state," says Evan Bayh, a former governor and senator from Indiana who, like Clinton, enjoyed success in the 1990s by seeking the center. "Any time a party has lost three consecutive elections, it becomes a bit more willing to explore the notion of principled compromise so it's able to pursue some of its objectives.” Barney Frank, the liberal former congressman from Massachusetts, makes this point explicitly in his recent memoir. "At the time, many on the left believed he was 'too moderate,'" Frank writes. "In the political climate of the times, I continued to believe that Bill Clinton was the most liberal electable president." *Concerns about Clinton records dates back to her tenure at State <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/politics/hillary-clinton-records-state-department/index.html> // CNN // Laura Koran – June 3, 2015* Officials at the National Archives and Records Administration -- the agency tasked with managing official government records -- were in touch with the State Department about plans to preserve former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's records shortly before she left that office, newly released emails reveal. The emails were obtained by CNN through a Freedom of Information Act request submitted to NARA in March, shortly after it was revealed that the former secretary exclusively used a personal email server while in office, preventing many from being archived until she ultimately submitted them to the Department. One email in particular shows that concerns were raised two and a half years ago that any retention of documents on Clinton's part could create controversy. "Before I forget," Chief Records Officer for U.S. Government Paul Wester told two of his colleagues in December 2012, "when we meet later this week we need to discuss what we know, and how we should delicately go about learning more about, regarding the transition plans for Secretary Clinton's departure from State." Wester then refers to someone identified only as Tom who, "heard (or thought he heard) from the Clinton Library Director that there are or may be plans afoot for taking her records from State to Little Rock." "Tom then got to asking questions about what we are doing to make sure everyone leaving the Administration does not leave with Federal records," the email continues. Ultimately, Wester says he spoke with Tom and explained how previous administrations have handled records retention and how NARA is seeking to clarify their guidance ahead of the upcoming inauguration when some high level officials planned to leave the administration. He also says he told Tom copies of records can sometimes be kept in an approved way, citing the example of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill used records to work on his memoir, "to illustrate how 'walking off with the records' is sometimes not really 'walking off with the records.'" Nevertheless, Tom (and another individual referred to only as Jay) appeared concerned, Wester said. "Tom seemed to understand all of this, but he and Jay continued to invoke the specter of the Henry Kissinger experience vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton," Wester said, referring to a controversy surrounding former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's decision to hold on to his official records. There are several redactions in this and other emails obtained by CNN. Clinton ultimately retained her emails on a private server until they were requested by the State Department late last year. She and her staff then turned over 55,000 pages of emails, keeping those they deemed irrelevant to her time in office. The emails obtained by CNN also illustrate how officials at NARA came to learn of the Clinton controversy after they were reached out to by staff on a congressional committee, then a few days later by New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt, who broke the story in March. After speaking with Schmidt, NARA's General Counsel Gary Stern wrote to other NARA officials to explain the details of the story and their conversation. "This case, if true, would present a concern," he writes, "although it may be the case that the State Department has already taken appropriate action to recover the records." *Axelrod: Clinton “Hurt” By Only Doing “Sporadic” Events, Challenge Is For Her To Take “Risks” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/axelrod-clinton-hurt-by-only-doing-sporadic-events-challenge#.obnKlXLeN> // Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski & Megan Apper – June 3, 2015 * Former Obama strategist David Axelrod says Hillary Clinton’s “sporadic” campaign appearances are hurting her candidacy. Axelrod added that Clinton will have a problem unless she gets into the “routine of campaigning.” “I thinks she’s being hurt right now by her sporadic appearances, you want to be the regular routine of campaigning and it’s important that she gets there and gets there quickly,” Axelrod told ABC Wisconsin-affiliate WISN Tuesday. “If she does, I think all of this will be forgotten. I think if she continues in this fashion it will be a problem.” Axelrod was in Milwaukee to speak about his new book at a Marquette University Law School forum. Speaking the event, he said it was likely she would be the nominee, although “inevitability” is a burden for her in 2016. “The high likelihood is that Hillary will be the nominee but having said that I think inevitability is not her friend,” Axelrod told a crowd at the school. “I think it’s a real burden.” Axelrod said he saw “two Hillary Clintons” during the 2008 race: one that was cautious and one that was “a very effective candidate.” “I saw two Hillary Clintons in 2007, 2008. In 2007 she was kind of constrained in this straight jacket of inevitability and she carried that inevitability around like a porcelain vase and she was very cautious, unadventuresome, unrevealing,” Axelrod said. “And then she lost the Iowa Caucuses and she became a different candidate. She threw all that caution away. She was much more revealing of herself, much more connecting with other people, much more of an advocate than she had been. In my view, a very effective candidate. It was just too late.” Axelrod questioned if Clinton was once again following the “temptation to be cautious.” “The question she’ll have to answer is which candidate is she going to be in 2016 because once again there’s this veil of inevitability and there’s a temptation to be cautious,” he said. “You have to take some risks along the way,” added Axelrod. “I think that’s the challenge for her if she’s gonna go all the way but I think she certainly has a chance to do that.” *Hillary Clinton’s honesty problem* <http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/243844-hillary-clintons-honesty-problem>* // The Hill // Niall Stanage – June 3, 2015* Is it possible to win the White House if more than half the electorate thinks you’re dishonest? Hillary Clinton may yet put that question to the test. It’s not the kind of challenge any candidate would relish, but two new polls released on Tuesday underlined the presidential hopeful’s difficulty in persuading the public of her integrity. Both those polls found Clinton deep underwater when voters were asked whether they viewed her as honest and trustworthy. An ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52 percent of people answering “no” to that question, compared to 41 percent who expressed trust in Clinton. A CNN poll made even grimmer reading for the former secretary of State. It found 57 percent of adults asserting that Clinton is not honest or trustworthy, and only 42 percent saying that she is. Those figures were enough to send a shiver down some Democrats’ spines. “We’re about 30 to 60 days away from real nervousness, if not panic, in the Democratic establishment,” said one strategist who declined to be named, citing a fear of retribution by Clinton loyalists. The strategist argued that Clinton’s campaign has consistently underestimated the damage that has been wreaked by negative stories about donations to the Clinton Foundation and the former secretary’s use of a private email account while at State. “There is this attitude that this is something that the media or the right-wing are fixated on, and they are missing the bigger dynamic here,” the strategist said of the Clinton campaign. “The bottom line here is that there is this pervasive belief that the story is going to go away and they can mitigate this with silence. And it ain’t working.” The Clinton campaign contends that the candidate’s low numbers are symptomatic of a general distrust of political figures. Campaign officials believe the higher ratings Clinton enjoyed at the State Department were bound to slide as she returned to partisan politics. Further, they assert that her policies will, over time, foster a different, more important kind of trust among voters. Observers who follow every political twist and turn might imagine that opinions of Clinton would be hard to change, for good or bad, given that she has now been a top player on the national political stage for a quarter-century. The polling figures do not bear that out, however. In the past year, the former first lady’s polling numbers on the “honesty” question have flipped. One year before Tuesday’s ABC News/Post poll showing her 11 points underwater on the issue, the same organization found her with a net positive of 11 points, with 53 percent of those polled thinking of her as trustworthy versus 42 percent saying she was not. When CNN/ORC asked the question in a March 2014 survey, 56 percent said Clinton was honest, while 43 percent disagreed — a net positive of 13 points. Today her standing on the question in the equivalent poll is a net negative of 15 points. Republicans see those figures as little more than an increased public acceptance of what they have long believed to be true. “She is paranoid, she is ethically squirrelly and she believes there are two sets of standards: one for the Clintons and one for everyone else,” said GOP strategist Rick Wilson. Wilson was buoyed by what he considered fresh evidence of the shallowness of Clinton’s support. “She is always ‘inevitable’ right up until the moment she is no longer inevitable,” he said. Independent observers don’t believe the situation is quite so dire for Clinton. They note that she has often performed worse on questions of honesty and likability than on other metrics such as having strong leadership skills. “It’s certainly not good news but these are not necessarily the kind of numbers that make a candidate unelectable,” said Peter Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. An April Quinnipiac poll in three swing states — Colorado, Iowa and Virginia — showed the same weakness for Clinton on the honesty question, most conspicuously in Colorado, where a startling 56 percent of voters viewed Clinton as dishonest versus only 38 percent who saw her as honest. But, Brown notes, “We have elected presidents who voters did not necessarily like.” Others, including journalist Ron Brownstein, have pointed out that exit polls from the 1996 presidential election showed that 54 percent of voters did not view President Clinton as honest or trustworthy. He won handily regardless. But a related question is whether a distrust of Hillary Clinton would stymie her efforts to maximize Democratic turnout. “Her husband transcended numbers like this and it’s not crazy to think that she can as well, especially because American politics is so partisan now,” said Kyle Kondik of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents may not think Clinton is very trustworthy, but they’re going to like her a heck of a lot more than any Republican. Clinton’s main concern is getting those voters to show up.” Still, right now, some Democrats just want to see evidence that the decline in personal trust in Clinton can be stopped before it becomes a larger problem. “At some point they are going to have to address this head-on, publicly,” the Democratic strategist said, “and the clock on that is beginning to tick loudly.” *Democrats Wage a National Fight Over Voter Rules <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/politics/democrats-voter-rights-lawsuit-hillary-clinton.html?ref=us> // NYT // Maggie Haberman & Amy Chozick – June 3, 2015 * Democrats allied with Hillary Rodham Clinton are mounting a nationwide legal battle 17 months before the 2016 presidential election, seeking to roll back Republican-enacted restrictions on voter access that Democrats say could, if unchallenged, prove decisive in a close campaign. The Democrats began last month with lawsuits filed in Ohio and Wisconsin, presidential battleground states whose governors are likely to run for the Republican nomination themselves. Now, they are most likely going to attack a host of measures. They include voter identification requirements that Democrats consider onerous, time restrictions imposed on early voting that they say could make it difficult to cast ballots the weekend before Election Day, and rules that could nullify ballots cast in the wrong precinct. The effort, which is being spearheaded by a lawyer whose clients include Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, reflects an urgent practical need, Democrats say: to get litigation underway early enough so that federal judges can be persuaded to intervene in states where Republicans control legislatures and governor’s offices. A similar lawsuit was begun last year in North Carolina. Other potential fronts in the pre-emptive legal offensive, Democrats say, could soon be opened in Georgia, Nevada and the increasingly critical presidential proving ground of Virginia. Almost all of those states have growing African-American or Hispanic populations, groups crucial to Mr. Obama in 2012 but whose voting rights Democrats say could be impinged next year, damaging the party’s prospects. Democrats seeking office at every level in 2016 could gain if lawsuits in their states are successful. But Mrs. Clinton, who has a wide lead in public polls, is certain to benefit if she is the party’s nominee. On Thursday, Mrs. Clinton will tackle the issue of ballot access head-on in an address at Texas Southern University, a historically black college in Houston. She is expected to condemn the Supreme Court’s 2013 rulingstriking down an important provision of the Voting Rights Act, which opened the way for states to pass laws requiring voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls. Mrs. Clinton is also expected to single out laws in Texas and in North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin, which voting rights groups say limit participation, especially among minorities, the poor and younger voters who disproportionately cast their ballots for Democrats. Her speech, which is expected to be similar in scope and tenor to her remarks about overhauling the criminal justice system, will tie voting rights into the broader civil rights strife that has erupted over the recent deaths of several unarmed black men at the hands of white police officers, aides said. For Mrs. Clinton, such speeches can do much to reinforce her liberal credentials while reassuring black voters who supported Mr. Obama that she is on their side. In the same way, even if the lawsuits are unsuccessful, Democratic strategists say, they serve an important political purpose for Democrats by highlighting Republicans’ responsibility for the statutes being challenged. Democrats will also remind the party’s base that Republicans have tried to mobilize their own core voters by warning, as Mitt Romney did in 2012, against the possibility of widespread voter fraud by Democrats. Both those points could help fire up minority leaders and voters, Democratic strategists say. Republicans, however, argue that the lawsuits are a transparent ruse aimed at energizing minority voters, whom Mrs. Clinton badly needs to turn out in numbers similar to those Mr. Obama drew in his 2012 re-election. “I think it has been a growing trend in the last 10 years for campaigns to use litigation like this as a campaign weapon,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a Republican election law expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “The claims that they keep making, that this is going to depress turnout, just keep proving to be not true, and many of these issues have already been litigated.” According to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, there are 14 states with new voter laws in place for the first time in a national race. The lawsuits filed in Ohio and Wisconsin, like the 2014 North Carolina case, were brought by Marc Elias, a leading Democratic lawyer on voter protection issues who represents four of the party’s national campaign committees. Mr. Elias is also the general counsel for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, and her aides have spoken favorably of the lawsuits. The lawsuits are typically filed on behalf of people who say they have been, or could be, disenfranchised. In the Ohio case, a black pastor is among the plaintiffs. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is not a party to the lawsuits, although her aides have said her team supports them. People involved in the actions have refused to say who was paying for them. But Mr. Elias suggested that the litigation was simply common sense. “We should all want to ensure that all eligible voters can exercise their right to vote and have their vote counted,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that some Republicans see a benefit in making it harder for people to vote.” Since the election fight in 2000 between George W. Bush and Al Gore, court battles have become a routine and increasingly strategic component of presidential campaigns. The new round of lawsuits is occurring relatively early and is a more preventive effort than in past election cycles, experts say. More broadly, the legal campaign is shaping up as something of a delayed Democratic response to the Republican takeovers of a number of governorships and legislatures in the same states after the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009 and 2010, as well as to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act in 2013. As a result of both changes, a series of stringent state laws were enacted in some of those states that Democrats say are intended to curtail voting by important segments of Mr. Obama’s political coalition, African-American and younger voters in particular. Donna Brazile, the campaign manager for Mr. Gore in the 2000 presidential race and a member of a Democratic National Committee task force that was formed after the party’s disastrous losses in 2014, said she and Mr. Elias had for months been sounding an alarm within the party about voting-rights conditions in a number of states. Instead of idling, she said, Democrats had to “proactively” seek changes in states where voter protections might be changed, whether through litigation or legislation. Republicans have used such laws for mobilization purposes of their own, denouncing voter fraud as they appeal to an increasingly conservative party base. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, for example, has repeatedly boasted to Republicans across the country about having enacted tougher voting laws in his state. “Any measure that protects our democracy by making it easier to vote and harder to cheat is a step in the right direction,” said Kirsten Kukowski, a spokeswoman for Mr. Walker. “This is a bipartisan issue, and Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are on the wrong side.” Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, called the Democratic lawsuits “long shots,” saying that so-called voter protection lawsuits had often failed in the courts. “In terms of success, some of these things are a stretch,” he said. Mr. Elias emphasized that the seeds of the Ohio and Wisconsin suits had been planted before Mrs. Clinton was a candidate. Mr. Elias and Robby Mook, now Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, began collaborating on voter-protection efforts last year, before it was clear she would run or that they would be involved, people briefed on their work said. But their efforts now — whether parallel or in concert — involve much higher stakes. Unlike Mr. Obama, who could rely on a much wealthier Democratic National Committee to pursue voter registration for several years leading up to his re-election campaign, the party’s standard-bearer this time will have no such backup: The national committee has struggled financially of late and has largely outsourced its registration efforts to nonprofit groups. That means Mrs. Clinton, if she is nominated, may have to compensate for underwhelming efforts to register voters by maximizing the ability of existing Democratic voters to cast their ballots. As Mrs. Clinton prepares to head to Texas Southern University, where she will receive an award named for the former congresswoman and civil rights leader Barbara Jordan, some Democrats see voter protections as a safe topic for her to explore at this stage of the campaign, one that will not turn off voters she needs in a general election. But Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center and a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, said the subject was riskier than it might seem. “There’s been such a hotly contested wave of new laws that it’s not such a safe issue anymore,” said Mr. Waldman. “It’s not just something for Fourth of July orations.” *Clinton to propose at least 20 days of early voting in every <http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/06/03/hillary-clinton-early-voting/> state // USA Today // David Jackson – June 3, 2015* Hillary Clinton plans to use a voting rights speech Thursday in Texas to call for an early voting period of at least 20 days in every state, her presidential campaign says. Clinton also plans to criticize what Democrats call Republican efforts to restrict voting — especially for African Americans and Latinos — through devices like voter identification laws. “This is, I think, a moment when we should be expanding the franchise,” Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta tells The Washington Post. “What we see in state after state is this effort by conservatives to restrict the right to vote.” Clinton is slated to deliver her voting rights speech at Texas Southern University in Houston. *Hillary Clinton to Attack G.O.P. Rivals on Voting Rights <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/03/hillary-clinton-to-attack-g-o-p-rivals-on-voting-rights/?_r=0> // NYT // Amy Chozick – June 3, 2015 * Hillary Clinton will accuse some of her Republican rivals on Thursday of supporting a spate of new state voting laws that threatened the democratic process merely for their own political gain, her campaign said Wednesday. In a speech at the historically black Texas Southern University in Houston, Mrs. Clinton will propose a series of voter-protection policies, including ensuring greater access to online voter registration, reducing wait times at voting precincts and setting a nationwide early voting standard of at least 20 days before an election. She will also underscore her support for allowing ex-felons to vote. Mrs. Clinton will also call on Congress to reenact parts of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court struck down in 2013, according to an outline of her speech provided to reporters on Wednesday. It will be one of her most substantive and sharply political events since Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy for president in April. For the most part, her campaign stops have included orchestrated round-table policy discussions with a handful of voters in early nominating states — not in-depth policy proposals or fiery political attacks. In a sharpening of her partisan edge, Mrs. Clinton will also single out some of her potential Republican rivals, including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, and former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, whose states have enacted laws that impose additional requirements on voters. Mrs. Clinton will present a state-by-state critique of new voting laws in states across the country that require voters to present government-issued identification, an effort that voting rights activists say disproportionately hurts minority and young voters, groups that tend to vote Democratic. *Hillary Clinton Works For The Support Of An Old Ally: The Teachers Union <http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-works-for-the-support-of-an-old-ally-the-tea#.xvJ6qzDk0> // Buzzfeed // Ruby Cramer – June 3, 2015 * Three Democratic candidates each traveled to Washington this week to court the endorsement of the American Federation of Teachers — and after taking part in the hour-long meetings, the thing that stood out most to Randi Weingarten, the union, president, was this: Hillary Clinton knew what she was doing. The other two, Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders, maybe less so. The AFT meetings, which took place over the course of Tuesday and Wednesday, may offer Clinton the possibility of an early, influential endorsement from the major teachers union that endorsed her in the 2008 presidential race. Weingarten herself is close to and has supported Clinton for years. She sits on the board of Priorities USA Action, the super PAC raising millions to support her candidacy. On matters of education policy, according to Weingarten, Clinton engaged the group with noticeably more depth and granular detail than her competitors. It was, she said, the most striking difference between the three candidates, particularly on the set of issues that have created fissures inside the Democratic Party, including testing, teacher evaluations in tenure decisions, and Common Core. “Both in terms of the presentation as well as the questions, Secretary Clinton was clearly understood and spoke in great depth,” said Weingarten. “The members of the board did not ask Sen. Sanders or Gov. O’Malley as many questions about public education. I don’t frankly…” Weingarten paused. “I really don’t… Let me just observe that it was interesting. I don’t really want to draw a conclusion about it.” Weingarten said that all three candidates — Clinton; Sanders, the U.S. senator from Vermont; and O’Malley, the former Maryland governor of Maryland — voiced strong support for public school teachers. But Clinton “talked so granularly about the issues that people felt a freedom to ask follow-up questions,” she said. The three meetings, hosted at AFT’s headquarters, were each attended by about 150 union members, around one third of whom are on the group’s executive council. Each of the candidates gave brief introductory remarks before answering questions from the audience. The conversation with Clinton, O’Malley, and Sanders touched on five key areas, said Weingarten: the “imbalance in the economy,” public education, health care, retirement security, and the democracy. The AFT effort to engage the candidates marked the first formal endorsement meeting of its kind by a union or interest group in the 2016 Democratic primary. The meetings were not open to the media. But in an interview on Wednesday evening, Weingarten described AFT’s endorsement process and outlined in broad strokes each candidate’s message. She declined to elaborate on any shades of difference in policy or position between Clinton, O’Malley, and Sanders. Prior to the meetings, the candidates each completed a policy-focused questionnaire, which AFT leadership began preparing in collaboration with its members in February. The attendees on Tuesday and Wednesday formulated their questions for the three Democrats — which were not prescreened — having reviewed their responses to the questionnaire. AFT plans to use the documents, as well as taped video from the three meetings this week, during the election. AFT also invited Republican candidates to participate in the same process. None acknowledged receipt of the questionnaire, according to Weingarten. Lincoln Chafee, the former Republican and Independent from Rhode Island who announced his presidential campaign on Wednesday as a Democrat, declined to participate, telling AFT officials his record could speak for itself, Weingarten said. Asked about her past support for Clinton in relation to AFT’s endorsement, Weingarten said it wouldn’t be an issue, noting that some of her colleagues had relationships with O’Malley and Sanders: “I’m one person on the board.” Since she launched her campaign in April, Clinton has not discussed the finer points of her positions on a number of policies important to teachers unions. (She is expected to outline a more detailed agenda following her formal campaign launch speech on June 13 on New York’s Roosevelt Island.) The AFT backed Clinton over Barack Obama in October 2007. The largest teachers union, National Education Association, did not endorse a candidate in the 2008 Democratic primary, though the union did back Obama’s re-election. Eight years later, however, Clinton may face more pressure from a share of the Democratic Party, and donor community, that has fought unions for more charter schools, voucher programs, and measures that test teachers and link tenure to achievement. Wealthy Democrats who have made education their top priority have already said that Clinton, despite her lead in early polling, should make her beliefs known sooner rather than later. Ann O’Leary, the campaign’s top policy adviser, told the New York Times earlier this year that Clinton would be engaging with leaders on both sides of the debate more than Obama administration has: “both the teachers union and the reformers will really feel like they have her ear in a way they haven’t.” But Weingarten said she wasn’t worried. The union leader was head of the New York-based United Federation of Teachers when she first backed Clinton, then the state’s junior senator. Weingarten dismissed the donors, saying Clinton “follows the evidence, not ideology — that’s what she told our members.” Asked to detail Clinton’s stance on the issues discussed, Weingarten said the candidate “addressed issues of testing, of standards, and she did it in a very direct way. She basically said, which was the bottom line over and over again, you cannot help students, virtually all students, if teachers aren’t our partners.” Weingarten said Clinton signaled a need for “a change in that direction.” But she added that, when it comes to AFT’s endorsement, the union will take into account characteristics such as “tenacity,” “openness,” and “integrity.” “As people are on the campaign trail, they’ll be more and more specific about policies,” Weingarten said. “The different was, Secretary Clinton spoke in a very extensive way about policies and practices that would help more and more children be ready for life and career and college — and that there was a depth there in terms of the conversation that she had. That was the big difference.” The topic of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, another issue dividing the Democratic Party, also came up in each of the three meetings. Weingarten said that Clinton’s comments to the AFT members were consistent with her public remarks on the issue: that she would support a trade deal that protects U.S. workers and wages, and strengthens national security, but would not weigh in on this trade deal until the president finished the negotiations that are still shaping its makeup. *Democrats finally get a contest as Hillary Clinton draws challengers <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-finally-get-a-contest-as-hillary-clinton-draws-challengers/2015/06/03/95fefaea-0a12-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html> // WaPo // Philip Rucker, Robert Costa & Anne Gearan – June 3, 2015 * A once-sleepy Democratic presidential primary contest is fast coming alive as Hillary Rodham Clinton’s poll numbers fall and a diverse array of long-shot opponents step forward to challenge her. The recent developments mark a dramatic evolution in the 2016 sweepstakes, which until now has been shaped by the large assortment of hopefuls on the Republican side, where there is no front-runner. The latest Democrat to enter the race is Lincoln Chafee, a onetime Republican and former Rhode Island governor and senator, who launched his campaign Wednesday in Northern Virginia. Though his candidacy is quixotic, Chafee’s sharp attacks on Clinton’s hawkish foreign policy record — and in particular her 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq — could nonetheless complicate her march to the nomination. Chafee joins an underfunded and jumbled field of Clinton rivals who see the favorite’s coziness with Wall Street and political longevity as weaknesses and who think she is vulnerable to a grass-roots contender who better captures the party’s liberal soul. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a fiery populist who identifies as a socialist, has been attracting some of the largest crowds of any candidate from either party as he summons supporters to join his “political revolution.” Another foe, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, is making an overt generational contrast: His campaign slogan is “New Leadership.” And former senator Jim Webb of Virginia has echoed Chafee’s antiwar pitch as he explores a candidacy. The activity has brought fresh attention to the fault lines within the Democratic coalition over economic fairness and foreign policy. At Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters, the mantra has been to prepare for a difficult primary and compete for every vote in every state. Her team has carefully crafted a summer rollout — a June 13 kickoff rally followed by major policy speeches — to cast Clinton as a progressive champion. On Thursday, for instance, Clinton will give a speech on voting rights at a historically black college in Texas, where she will call for an early voting period of at least 20 days in every state. Her address comes as Democrats pursue legal challenges to voting restrictions ushered in by Republican legislatures. “We’ve always thought there would be challengers,” Clinton campaign chairman John D. ­Podesta said in an interview Wednesday. “There were always going to be people saying she wasn’t this enough, wasn’t that enough, wasn’t populist enough.” He added: “Our strategy at the moment is to welcome them into the race and lay out our program versus theirs. . . . There will be debates. These candidates will get their airtime. But what we’re focused on is telling her story, what her vision for the country is.” Polls show that Clinton’s popularity is foundering with her reemergence as a political candidate, effectively erasing the bipartisan approval she enjoyed as secretary of state. More Americans said they held an unfavorable opinion of Clinton than a favorable one, 49 percent to 45 percent, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll this week. Among independent voters, the figure is worse: 55 percent unfavorable to 39 percent favorable. Republicans are pleased to see Clinton’s popularity coming down to earth. “Clearly, whatever political capital that Hillary Clinton had previously enjoyed as secretary of state has atrophied,” said pollster Neil Newhouse, who is likely to work for Right to Rise, the pro-Jeb Bush super PAC. Still, Clinton is trouncing the rest of the Democratic field by every measure, including in money raised and in the depth of her organization. Her campaign has opened nine field offices in Iowa, which hosts the first presidential caucuses. This week’s Post-ABC poll showed Clinton leading the Democratic pack at 62 percent. Vice President Biden, who has not formally ruled out a candidacy, was second with 14 percent, followed by Sanders at 10 percent. Paul Begala, an adviser to the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, predicted that the race will tighten. “The day she announced, the polls had her at like a million percent,” Begala said. “She needed to print that out, put it in a scrapbook and give it to baby Charlotte, because it will never be this good again.” Clinton is showing political fragility in some areas, including on character attributes. Fifty-two percent of those polled said she was not honest and trustworthy. Clinton’s advisers attribute this to intense media scrutiny. They argue that a more accurate barometer of her standing is the question of empathy. Asked whether she “understands the problems of people like you,” 49 percent said she did and 46 percent said she did not. Anastasia Rave, 26, a retail manager in Beaufort, N.C., was among those polled. A Democratic-leaning independent, Rave said she would support Clinton over any Republican candidate — but she remains uneasy. “I don’t think that her attempts to act like she understands the everyday working person are genuine,” Rave said. “I don’t really buy it.” The Clinton response is to give speeches on issues such as college affordability in an effort to show her as compassionate toward the middle class. “The real trust issue in the election will be who voters trust to look out for them,” said pollster Geoff Garin of Priorities USA. To Democrats who are fretting, Ed Rendell, a former Pennsylvania governor and a Clinton booster, has a blunt message: “Man up.” “No matter who the candidate was — if Moses or Jesus or Muhammad came back — there would be time periods when they were considered untrustworthy by the public,” Rendell said. “If you’re not convinced that Hillary’s a lights-out candidate, tell me who is?” A swelling number of liberal activists, however, see Sanders as the answer. The boisterous crowds that have greeted his road show in the two weeks since he launched his campaign have surprised even his longtime advisers. With his Brooklyn-accented barbs about what he believes is the alarming power of corporate America, Sanders sees a path to defeating Clinton. While Clinton is flanked by aides and Secret Service agents at controlled events, Sanders revels in rowdy town hall meetings and wanders through crowds wearing a rumpled suit and with unruly white hair. “I don’t want to get too socialist about it, but I’d describe it as communal,” said Sanders political consultant Tad Devine. Sanders has instructed his inner circle to concentrate on the economy rather than Clinton’s Iraq vote, even though that is one front where their records differ. “We don’t want a campaign about something that happened 12 or 13 years ago,” Devine said. “It’s got to be about the next 10.” But Iraq is a centerpiece of Chafee’s appeal to Democrats. “It’s heartbreaking that more of my colleagues failed to do their homework,” Chafee said Wednesday as he announced his candidacy at George Mason University. “And incredibly, the neocon proponents of the war who sold us on the false premise of weapons of mass destruction are still key advisers to a number of presidential candidates today.” He added later: “Including the main Democratic candidate.” Chafee’s approach is reminiscent of how then-Sen. Barack Obama used Clinton’s Iraq vote to drive a wedge between her and antiwar Democrats in 2008. Clinton has since disavowed the vote, and some supporters believe the war is no longer a central concern for voters. “When I ran [in 2004], it was a different party and frightened about the war,” said former Vermont governor Howard Dean, a Clinton backer. O’Malley, 52, is offering himself as a youthful alternative to Clinton palatable to all wings of the party, while also railing against “the privileged and the powerful” as he said this past weekend. O’Malley and his associates are targeting those who tried unsuccessfully to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to run. A super PAC supporting O’Malley said Wednesday that it will soon purchase a round of television ads in Iowa highlighting his willingness to battle Wall Street, though a spokesman said the initial buy is a modest $25,000. “There is a real hunger for economic populism. O’Malley is speaking to that,” said George Appleby, O’Malley’s state chairman in Iowa. He called Sanders “honorable and interesting” but said that “I’d be very surprised if Democrats nominated a 73-year-old man.” *Clinton pollster downplays Hillary's sinking poll numbers <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-joel-benenson-poll-numbers-118590.html#ixzz3c1edS5vH> // Politico // Nick Gass – June 3, 2015 * Hillary Clinton’s pollster, in a rare appearance on CNN Wednesday, downplayed reports in POLITICO and elsewhere noting the candidate’s sinking polling numbers. “We think there’s been a minimal change,” said Joel Benenson, who also worked as a senior strategist for President Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Benenson said he takes all public polls with a grain of salt, reminding host Wolf Blitzer that CNN’s poll put President Barack Obama in a dead heat with Republican challenger Mitt Romney in the days leading up to the 2012 election. Blitzer said the polls carry a margin of error and show trends and perspective at a particular time. “We’re not going to get hung up on margin of error. It’s not a term I’ve ever shared with a client,” Benenson responded. In particular, Blitzer made reference to the CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday that found a majority of American adults do not find the former secretary of state honest or trustworthy. Additionally, just 47 percent of respondents said Clinton “cares about people like me,” compared with 52 percent who said she does not. Clinton still has the edge over her opponents on that score, the pollster responded. “I don’t want to debate you over your poll. You want to treat it as the gold standard. I don’t think that’s what it is,” Benenson said. “If you look at the metric for ‘who cares about people like me,’ Hillary Clinton has a six-to-20-point advantage over all of her opponents, and that’s going to be the way the voters are going to view this, through the prism of ‘who’s going to be working harder for me?,’ ‘who can I trust to get me and my family ahead?’ That’s what’s central to their lives,” he added. In her campaign materials and appearances, Clinton has said she wants to be a “champion” for “everyday Americans.” Benenson said “it remains to be seen” how much the campaign will make use of Bill Clinton, expressing the desire that the former president would be available as much as he could. “He’s obviously very passionate” about his wife’s candidacy, Benenson told Blitzer, calling the former president “a forceful and skillful advocate” for Democrats and touting his ability to bring issues home to voters. As for media gripes about Clinton’s lack of availability, Benenson said there will be “ample time” for more face-to-face interactions in the coming months as preparations ramp up in early-state primaries. “I understand that people in the media want this to be a sprint every day, but the truth is the presidential campaign is a marathon,” he said. *The Beltway’s Clinton derangement syndrome: What I saw inside a Hillary campaign briefing <http://www.salon.com/2015/06/02/the_beltways_clinton_derangement_syndrome_what_i_saw_inside_a_hillary_campaign_briefing/> // Salon // Joan Walsh – June 3, 2015 * So I attended that now-infamous briefing with Clinton campaign officials in Brooklyn last Thursday. I wasn’t going to write about it. No news was broken. Still, I learned some things I could see myself using along the way. It was a snapshot; here’s what senior officials thought about the race six weeks in, and seven months from the first caucuses in Iowa. I knew it was set up to give increasingly restless Clinton beat reporters time to ask questions of campaign officials, to diffuse the obviously building tension. I wasn’t sure it would work, but it seemed worth a try. But it turns out news was broken, in a way. The briefing itself became news; its structure, its ground rules, its very existence. CNBC’s John Harwood wrote a withering take on it. It led to reporters from rival news organizations gathering to formalize their complaints about access to the Clinton campaign. They told other reporters about the meeting, but strictly on background, an irony that wasn’t entirely lost on the reporters who then covered it. (This Paul Farhi story about said reporters failing to “practice what they preach,” trying to control his story about the flap, is hilarious.) Media covering the media’s complaints about the way media is treated; what could be more Beltway-centric inside baseball? But as long as people are writing about it, it’s clear the briefing scandal illuminates the increasingly toxic relationship between the press and the Clintons. So I’ll share what I saw, since now the event has become news in itself. Let me shock you up front: I actually came away from it marginally more sympathetic to the Clinton beat reporters than before I went in. Essentially, they’re a bunch of people trying to do their jobs. Some are well-paid and pampered; many are not. A lot of reporters had schlepped up from a Clinton event in South Carolina earlier that day. They carried luggage and laptop bags and looked tired and bedraggled, resentful at having a command event scheduled that afternoon but unwilling to miss it. What if it did break news? So a lot of the bitching is just people trying to do a good job, who think the Clinton folks are making it harder than necessary. There were lots of questions about when Clinton might take a vacation (which means they can, too) – we couldn’t get more specific than late August. That might seem petty, unless you’ve been asking these questions going back to the first Bush campaign, which some of those folks may be. Likewise, they peppered officials with questions about Clinton’s June 13 kickoff rally, but couldn’t get much detail, not even the location (three days later, we learned it would be in New York.) That got tedious, but the beat reporters have been surprised more than once with sudden scheduling (include the briefing itself). The senior campaign officials promised they’d have plenty of notice, and they did, they got 12 days. I come at this from a completely different perspective. I took the B train to Brooklyn, just kind of curious about the event and not on any kind of deadline. And since I consider political media part of my beat, I got a fascinating look at the culture. My comfort with the scheduling and the ground rules partly reflects my very different job. I get that. But that said, the briefing wasn’t as useless as it’s been depicted. I learned a lot about the campaign I can share with readers. I could see the very different styles of individual “senior campaign officials,” and learn who suffers fools, or questions they consider foolish, better than others – although Harwood’s right, I can’t tell you about them specifically, by name. The Clinton folks, for their part, stayed relentlessly on message – which is their job — but I learned some interesting things anyway. I saw the way they’re determined to frame Clinton as laser-focused on the four early primary and caucus states – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. She doesn’t take anything for granted, they said many times. Sure, that’s become a cliché. But there was a rueful joke about how, this time around, they’re paying attention to the actual delegates who will pick the nominee. It would be funnier if I could put it in direct quotes, but it was salty, and it acknowledged the 2008 campaign’s many stumbles when it came to actually winning delegates, especially in caucus states. I also learned that campaign polling shows that stories about the Clinton Foundation, and Clinton’s infamous personal email server, aren’t damaging her – at least among Democratic primary voters, and they’re the focus for now. I asked a question about how the campaign balances its need to consolidate the Obama coalition with ideas about reaching working class white voters, and heard them say those are questions more suited to the general election than the primary. They emphasized their polling shows Clinton doing very well with the Obama coalition, despite that spirited 2008 rivalry. I heard a lot of talk about millennials and women, who seem to be the white voters the campaign is best suited to lure. Finally, I learned that they consider this early period of the campaign a success, on their terms. Clinton’s small-group “dialogues” — oh, it’s not a listening tour, I learned that, too: she’s having dialogue with voters – have performed several functions for the campaign. Yes, they provide kind of a soft launch for a woman who hasn’t campaigned in seven years. They also let her reach voters in a person to person way some of these same reporters said she’d never pull off. And finally, they let voters, not reporters, dominate the campaign. You can mock it, you can wish it were otherwise, but mostly it’s working, so far. So I was just going to file all this away for some future post. But in the wake of the controversy over the briefing, I find it surprising that so many people thought the gathering useless. Again, I get that my job is different, but it shocked me that this was the dastardly Clinton campaign event that put some reporters over the edge. I also saw, first-hand, how the journalists try to mask their own complaints about access as being impartial, expert criticism of the campaign’s strategy. The small “dialogues” made sense for a while, one reporter allowed, but aren’t they becoming “counterproductive?” They were said to lack “energy;” they’re becoming “static.” Why isn’t Clinton turning out big crowds and giving big speeches? And are we really supposed to believe she’s serious about focusing on Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina? C’mon now. Members of the Church of the Savvy know that can’t be true. Of course, if Clinton was going around giving big speeches in huge venues and criss-crossing the country without paying special attention to the early primary/caucus states, she’d be accused of arrogance, and running another campaign about inevitability, just like 2008. One campaign official (I can’t tell you who) essentially made that sarcastic observation: remember how in 2008, Barack Obama was criticized for his speechifying before large, adoring crowds? It struck me that a sizeable share of the room seemed to work backward from the conclusion that whatever campaign strategy Clinton adopts, it’s flawed. As a colleague of mine (who wasn’t there) correctly observed later, they so often use “voters” as sock puppets to voice their complaints. It’s not enough for the pack, even though it’s early, to watch the campaign unfold, and report on it. We will learn soon enough – from polling numbers, from voters’ praise or grousing, ultimately, from results – whether it’s working. No, these folks have to pre-emptively declare the campaign flawed – largely because they don’t like their access to it. Yes, the campaign’s secrecy about mundane logistics is silly, and so is the notion of sending “embargoed” background information via email to hundreds of reporters who haven’t agreed to keep the info embargoed. (So Adam Nagourney tweeted it out anyway.) Personally, I would like to hear Clinton talk, whether to reporters or publicly to voters, about her views on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, or how to combat ISIS, or what she thinks of the debt-free college movement. There were a couple of questions about when Clinton will make a formal stand on the TPP, but otherwise issues were largely missing from the discussion. The whole thing seemed designed to improve campaign-media relations, to clear the air and answer the frustrated reporters’ questions until there were no more questions. Then they stayed and served us beer – I was peeved; I prefer wine — and talked some more. Some “senior Clinton campaign officials” stayed and schmoozed longer than I was able to. And it all backfired, spectacularly, because this relationship cannot be saved. But on some level, right now, the campaign doesn’t have to care. I continue to be struck by the self-importance of the media. Campaigning has changed, and the Clinton campaign has evolved an approach that its leadership thinks serves the candidate. Maybe they’ve changed the rules of coverage; but the rules change all the time. Instead of figuring out a way to grapple with those changing rules and break stories anyway, journalists are acting as though they have a sacred right to have dozens of them covering Clinton’s every move. If they don’t like the campaign rules, they shouldn’t play. They are entirely within their rights to refuse to attend briefings where officials can’t be quoted, for instance. They could boycott her events and talk to voters on their own, instead. They could pore over records and donor lists (some people are doing that.) After 30 years of wrangling, Clinton can’t win with the national media, but I think the campaign has decided it doesn’t need to. It’s going to look for ways to be cordial, and serve folks beer occasionally, but it’s not going to be driven by irritated beat reporters. And let me use voters as sock puppets here: I really don’t think voters will care. *When it comes to the Clintons and Wall Street: Democratic opponents are silent <http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/03/268715/when-it-comes-to-the-clintons.html> // McClatchy // Anita Kumar & Greg Gorden – June 3, 2015* This year’s crop of Democratic candidates can’t seem to stop talking about how they are going to fight Wall Street and help struggling Americans. So we wondered just what those vying for president next year thought of the close ties between Wall Street and their party’s front-runner, Hillary Clinton, and her husband, Bill Clinton. The former president earned millions of dollars in speaking fees and donations for his global charity from big banks, some that paid billions of dollars to resolve federal investigations, according to a McClatchy analysis. Hillary Clinton also accepted speaking fees from at least one bank. What do Clinton’s opponents -- all of them way down in the polls -- say about that? Not a thing. Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley: No comment. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders: No comment. Former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee, who’s throwing his hat into the ring later today: No comment. It’s not too surprising that Chafee’s campaign declined to comment. His criticism of Clinton has been focused on her vote to invade Iraq. But O’Malley and Sanders have made income equality a centerpiece of their campaigns. Last week, Sanders said: “Wall Street cannot continue to be an island unto itself, gambling trillions in risky financial instruments while expecting the public to bail it out. If a bank is too big to fail it is too big to exist.” This week, O’Malley said this on Good Morning America: “I believe that the presidency is a sacred trust and I believe that we are best served by giving the choice of who our president should be to the people of the United States and not to the big banks on Wall Street.” We get it. They don’t like big banks. But when it comes to the Clintons and Wall Street, they are silent. *21 New ‘Clinton Cash’ Revelations That Have Imperiled Hillary Clinton’s Campaign <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/03/21-new-clinton-cash-revelations-that-have-imperiled-hillary-clintons-campaign/> // Breitbart – June 3, 2015 * Prior to the release of the New York Times bestselling investigative exposé Clinton Cash by Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer, Hillary Clinton and her supporters claimed she was among the most vetted political figures in America—a candidate about whom everything was known. Yet as media outlets across the ideological spectrum have confirmed and verified the book’s explosive revelations about Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State and the influx of hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign sources into the Clinton Foundation, the nation has learned much it did not know. Subsequent reporting by national news outlets has expanded on the book’s findings using its investigative methodology. Indeed, the dizzying flurry of resulting Hillary Clinton Foundation scandals has been difficult to keep up with. As CNN’s John King put it on Sunday, “You can’t go 20 minutes in this town, it seems, without some sort of a story about Clinton Foundation that gives you a little bit of the creeps.” Early on, as Clinton Cash bombshells began appearing in the New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, Bloomberg, and elsewhere, Hillary Clinton’s campaign sought to calm nervous campaign donors by announcing the creation of a special “rapid response” War Room aimed at combating a book, an unprecedented move in the annals of modern presidential campaigning. The Clinton campaign team built a website called “The Briefing,” issued memos, and tasked an eight-person team to create videos featuring embattled Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon as he awkwardly and unsuccessfully attempted to smear Peter Schweizer. Team Clinton’s message: all of Clinton Cash’s revelations are incorrect or merely “coincidences.” Yet as the nation’s largest news organizations began to confirm finding after finding, the Clinton campaign did the only thing it could: it gave up in its attempts to refute the swelling avalanche of now well-established facts. Indeed, the Clinton campaign’s last video response on its “The Briefing” YouTube page is dated May 5th—Clinton Cash’s official launch date. To date, Hillary Clinton has yet to substantively answer a single question from the mountain of Clinton Cash questions that continue to pile up with each passing day. The result: according to Tuesday’s CNN poll, the “Clinton Cash Effect” has rendered Hillary Clinton historic new lows in her favorability with American voters. Below we chronicle just 21 of the myriad Clinton Cash-related revelations that have emerged since the book’s publication—all of which have been confirmed and verified as accurate by national media organizations. Huffington Post: Clintons Bagged at Least $3.4 Million for 18 Speeches Funded by Keystone Pipeline Banks Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and TD Bank—two of the Keystone XL pipeline’s largest investors—fully or partially bankrolled eight Hillary Clinton speeches that “put more than $1.6 million in the Democratic candidate’s pocket,” reports the Huffington Post. Moreover, according to Clinton Cash, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State, Bill Clinton delivered 10 speeches from Nov. 2008 to mid-2011 totaling $1.8 million paid for by TD Bank, which held a $1.6 billion investment in the Keystone XL pipeline. The Clintons’ speaking fees windfall, which has infuriated environmental groups, have yet to be addressed by Hillary Clinton. New York Times: Clinton Foundation Shook Down a Tiny Tsunami Relief Nonprofit for a $500,000 Speaking Fee Bill Clinton refused to give a speech for a tiny nonprofit seeking to raise money for tsunami victims until the group agreed to pay a $500,000 speaking fee to the Clinton Foundation. The Times reported that the Clinton Foundation “sent the charity an invoice,” which “amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds—enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia.” New York Magazine: Clinton Foundation “Strong-Armed” Charity Watchdog Group When “the Clinton Foundation wound up on a ‘watch list’ maintained by the Charity Navigator, dubbed the ‘most prominent’ nonprofit watchdog,” reported New York Magazine writer Gabriel Sherman, “the Foundation attempted to strong-arm them by calling a Navigator board member.” International Business Times: Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Gave Clinton Foundation Donors Weapons Deals “Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data,” reports IBT. “That figure—derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012)—represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.” Salon, MotherJones, HuffingtonPost, Slate, and several other liberal publications reported on IBT’s findings. Washington Post: Clintons Hid 1,100 Foreign Donor Names in Violation of Ethics Agreement with Obama Admin. Clinton Cash revealed five hidden foreign donations. On the heels of the book’s publication, the Washington Post uncovered another 1,100 foreign donor names hidden in the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership—a Clinton Foundation initiative Bill Clinton erected with controversial billionaire mining executive Frank Giustra. “A charity affiliated with the Clinton Foundation failed to reveal the identities of its 1,100 donors, creating a broad exception to the foundation’s promise to disclose funding sources as part of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration,” reports the Washington Post. “The number of undisclosed contributors to the charity, the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, signals a larger zone of secrecy around foundation donors than was previously known.” In a follow-up story, the Post reports that only 21 of Frank Giustra and Bill Clinton’s secret 1,100 foreign donors have subsequently been revealed. If and when the other 1,079 hidden donors names will be revealed is presently unclear—and will be the subject of forthcoming investigative reports by Breitbart News. Vox: At Least 181 Clinton Foundation Donors Lobbied Hillary’s State Dept. “Public records alone reveal a nearly limitless supply of cozy relationships between the Clintons and companies with interests before the government,” reports Vox. “There’s a household name at the nexus of the foundation and the State Department for every letter of the alphabet but “X” (often more than one): Anheuser-Busch, Boeing, Chevron, (John) Deere, Eli Lilly, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, HBO, Intel, JP Morgan, Lockheed Martin, Monsanto, NBC Universal, Oracle, Procter & Gamble, Qualcomm, Rotary International, Siemens, Target, Unilever, Verizon, Walmart, Yahoo, and Ze-gen.” BuzzFeed: Two of Hillary Clinton’s Top Donors Were Major Felons When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, two of her biggest fundraisers were conducting massive Ponzi schemes. One was Hsu, who posed as a garment tycoon, and is now serving a 24-year sentence in federal prison in Milan, Michigan. The other, Hassan Nemazee, is serving a 12-year sentence in Otisville, New York, for bank fraud. He used fake documents and nonexistent loans to trick bankers into extending him more credit,” reports Ben Smith of BuzFeed. “Those two convictions cast light on a central perplexity of the 2016 presidential cycle, and its ‘Clinton Cash‘ phase: Why are shady people with murky interests always hanging around political superstars, and particularly Bill and Hillary Clinton?” Daily Beast: Clintons’ Charity Scored Millions from Qatar and Donations from Corrupt FIFA Soccer Organization “The Clinton global charity has received between $50,000 and $100,000 from soccer’s governing body and has partnered with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association on several occasions, according to donor listings on the foundation’s website,” reports The Daily Beast. “Qatar 2022 committee gave the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014 and the State of Qatar gave between $1 million and $5 million in previous, unspecified years.” Associated Press: The Clintons’ Have a Secret “Pass-Through” Company—WJC, LLC “The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family’s finances,” reported the AP. “The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president’s finances on the record, said the entity was a ‘pass-through’ company designed to channel payments to the former president.” Hillary Clinton has yet to release the names and amounts of the payments that flowed through the hidden WJC, LLC, company. New York Times: Hillary Funneled $10K Monthly Payments to Sidney Blumenthal Through Clinton Foundation “An examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years,” reports the Times. “While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation…and worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.” New Yorker: Bill Clinton Scored a $500,000 Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-backed Bank The New Yorker confirms Clinton Cash’s reporting that Bill Clinton bagged $500,000 for a Moscow speech paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin.” “Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the New Yorker. To date, Hillary Clinton nor her campaign have answered that question. Washington Post: Hillary Clinton’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Co. that Received a Coveted Haitian “Gold Exploitation Permit” that Has Only Twice Been Awarded in 50 Years. Rodham Met the Mining Executive in Charge of the Company at a Clinton Foundation Event. “In interviews with The Washington Post, both Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative—an offshoot of the Clinton Foundation that critics have long alleged invites a blurring of its charitable mission with the business interests of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their corporate donors.” “Asked whether he attends CGI meetings to explore personal business opportunities, Rodham responded, ‘No, I go to see old friends. But you never know what can happen.’” New York Times: Court Proceedings Reveal Hillary’s Brother Claimed Admits Clinton Foundation and the Clintons Are Key to His Haiti Connections “I deal through the Clinton Foundation,” Tony Rodham said according to a transcript of his testimony obtained by The Times. “That gets me in touch with the Haitian officials. I hound my brother-in-law [Bill Clinton], because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from. And he can’t do it until the Haitian government does it.” Wall Street Journal: Clinton Foundation Violated Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Admin. By Keeping Secret a Foreign Donation of Two Million Shares of Stock from a Foreign Executive with Business Before Hillary’s State Dept. Clinton Cash revealed that Canadian mining tycoon Stephen Dattels scored an “open pit mining” concession at the Phulbari Mines in Bangladesh where his Polo Resources had investments. The coveted perk came just two months after Polo Resources gave the Clinton Foundation 2,000,000 shares of stock—a donation the Clinton Foundation kept hidden. New York Times: Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Claims She Had No Idea Her State Dept. Was Considering Approving the Transfer of 20% of U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.—Even as the Clinton Foundation Bagged $145 Million in Donations from Investors in the Deal In a 4,000-word front-page New York Times investigation, the Times confirmed in granular detail Clinton Cash’s reporting that Hillary’s State Dept. was one of nine agencies approving the sale of Uranium One to the Russian government. “The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States,” reports the Times. The Times then published a detailed table and infographic cataloging the $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation made by uranium executives involved in the Russian transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium. Bloomberg: A For-Profit University Put Bill Clinton on Its Payroll and Scored a Jump in Funding from Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. When Clinton Cash Revealed the Scheme, Bill Clinton Quickly Resigned. Even as Hillary Clinton and Democrats continue to blast for-profit colleges and universities, Hillary Clinton’s campaign continues to stonewall questions about how much Bill Clinton was paid by Laureate International Universities, one of the largest for-profit education companies in the world—and an organization that has underwritten Clinton Foundation events. As soon as Clinton Cash revealed Bill Clinton spent years on Laureate’s payroll, the former president quickly resigned. According to an analysis by Bloomberg: “in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.” Hillary Clinton has refused to answer questions about the Clintons’ income from the for-profit education company. New York Times: The Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company Ian Telfer Made Secret Donations Totaling $2.35 Million to the Clinton Foundation—as Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Approved the Transfer of 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russians Ian Telfer, the former head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, funneled $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation—donations that were never revealed until Clinton Cash reported them and the New York Times confirmed them. Hillary Clinton has yet to answer a single question about Uranium One. Washington Post: Bill and Hillary Clinton Have Made at Least $26 Million in Speaking Fees from Entities Who Are Top Clinton Foundation Donors According to the Post’s independent analysis, “Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.” The Post added: “Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation date.” Washington Free Beacon: Former Clinton Campaign Operative-Turned-ABC News Host George Stephanopoulos Failed to Disclose His $75,000 Donation and Deep Involvement in the Clinton Foundation Before Launching an Attack Interview Against Clinton Cash Author Clinton political operative-turned-ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos infamously hid his $75,000 Clinton Foundation donation from ABC News viewers before launching a partisan attack “interview” with Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer. Roundly condemned by numerous journalists, Stephanopoulos apologized and received zero punishment from ABC News. Hillary Clinton’s campaign then used footage from the Stephanopoulos’ attack “interview” with Schweizer in its political campaign videos. “It was outrageous,” said former ABC News anchor Carole Simpson. Hillary Clinton has yet to answer whether her campaign coordinated with Clinton Foundation donor George Stephanopoulos. CNBC: Clinton Foundation Mega Donor Frank Holmes Claimed He Sold Uranium One Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Approved the Russian Transfer—Despite His Company’s Own SEC Filings Proving Otherwise In a highly embarrassing CNBC grilling, Clinton mega donor and uranium executive Frank Holmes claimed he sold his Uranium One stock well before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. greenlit the transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium to the Russian government in 2010. However, according to his company’s, U.S. Global Investors, own 2011 SEC filing, Holmes’ company did, in fact, still hold Uranium One stock, a point he later conceded. Politico: Hillary’s Foundation Accepted $1 Million from Human Rights Violator Morocco for a Lavish Event “The event is being funded largely by a contribution of at least $1 million from OCP, a phosphate exporter owned by Morocco’s constitutional monarchy, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the event,” reports Politico. “But in 2011, Clinton’s State Department had accused the Moroccan government of ‘arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government.’” ABC News similarly confirmed the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of the unseemly funds. *Iowa Poll: Bill and George W. May Not Hurt Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-03/iowa-poll-bill-and-george-w-may-not-hurt-hillary-clinton-and-jeb-bush> // Bloomberg // David Knowles – June 3, 2015* The nation's next president may well be advised by a former one. For the most part, that prospect doesn't seem to trouble Iowa caucus-goers. Fifty-seven percent of likely Republican caucus-goers in a new Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll said that it would be “mostly good” for Jeb Bush's presidency if he were to tap his older brother, George, as a close adviser. Thirty-three percent said such an arrangement would be “mostly bad” for Jeb Bush's presidency. As for Hillary Clinton, a whopping 83 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers approved of the idea of her using her husband, Bill, as a close adviser, while just 9 percent said doing so was a “mostly bad” suggestion for her presidency. Interviewed on CBS's Face the Nation in May, Jeb Bush said that his older brother “is not going to be a problem at all. I seek out his advice,” adding that he had "learned from his successes and his mistakes." Poll respondent Sarah Rynearson, an independent who plans to caucus with Republicans, is similarly at ease with the idea of Bush being advised by his brother. “I think it would be a great idea, because I think his brother was a great president,” said Rynearson, 36, who delivers meals to the elderly in Waterloo, Iowa. Republican respondent Thomas Stanley, 60, of Fairfield, Iowa, disagreed. “I think that George W. Bush did a very poor job at trying to unify the country around commonly held beliefs,” Stanley said, adding that the former president's foreign policy decisions were “part of” what should preclude him from serving as an adviser to his brother. “Dick Cheney is another part. Donald Rumsfeld is another. He just had advisers that were pretty extreme.” When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he told voters that if they elected him, they would get “two for the price of one” in reference to his wife. More than 20 years later, that prospect is sitting well with likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers. “They've both already been there and done that before. They seem to be a good team, and work together really well together,” said Democrat Mickie Franklin, 33, a Transportation Security Administration worker who lives in Nevada, Iowa. “She seems like a really strong-willed lady. And she seems like if someone she knew felt very strongly about something, she might take their opinion, but not necessarily go with what they want. I think there's nothing wrong with getting advice from him.” Ben Frazier, a 21-year-old Democrat and political science major at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, voiced reservations. “It's going to be important for her to think on her own and show that she has the necessary experience to make her own decisions,” he said. “I feel like he's going to want to be more involved than he should be. Politically speaking, Bill Clinton is out of his prime.” Bush has struggled with the question of how much to embrace his family legacy on the campaign trail. He has repeatedly said “I'm my own man” when asked how he would distinguish himself from his brother and the other former president in his family, his father. At the same time, he has assembled a team of foreign policy advisers that closely resembles his brother's. Bush has also stumbled over the question of whether, with the benefit of hindsight, he would have sent U.S. troops into Iraq. Clinton, meanwhile, has distanced herself from several of her husband's former policies, including support for free trade agreements, support for three-strikes legislation, and opposition to gay marriage. Like his wife, Bill Clinton has changed many of his former positions, making for less of a contrast between the two. The survey of 437 likely Democratic caucus-goers has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points, while the survey of 402 likely Republican caucus-goers has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent. The West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co. conducted the poll May 25-29. *Clinton rivals pounce as her ratings fall <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-finally-get-a-contest-as-hillary-clinton-draws-challengers/2015/06/03/95fefaea-0a12-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html> // WaPo // Philip Rucker, Robert Costa and Anne Gearan - June 3, 2015* A once-sleepy Democratic presidential primary contest is fast coming alive as Hillary Rodham Clinton’s poll numbers fall and a diverse array of long-shot opponents step forward to challenge her. The recent developments mark a dramatic evolution in the 2016 sweepstakes, which until now has been shaped by the large assortment of hopefuls on the Republican side, where there is no front-runner. The latest Democrat to enter the race is Lincoln Chafee, a onetime Republican and former Rhode Island governor and senator, who launched his campaign Wednesday in Northern Virginia. Though his candidacy is quixotic, Chafee’s sharp attacks on Clinton’s hawkish foreign policy record — and in particular her 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq — could nonetheless complicate her march to the nomination. Chafee joins an underfunded and jumbled field of Clinton rivals who see the favorite’s coziness with Wall Street and political longevity as weaknesses and who think she is vulnerable to a grass-roots contender who better captures the party’s liberal soul. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a fiery populist who identifies as a socialist, has been attracting some of the largest crowds of any candidate from either party as he summons supporters to join his “political revolution.” Another foe, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, is making an overt generational contrast: His campaign slogan is “New Leadership.” And former senator Jim Webb of Virginia has echoed Chafee’s antiwar pitch as he explores a candidacy. The activity has brought fresh attention to the fault lines within the Democratic coalition over economic fairness and foreign policy. At Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters, the mantra has been to prepare for a difficult primary and compete for every vote in every state. Her team has carefully crafted a summer rollout — a June 13 kickoff rally followed by major policy speeches — to cast Clinton as a progressive champion. On Thursday, for instance, Clinton will give a speech on voting rights at a historically black college in Texas, where she will call for an early voting period of at least 20 days in every state. Her address comes as Democrats pursue legal challenges to voting restrictions ushered in by Republican legislatures. “We’ve always thought there would be challengers,” Clinton campaign chairman John D. ¬Podesta said in an interview Wednesday. “There were always going to be people saying she wasn’t this enough, wasn’t that enough, wasn’t populist enough.” He added: “Our strategy at the moment is to welcome them into the race and lay out our program versus theirs. . . . There will be debates. These candidates will get their airtime. But what we’re focused on is telling her story, what her vision for the country is.” Polls show that Clinton’s popularity is foundering with her reemergence as a political candidate, effectively erasing the bipartisan approval she enjoyed as secretary of state. More Americans said they held an unfavorable opinion of Clinton than a favorable one, 49 percent to 45 percent, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll this week. Among independent voters, the figure is worse: 55 percent unfavorable to 39 percent favorable. Republicans are pleased to see Clinton’s popularity coming down to earth. “Clearly, whatever political capital that Hillary Clinton had previously enjoyed as secretary of state has atrophied,” said pollster Neil Newhouse, who is likely to work for Right to Rise, the pro-Jeb Bush super PAC. Still, Clinton is trouncing the rest of the Democratic field by every measure, including in money raised and in the depth of her organization. Her campaign has opened nine field offices in Iowa, which hosts the first presidential caucuses. This week’s Post-ABC poll showed Clinton leading the Democratic pack at 62 percent. Vice President Biden, who has not formally ruled out a candidacy, was second with 14 percent, followed by Sanders at 10 percent. Paul Begala, an adviser to the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, predicted that the race will tighten. “The day she announced, the polls had her at like a million percent,” Begala said. “She needed to print that out, put it in a scrapbook and give it to baby Charlotte, because it will never be this good again.” Clinton is showing political fragility in some areas, including on character attributes. Fifty-two percent of those polled said she was not honest and trustworthy. Clinton’s advisers attribute this to intense media scrutiny. They argue that a more accurate barometer of her standing is the question of empathy. Asked whether she “understands the problems of people like you,” 49 percent said she did and 46 percent said she did not. Anastasia Rave, 26, a retail manager in Beaufort, N.C., was among those polled. A Democratic-leaning independent, Rave said she would support Clinton over any Republican candidate — but she remains uneasy. “I don’t think that her attempts to act like she understands the everyday working person are genuine,” Rave said. “I don’t really buy it.” The Clinton response is to give speeches on issues such as college affordability in an effort to show her as compassionate toward the middle class. “The real trust issue in the election will be who voters trust to look out for them,” said pollster Geoff Garin of Priorities USA. To Democrats who are fretting, Ed Rendell, a former Pennsylvania governor and a Clinton booster, has a blunt message: “Man up.” “No matter who the candidate was — if Moses or Jesus or Muhammad came back — there would be time periods when they were considered untrustworthy by the public,” Rendell said. “If you’re not convinced that Hillary’s a lights-out candidate, tell me who is?” A swelling number of liberal activists, however, see Sanders as the answer. The boisterous crowds that have greeted his road show in the two weeks since he launched his campaign have surprised even his longtime advisers. With his Brooklyn-accented barbs about what he believes is the alarming power of corporate America, Sanders sees a path to defeating Clinton. While Clinton is flanked by aides and Secret Service agents at controlled events, Sanders revels in rowdy town hall meetings and wanders through crowds wearing a rumpled suit and with unruly white hair. “I don’t want to get too socialist about it, but I’d describe it as communal,” said Sanders political consultant Tad Devine. Sanders has instructed his inner circle to concentrate on the economy rather than Clinton’s Iraq vote, even though that is one front where their records differ. “We don’t want a campaign about something that happened 12 or 13 years ago,” Devine said. “It’s got to be about the next 10.” But Iraq is a centerpiece of Chafee’s appeal to Democrats. “It’s heartbreaking that more of my colleagues failed to do their homework,” Chafee said Wednesday as he announced his candidacy at George Mason University. “And incredibly, the neocon proponents of the war who sold us on the false premise of weapons of mass destruction are still key advisers to a number of presidential candidates today.” He added later: “Including the main Democratic candidate.” Chafee’s approach is reminiscent of how then-Sen. Barack Obama used Clinton’s Iraq vote to drive a wedge between her and antiwar Democrats in 2008. Clinton has since disavowed the vote, and some supporters believe the war is no longer a central concern for voters. “When I ran [in 2004], it was a different party and frightened about the war,” said former Vermont governor Howard Dean, a Clinton backer. O’Malley, 52, is offering himself as a youthful alternative to Clinton palatable to all wings of the party, while also railing against “the privileged and the powerful” as he said this past weekend. O’Malley and his associates are targeting those who tried unsuccessfully to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to run. A super PAC supporting O’Malley said Wednesday that it will soon purchase a round of television ads in Iowa highlighting his willingness to battle Wall Street, though a spokesman said the initial buy is a modest $25,000. “There is a real hunger for economic populism. O’Malley is speaking to that,” said George Appleby, O’Malley’s state chairman in Iowa. He called Sanders “honorable and interesting” but said that “I’d be very surprised if Democrats nominated a 73-year-old man.” *Bush and Clinton seem inevitable. Except to voters <https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bush-and-clinton-seem-inevitable-except-to-120642708751.html>. // Yahoo News // Matt Bai - June 4, 2015* According to new polls, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush aren’t viewed very favorably. (AP Photo) Voters of America: What exactly is your problem? For months, we in the media have been telling you, repeatedly and in very small words, that Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are going to be the nominees in 2016. They’ve got big money, big names, the comforting ’90s vibe. Their debates will feel like a rerun of “Friends,” before everyone started doing drugs and sleeping with each other. Just a few days ago, some guy wrote an entire op-ed in Politico titled “Newsflash: It’s Going to Be Hillary vs. Jeb.” Since the writer wasn’t God or Nostradamus, I didn’t really feel the need to keep reading, but clearly you should have, because you’re just not getting the message. According to a batch of brand-new polling, the number of voters who view Clinton favorably has dropped below 50 percent for the first time since she last ran for president in 2008; suddenly fewer people like her than don’t. Ditto for Jeb, who, according to the results of an ABC/Washington Post poll, would be the least liked Republican in the potential field were it not for the beneficence of Donald Trump. Why is it so hard to accept your fate already? Why do you insist on dating bad boys like Scott Walker and Bernie Sanders when we’ve gone to such trouble to arrange reliable marriages that benefit everyone? Don’t tell me it’s because Americans are suspicious of dynastic rule — whoever started that meme must have stopped reading his textbook after the bit about King George. Take away the Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes, and the last century of political history would read like some Mad Lib. We’re just fine with dynasties, for better or worse. No, the reason Clinton and Bush are having trouble keeping your affection is less about who they are than where they’ve been. The reality is that candidates returning from long absences are a little like distant relatives; the idea of a reunion sounds great, but when they show up at your door it’s another story. If there’s one thing we all love in politics, it’s the idea of the candidate who seems above the litany of daily disappointments in Washington. Presidential narratives are often built around the idea that a candidate has been away somewhere (other than prison, say) and is just now coming back because he can’t stand what a mess all these lesser politicians have made of things. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan exploited that ideal, which Newt Gingrich (quoting his favorite political philosopher, Arnold Toynbee) once described to me as the doctrine of “departure and return.” Clinton and Bush embody that idea, too. After four years as secretary of state, followed by a few years of relative seclusion, Clinton was enjoying the highest approval ratings of her political life; to most Americans who weren’t hardened anti-Clinton conspiracists, she seemed to have entered the realm of statesmanship. Bush spent most of the last decade talking reasonably about education reform and the environment, to the point where a lot of voters had almost forgotten about his partisan role in the recount debacle of 2000. The problem is that once you return to the arena, once you start giving speeches that sound more or less like everybody else’s, then you’re no longer departed, and we can’t quite remember why it was you seemed so alluring in the first place. Suddenly you’re a politician again. And running for office isn’t like the proverbial riding of a bike, where you can leave off for a decade and then, on a whim, just climb onto some rental and scale a mountain. Politics at this level is more like hitting a baseball. It takes a while to get your timing back, and that’s only if your clarity of vision and basic skills haven’t deteriorated. In the case of both Bush and Clinton, this basic rustiness seems to have been compounded by a certain arrogance — an inner voice that says, “I already know how to hit a baseball, so I’ll be damned if I’m going to spend every day at the cage practicing my swings.” It’s almost unthinkable — and it shook a lot of the Republican operatives who should be his supporters — that Bush didn’t have an answer for the question about the Iraq invasion and whether he would have done the same thing his brother did. What possible explanation is there for that, other than that he’s decided he can pretty much wing this thing? If he actually asked his aides to prepare him for the campaign trail and they didn’t raise that question more than once, then he should probably think about getting some new aides. The other problem you have, when you’re the kind of candidate who’s been off the scene for a while and who thus occupies an exalted place in the minds of the electorate, is that your party’s operatives will tell you almost anything to get you to return. So it might take a few months to realize that the theory of the campaign to which you’re clinging, which everyone around you said was totally brilliant and doable back in January, is actually about as relevant this year as Ross Perot. You can bet that all the Clinton whisperers made 2016 sound like a mere formality and nothing like the grind of 2008. We’ll send your stunt double to have lunch at a Chipotle in Ohio , and you can just hole up in Chappaqua and watch “Downton Abbey” reruns. No worries — we’ll call when you clinch. But then she won’t answer questions about her private emails or her foundation’s foreign donors, and she refuses to tell anyone where she is on a free-trade bill that’s dividing Washington, and suddenly the diving poll numbers aren’t something you can ignore. Clinton remains the clear favorite to win the nomination, but her persona as a stateswoman is already a casualty, and it’s not even summer. Bush started out his campaign spouting this stuff about how you had to be willing to lose the primaries in order to win the general election, a theory his eager advisers must have validated. And a pretty courageous one, too, except that he has spent most of his time lately trying to mollify conservative primary voters, who, it appears, might be just fine with nominating Mike Huckabee or Ben Carson and watching him get pulverized in November. What the voters in both parties are telling us in these polls, more than anything else, is that they’re not going to have their nominees dictated to them. What you all seem to be saying is that Clinton and Bush are formidable but also uninspiring, and you intend to weigh all your options before making that decision for yourselves. Well, OK, but you know the conventional wisdom in Washington seems to be that this is all just preseason jitters, and by fall the inevitable nominees will be exactly what they’re supposed to be, which is inevitable. In other words: Trust us. You’ll learn to love them over time. *Why Hillary Can't Run on Her State Department Record <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-03/why-hillary-can-t-run-on-her-state-department-record> // Bloomberg // Josh Rogin – June 3, 2015 * Hillary Clinton's record as secretary of state became a hot-button issue this week after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Bloomberg Television that the Barack Obama administration's failed "reset" policy with Moscow was her "invention." Here's why it matters: Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, gave an interview to Bloomberg View's Al Hunt in April in which he said holding up the “major accomplishments” from her State Department tenure would be a centerpiece of her campaign. Podesta may want to reconsider that plan. Running on Clinton's signature diplomatic initiatives is fraught with risks because, on closer inspection, most that he mentioned don’t hold up to scrutiny. “She put together that sanctions package that’s led to at least the possibility of having a deal on the Iran nuclear program,” Podesta told Hunt in the interview, which was aired on PBS's "Charlie Rose" show. “That took very careful and longtime careful diplomacy." In fact, the State Department under Clinton vigorously opposed almost all of the Iran sanctions passed by Congress while she was in office. Top officials, including Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, openly advocated against many bills, including the sanctions on Iran’s central bank, which dealt the true crippling blow to the Tehran regime. The Senate passed that bill 100-0 and Obama reluctantly signed them into law. The State Department did implement them, but was criticized by lawmakers and advocacy groups for using waivers in the law to exempt several countries, including China and our allies Japan and South Korea. Clinton can also expect to be pressed during the campaign over her involvement in the secret negotiations that led to the controversial Iran nuclear negotiations now nearing completion. Her deputy, William Burns, and her top foreign policy advisor, Jake Sullivan, held months of clandestine meetings with Iranian officials to set up the talks. In the run-up to her campaign announcement, Clinton was cautiously supportive of the nuclear talks; leaving herself some wiggle room by saying she won’t render a final judgment until the deal is done. Podesta then went on to say that Clinton "restored America’s place in the world, which had been very badly battered through the previous administration.” While it’s true that global opinion of the U.S. soared when Barack Obama was first elected president, during Clinton's State Department tenure of 2009 to 2013 there was no measurable upswing in foreigners’ views of America, according to the Pew Research Center’s polling on global attitudes. In most major countries, approval of the U.S. actually went down by the time Clinton left office, including by 11 percentage points in each of France, Germany and the U.K. A poll conducted in 33 countries by the BBC World Service just after Clinton stepped down as secretary found that overall world opinion of the U.S. by 2013 was the lowest since the presidency of George W. Bush. If Clinton wants to run on having polished America’s image abroad, she’ll be hard pressed to come up with data to back it up. “She engineered the so-called 'pivot to Asia,’ ” Podesta continued. “Her first trip was to China.” Clinton did lead parts of what the White House now calls the “rebalance” to Asia, but as Governor Scott Walker, a top Republican contender, pointed out last week, that policy has fallen well short of expectations. With China building fake islands around the South China Sea and threatening to enforce an air-exclusion zone in the area, the pivot policy now looks inadequate. Along with Treasury Department officials, Clinton initiated a new strategic dialogue with China, but after several high-level summits, the effort has produced few if any tangible results. The State Department did succeed in creating an opening with Myanmar, an effort led by her top Asia official, Kurt Campbell. Unfortunately, the military junta has not eased up its brutal persecution of Muslim minorities, leading to a vast refugee crisis in Southeast Asia, and political reform has now slowed to a crawl. “She put some new issues on the table for American diplomacy," Podesta went on, "including internet freedom, the importance of women’s rights as human rights, of LGBT rights as human rights, as part of our diplomatic package, which I think restored values to the way America projects its power around the world.” This is hard to square with the fact that, in her first visit to China, Clinton insisted that human rights advocacy “can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis." Clinton's State Department repeatedly waived laws that would have cut aid to countries guilty of gross human rights violations, such as Egypt. This record won't be helped by Clinton’s family foundation having taken millions of dollars from foreign governments that systematically abuse their citizens and deny basic liberties to women. Clinton did have several significant public initiatives meant to respond to the pressing social and economic issues of the new century. Her project on Internet freedom had some early success. Yet it was ultimately undermined by revelations from Edward Snowden and others, making her admonishment in 2011 of governments that “pry into the peaceful activities of their citizens” seem hypocritical. Podesta also stressed Clinton's record on the struggle against violent religious extremism. “She was tough on terrorism, and participated in the decision that led up to the decisions that led up to the killing of Osama bin Laden,” he told Hunt. While Clinton did support Obama's decision to launch the raid that killed bin Laden, it's misleading to claim that the State Department was a significant player in fighting terrorism. That effort was and is still led by the Pentagon and intelligence agencies. And, of course, the worst terrorism blow to U.S. interests since the Sept. 11 attacks happened at a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, on her watch. In addition, while the administration claimed in 2013 that terrorism was on the decline, the spread of the Islamic State, Boko Haram (which Clinton refused to put on the State Department’s terrorism list in 2011, despite requests from the Justice Department and the CIA) and other groups since then makes the victory laps of the first term look far too self-congratulatory. Podesta avoided mentioning several other diplomatic initiatives Clinton led that turned out poorly. She was a major proponent of the U.S.-led intervention in Libya in 2011, which has led to bloody chaos and a new bridgehead for the Islamic State. Her State Department led a failed diplomatic effort between Israel and the Palestinians. Her officials held years of talks with the Taliban that never bore fruit. She tried to build a moderate Syrian opposition. None of these are going to help her case that she deserves the Oval Office. Some Republicans are already looking to turn Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat into a liability. "I think her time in the position of secretary of state is demonstrably one that lacks accomplishment, but that also has some real blemishes on it," said Carly Fiorina in April, just before announcing her own candidacy. Fiorina, of course, has no international experience at all, and neither do most of the other Republican primary candidates. Still, if Clinton is going to run on her foreign policy credentials, she will have to come up with a better narrative than the one the campaign has been peddling. *Americans split on whether Clinton cares about their needs <http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=RIZnXvFw> // AP // Julie Pace & Ken Thomas – June 3, 2015 * Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to spend the summer building a case that Republicans are out of touch with the public. But many people aren't convinced she empathizes with them, either, polls suggest, in a potential early warning sign for the Democratic front-runner. Yet average Americans appear to be split on whether Clinton can relate to them, in the face of scrutiny about her family finances and the Republican argument that she and husband Bill, the former president, play by different rules and have amassed wealth in ways that are inconceivable for most people. About 47 percent of Americans said Clinton cares about people like them in a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday. That's down from 53 percent in the same poll last summer. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released the same day also found a slight decline in the past year on a similar question, with 49 percent saying Clinton "understands the problems of people like you" and 46 percent saying she doesn't. The dip in Clinton's ratings on attributes like empathy coincides with a decline in her overall favorability from the time she was Obama's secretary of state. Her current levels mirror how the public viewed her during her failed 2008 White House campaign. Dan Pfeiffer, a longtime Obama adviser who left the White House this spring, said it's too early for the numbers to cause anxiety in Clinton's Brooklyn campaign headquarters. But he added that "if this trend doesn't reverse itself over the next many months, it should be a cause of concern." Empathy was a focus of Obama's re-election bid against Romney. The Democratic incumbent relentlessly argued that Romney's policies and personal wealth left him out of touch with most Americans. By Election Day, 81 percent of Americans who said they voted based on whether a candidate cared for people like them backed Obama, according to exit polls. Clinton campaign officials say they care less about how Clinton is viewed in isolation on the question of empathy and more about how she is compared with specific Republican challengers. While no major polls have done such a head-to-head comparison, a Quinnipiac survey last week found large numbers of Americans undecided on whether many Republican presidential hopefuls - among them Marco Rubio and Scott Walker - care about their needs. And the ABC News/Washington Post poll had worrying signs for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, with 55 percent of Americans saying he doesn't understand the problems of people like them. Clinton will use a June 13 rally to argue that the GOP field as a whole is out of touch on gay rights, immigration, climate change and more. She has also been highlighting her differences with Republicans on economic issues, financial reform and budget priorities. While the GOP race is wide-open, with more than a dozen candidates expected to vie for the nomination, the Clinton campaign plans to cast the field as monolithic on policy. Republicans, however, see an opportunity to turn the question of empathy against Clinton. They've already started trying. Republican pollster David Winston said the intense early focus on such issues gives Republicans an opening to define the terms of the debate over the direction each party wants to take the country. "If she doesn't have a product on the shelf - her ideas - what's the point?" Winston asked. Since the start of the year, Clinton has faced questions about her family foundation's fundraising practices and acceptance of money from foreign governments, as well as her decision to use a private email server at the State Department and destroy personal emails during her tenure in the Obama administration. Clinton's personal wealth has also created unwanted attention. The Clintons reported last month that they earned more than $30 million in combined speaking fees and book royalties since January 2014. Clinton campaign officials argue that the individual issues have not affected the way the public views Clinton but the cumulative effect of the scrutiny has. Her early campaign strategy suggests Clinton and her advisers are aware of the need to present herself as more relatable to Americans. While her failed 2008 White House bid emphasized her toughness and experience, the first months of her second campaign have highlighted her family background and her early work on women's and family issues. During small round table events in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere, Clinton has frequently referenced her roots as the daughter of a father who was a small business owner and a mother who overcame a difficult upbringing and abandonment. She's also centered policy discussions on pre-kindergarten and daycare options for young children, as well as the plight of those with mental health problems and addictions to heroin and prescription drugs - calling it a "quiet epidemic" striking small towns and rural areas. "I want to be the president who takes care of people," Clinton told voters in New Hampshire last week. "I consider that my highest and most important responsibility." *Campaign Reporters Told There Will Be ‘NO Opportunities To Interview Hillary Clinton’ <http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/03/campaign-reporters-told-there-will-be-no-opportunities-to-interview-hillary-clinton/> // The Daily Caller // Chuck Ross – June 3, 2015 * Reporters attending a Hillary Clinton speech in Houston on Thursday must remain within the confines of barricade and will not have a chance to interview the Democratic presidential nominee, they were informed in a note with big, bold red letters. “There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton,” a press blast from Texas Southern University reads. “Her speech will be her interview.” After attending fundraisers in Dallas and Austin, Clinton will head to Texas Southern University in Houston to talk about voting rights and to receive the first inaugural Barbara Jordan Public-Private Leadership Award, named after the late Texas congresswoman. The award goes to “a deserving woman anywhere in the world who shall have made the highest achievement during the preceding year or years in any honorable field of human endeavor in the public or private sector.” The strict rules imposed on reporters attending the event are par for the course so far for Clinton’s campaign. She has been criticized repeatedly for choking off reporters’ access and refusing to take questions. *Whoa, If True: Hillary Clinton Blows Off Autograph-Seeking Voter <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-03/whoa-if-true-hillary-clinton-blows-off-autograph-seeking-voter> // Bloomberg // David Weigel – June 3, 2015 * This is another installment of "Whoa, If True," an occasional look at the wild and false tales that make it into the mainstream of presidential campaign news. On May 22, Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton paid a visit to New Hampshire's Smuttynose Brewery, and worked a line of voters outside. The visit made almost no news, apart from a second-day story about angry Republicans threatening to chug Really Old Brown Dog and Finestkind IPA no more. On June 1, the conservative opposition research shop America Rising tweeted a Vine of Clinton interacting with a voter outside Smuttynose. Its clicky summary: "Watch what happens when a@HillaryClinton supporter asks her to sign something." Anyone who watched the Vine saw Clinton tell a woman to "go to the end of the line" when asked for a signature. “You think she said it in a nice way?” Cue: Virality. The Weekly Standard posted the Vine, under the headline "Hillary to Supporter: 'Go to the End of the Line." The Daily Caller posted the Vine as proof of "Queen Hillary" being impatient with voters: "Every once in a while, Her Majesty must put the rabble back where they belong." Conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham told Fox News viewers that Clinton would never tell "influence peddlers" to "go to the back of the line" as she had this voter. According to Breitbart News reporter Charlie Spiering, the video's placement on the Drudge Report (headline: "She snaps at adoring voter") got it 4 million loops. America Rising's Colin Reed later bragged to a Salon writer that it was up to 5 million. There were two small problems with the story. One: The voter was not told to go to "the back" of the line, as if she'd cut ahead. She was told to go to the end of the procession, to where Clinton was pausing to sign notes, photographs, and books. Two: Once the voter found the end of the line, she got the signature she asked for. The video, graciously provided to reporters by America Rising, is 17 minutes long. At 8:59, Clinton emerges from the brewery and offers a "Hey, guys!" to the waiting crowd. For two minutes, she moves down the line, shaking hands, and trading extremely light banter. ("You just graduated from Penn State? My father and my brother went to Penn State.") At roughly11:11, the Vine moment occurs. After the "line" exchange, Clinton reassures the voter that she'll give here a signature. "Yeah, we will," she says. "Definitely, yes. See these guys over here? They'll take good care of you." She was referring to sunglasses-wearing handlers, who... proceeded to help her out, at the proverbial end of the line. At 12:16, the video clearly shows the woman who asked Clinton for a signature and a photo—a woman with a black-and-white striped shirt and grey hair tied back -- getting a signature, then taking a photo. Every news outlet that reported on Hillary snubbing the voter got it wrong—and could have easily gotten it right. The story never passed a basic B.S. test. Why would a tracker, with a perfect view of Clinton and the crowd, drop the story after the voter was told to relocate? Why would he not go up to the voter and ask how she felt about the snub? (She'd hardly have been the first person swarmed by media after an awkward candidate moment.) The answer was hinted at in the Vine itself, as a close listen revealed Clinton's handlers promising to "take care" of the voter. To make Clinton look rude, the video had to cut around the awkward fact that the voter got what she came for. "If you look at the whole video," Fox News commentator Greg Gutfeld said on Tuesday, "she was saying, 'Oh I'm shaking these hands, if you meet me over on the other side, you could sign it.' She wasn't being rude at all." By the time Gutfeld said that, the bogosity of the "snub" was becoming better known, and the story was already evolving into criticism of Clinton's tone. "You think she said it in a nice way?" a shocked Kimberly Guilfoyle asked Gutfeld. "I don't think it was that bad," said Dana Perino, who as a veteran of George W. Bush's administration actually knew how voter ropelines worked. The "Clinton seemed rude" theory of the case didn't even mesh with America Rising's original spin. As the Vine burned up Twitter, Colin Reed told Business Insider that Clinton had blown off a regular American. "Maybe these New Hampshire voters would have better luck getting Secretary Clinton’s attention if they wrote a six-figure check to the Clinton Foundation or were a highly-vetted political activist at one of her staged campaign events," he said. Asked by Bloomberg if he stood by that statement, Reed said that "the vine (and its 7 million views so far) speaks for itself." *Georgina Bloomberg is backing Hillary for President <http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/georgina-bloomberg-backs-hillary-article-1.2137161> // NY Daily News // Annie Karni – June 3, 2015 * It’s too soon to tell if dad’s on board, but Georgina Bloomberg is going for Hillary. “I would probably vote for her just to be able to say that I voted for the first woman President,” Bloomberg, a professional equestrian, told the Daily News in an email exchange. Georgina Bloomberg, 32, said being a new mom makes her eager to support Clinton’s expected run. “I am all into doing things that will be cool stories to tell my grandkids,” the younger of the city’s two former First Daughters said. Bloomberg’s son, Jasper, is just over a year old. Her support is a little piece of good news for Clinton, who has yet to answer questions about why she relied solely on a homebrew email system registered to her Chappaqua home during her tenure as secretary of state. Last time Clinton ran for President, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg briefly considered running against her as an independent. But the two are said to have a solid working relationship. In 2012, Bloomberg reportedly urged Clinton to run for mayor after he left office. Bloomberg has been a guest at Clinton Global Initiative conferences. And the high-wattage officials most recently appeared together at an event at the Bloomberg Foundation in December, where they highlighted an initiative that collects data on women in an effort to close gender gaps across the globe. But Bloomberg also has ties on the Republican side. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush , who is exploring a presidential run, is a Bloomberg Philanthropies board member. *Bill Clinton to Give Secret Address to Health Insurers <https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bill-clinton-give-secret-address-health-insurers_963917.html> // The Weekly Standard // Michael Warren – June 3, 2015 * Former president Bill Clinton will be the keynote speaker at a conference of health-insurance executives this week. America's Health Insurance Plans, the largest health-insurance provider trade group in the country, is holding its Institute 2015 conference in Nashville this week. Clinton, whose wife Hillary is running for president, will close out the conference Friday afternoon with his address to attendees. "The session is open to Institute attendees (who have registered and paid for the entire Institute) and Friday only registrants," says the conference's website. "No press allowed." AHIP describes itself as a trade organization and advocacy group on behalf of health insurers. Representatives of nearly 150 insurance providers are attending the organization's conference. *2016 Democratic White House hopefuls jockey for Hispanics’ support <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/3/hillary-clinton-martin-omalley-bernie-sanders-jock/> // The Washington Times // S.A. Miller – June 3, 2015 * Putting a premium on Hispanic voters as the key to their party’s future, Democratic presidential candidates this year are jockeying to outdo one another with promises to halt even more deportations and grant citizenship to every illegal immigrant — checking off the entire wish list of pro-immigration activists. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley became the latest Democratic contender to go all in on immigration Wednesday when he vowed to block deportations for all but the worst criminals and push comprehensive immigration reform laws through Congress in his first 100 days in office. “I would absolutely do everything in my power,” Mr. O'Malley said at a question-and-answer forum in Washington hosted by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. “I would not give up.” He also took a swipe at President Obama, whom immigration rights activists fault for breaking his promise to make immigration reform a top priority in his first 100 days and not going far enough with the deportation amnesty he eventually attempted with executive action after last year’s midterm elections. Mr. O'Malley said that to forge a consensus for comprehensive immigration reform, America needs “not leadership that follows public opinion but leadership that leads public opinion.” “We need comprehensive immigration reform, and we need to engage with all our members of Congress to make that happen. And that’s what I intend to do,” he said. “There’s no magic wand, there’s no easy button for this. We have to talk with one another.” Hispanics voted for Mr. Obama en masse, helping carry him to victory in 2008 and especially in 2012, when they voted for him over Republican Mitt Romney 71 percent to 27 percent. But Hispanic were left discouraged and disappointed by Mr. Obama’s progress on the immigration issue. Mr. Obama’s controversial move to unilaterally grant deportation amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants, which some pro-immigrant activists said didn’t go far enough, was blocked by a federal judge and remains snared in the courts. Eager to shore up Hispanic support, Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly moved to promise immigrant rights groups everything they want. The other Democrats in the race, Mr. O'Malley and Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, then rushed to promise everything and more on immigration. “They are definitely feeling the pressure and the strength of the immigrant rights movement, especially when it comes to motivating the Latino electorate,” said Cesar Vargas, co-director of the Dream Action Coalition, which had been advocating for most of the positions the candidates adopted. He said that Hispanic voters will be looking for more details from the candidates about how they will achieve the goals, and he said to expect the Democrats to go even farther with immigration reform proposals. “The reality for us that is going to matter is the record of the candidates and how much they are willing to actually commit to the plans and timelines rather than just campaign rhetoric that, right now, Hillary Clinton just has,” said Mr. Vargas. Democrats certainly don’t want to lose their edge with Hispanics, which are already the largest minority in the U.S. — and their numbers are rapidly growing. The Hispanic population in 1990 was 22 million, or about 9 percent of the population. By 2013, it reached 54 million, or 17 percent of the total population, and about 1 million more Hispanics are added to the U.S. population every year, according to the U.S. Census. By comparison, blacks made up about 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2013, up from 12 percent in 1990, according to census data. “Hispanic voters are the fastest-growing segment of the American electorate — period, exclamation point, capital letters — and are therefore important not just to the Democratic Party but to the entire country,” said Democratic campaign strategist Craig Varoga, who worked on President Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election team and Mr. O'Malley gubernatorial campaign. He said that the three Democratic candidates are making the smart moves by aligning themselves with Hispanics and embracing an immigration reform agenda, which he said Republicans shun to their own detriment. “All three of these [Democratic] candidates clearly believe that America is stronger if every single person in this country reaches their fullest potential,” he said. “Some, but not all, Republicans recognize that their party will continue to put themselves behind the eight ball and lose close elections if they ignore the growing role of these new Americans in our country.” Republican presidential candidates have taken a more cautious approach to immigration reform, such as offering some illegal immigrants a legal status that stops short of citizenship. Mrs. Clinton said that amounted to an offer of “second-class status.” She first staked out an immigration position that went beyond Mr. Obama’s at an event in Las Vegas in early May. She promised to use executive action to grant deportation amnesty to potentially millions more illegal immigrants despite the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel previously advising that it would be illegal. Mrs. Clinton also promised to make it easier for illegal immigrants to plead for leniency in deportation proceedings and provide more legal representation for young illegals in immigration courts, as well as fight for comprehensive immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship for most of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. More than the other candidates, Mrs. Clinton has broken with pro-immigrant activists in the past, including opposing giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants when she was a senator from New York. Mr. Sanders, a self-described socialist, has long supported immigration reform but had not made it a centerpiece of his agenda. After Mrs. Clinton came out strongly on the issue, he enthusiastically took up the cause. “We have 11 million people in this country living in the shadows, living in fear. That’s got to end. We need a path toward citizenship for all of those people,” he said on MSNBC. Mr. Sanders said that he too would use executive action to halt deportations and change immigration law, dismissing concerns that the Office of Legal Counsel deemed it beyond the scope of presidential power. “The courts are the people who determine what is legal or not. I think what you need is an administration that fights for justice, fights for what’s right, takes the case to the courts, and you do your best to win that case,” said Mr. Sanders. At the forum in Washington, Mr. O'Malley showed that he was ready to fight Mrs. Clinton for the Hispanic vote, taking a veiled shot at her record on immigration when he touted his own pro-immigration record. Among many pro-immigrant actions by Mr. O'Malley, he signed legislation giving driver’s licenses to undocumented residents in Maryland, supported sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants in the state and signed into law Maryland’s Dream Act that provided in-state tuition and other benefits to young adult illegals who were brought into the U.S. as children. “One of the greatest indicators of a person’s future actions would be how they acted in the past when they had the power,” said Mr. O'Malley. “I plan to run a campaign that offers new leadership with executive experience, with progressive values and the fearlessness that I believe will rally people to this candidacy,” he said. “I’ve listed the things that I did when I was in power and when I was in office. I intend to offer that same sort of leadership, and we’ll let the people decide.” *Meet the woman who's guiding Hillary Clinton's stance on police reforms <https://fortune.com/2015/06/03/maya-harris-hillary-clinton/>** // Fortune // Nina Easton – June 3, 2015* Maya Harris is Clinton’s senior policy adviser—and a major influence on how the Democratic candidate talks about issues of crime and policing. With many of the power players from Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run are sitting this one out, the big question is: Who’s in? What follows is the latest installment of a Fortuneseries looking at the the most influential women on Clinton’s 2016 team. When this series wraps, we’ll turn our attention to the most powerful women on the GOP side of the race. Maya Harris hails from a family of female overachievers. Her late mother, Shyamala Harris, immigrated from India in the 1950s to obtain her PhD in endocrinology from UC Berkeley, and went on to make breakthrough discoveries in breast cancer research. Her big sister, Kamala Harris, is California’s attorney general, and is now running for U.S. Senate. At age 29, Maya herself became one of the nation’s youngest-ever law school deans when she took the reins of the Lincoln Law School of San Jose, a night school that prepares students for the California bar. Then—as if choosing a spouse specially equipped to keep up with all this hard-charging ambition—Harris married fellow Stanford Law student (and her best friend) Tony West. West would go on to become the third-highest ranking official in the Obama Justice Department. Their friendship blossomed when Harris’ 4-year-old daughter Meena engaged West in games of hide-and-seek while her then-single mom was registering for classes. Following family tradition, Meena is now a Harvard law grad. “It’s all justice all the time,” Harris laughs when asked about family dinner talk. Harris’ mother, who mostly raised her girls alone (Harris’ Jamaican-born father was a Stanford economist), was swept up in the civil rights movement in and around Berkeley, so Harris grew up imbued with a healthy dose of activism. But the girls’ trailblazing mother also modeled a life of mentorship—always supporting her graduate students while also demanding high standards. “She was tough on them,” Harris recalls. “Until her dying day she never lost sight of this notion that if you’ve been able to walk through doors, you don’t just leave the doors open. You bring others along.” The sisters spent their early childhood in Berkeley before moving to Montreal, where their mother was a researcher at the Jewish General Hospital—and Harris learned French. They returned to the Bay Area six years later, where Harris attended U.C. Berkeley. Both she and Kamala inherited their mother’s intense drive—Harris as a civil rights attorney; Kamala a prosecutor—and her passion for cooking everything from soul food to Italian cuisine. Today, with inner cities exploding over police tactics, Harris’ appointment as one of three senior Clinton policy advisers is timely: The one-time private attorney has spent much of her professional life working on criminal justice issues, particularly policing. Her influence was evident in Clinton’s April 29 speech denouncing the “tough on crime” policies of her husband in the 1990s and the “era of mass incarceration” it produced. That’s an argument Harris has made over the years while working at the ACLU, the Oakland-based group PolicyLink, and, most recently, liberal Center for American Progress in Washington. Harris talks about the “collateral consequences of conviction” on families and communities, not just individuals, and tells me that the best police reforms are those that “engage the community as partners and problem-solvers, not just people to be policed.” Clinton’s speech gave fodder to critics who accuse the candidate of being too soft on crime and too hard on police officers assigned to work the front lines of dangerous neighborhoods. But, interestingly, Clinton’s calls for sentencing and prison reforms are echoed by some powerful Republicans, including presidential candidate and Senator Rand Paul. Koch Industries CEO Charles Koch, a well-known funder of Republican candidates, also recently argued that “overcriminalization” has led to “conflict between our citizens and law enforcement.” “I’m heartened that we’ve arrived at a bipartisan moment where people on the left and on the right are coming together,” says Harris. Immigration is another issue that falls under Harris’ campaign purview, and another spot where Clinton has rejected her husband’s policies and moved to the left—further left than even President Barack Obama. In a May 6 speech that Harris helped to craft, Clinton warned that if Congress doesn’t pass immigration reform—and she is elected president—she would issue executive orders beyond those issued by President Obama to provide legal protection to undocumented workers living here. Look to see Harris’ influence again on June 13, when Clinton delivers official “launch” speech on Manhattan’s Roosevelt Island. *The campaign to put Julian Castro on Hillary Clinton's VP shortlist <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/clinton-campaign-julian-castro-hillary-vp-hispanic-118619.html> // GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI and ANNIE KARNI // Politico – June 4, 2015* It’s way too early, Clinton insiders say. But the Castro buzz is useful as Democrats court Hispanics. The Democratic National Convention isn’t for 13 months, and Hillary Clinton isn’t the party’s nominee, but some Hispanic Democratic leaders are already pushing hard for Julián Castro to be her running mate — or at least a top contender for the job. The former San Antonio mayor and current housing secretary was in Washington while Clinton raised money in his hometown on Wednesday, but his name is on the minds and lips of Democrats close to the Clinton camp as the presidential front-runner crosses Texas for campaign fundraisers and a Houston speech on Thursday. The flashy trial balloon and Castro’s innate appeal have likely ensured the Mexican-American Cabinet member a place on Clinton’s vice presidential long list if she wins the nomination, Democrats close to Clinton said. But Castro hardly has any relationship with the candidate herself, and the effort has gotten a mixed reception at best. Democrats say it’s far too early for this conversation — arguing that it’s unproductive to talk about a general election ticket when Clinton is battling three other declared Democratic candidates and the ever-present perception of inevitability. What’s more, several Democrats warned, Castro’s backers run the risk of overplaying their strong hand. “If I were Julián Castro I’d be worried,” said one Clinton ally with an eye on Democrats’ efforts to woo Hispanic voters. “Others who are in his corner need to dial down those effusive musings.” Still, there’s a political logic in letting the pro-Castro drumbeat go on. Clinton’s campaign sees Hispanic voters as crucial to her success, both in swing states like Florida and early-voting states like Nevada, where the candidate last month unveiled an immigration agenda that surprised even the Obama White House with its scope and aggressiveness. And Castro, an engaging speaker and a fresh young face at 40, would make it somewhat harder for Republicans to paint the 67-year-old Clinton as the candidate of the past. Former HUD secretary and San Antonio mayor Henry Cisneros ratcheted up the Castro speculation with a recent appearance on Univision, the Spanish-language channel owned by close Clinton ally Haim Saban. “What I am hearing in Washington, including from people in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, is that the first person on their lists is Julián Castro,” Cisneros, who was considered for the vice presidency in 1984, said. “He is the superior candidate considering his record, personality, demeanor and Latin heritage.” Castro has largely played along, despite telling a Washington audience, “I’m not holding my breath” on Wednesday. He called Republican questions about Clinton’s private email address a “witch hunt” last month, and Cisneros — who said he has spoken to Bill Clinton about Castro — laughed when asked by POLITICO whether Castro wanted to be considered for the position. “Is he a red-blooded American male?” Cisneros asked rhetorically. “I would be hard-pressed to imagine a scenario where a Latino, and particularly Julián Castro, was not on that short list. It makes so much sense.” Cisneros is just one of several prominent Hispanic leaders who are promoting Castro. Democratic National Committee Finance Chairman Henry Muñoz told BuzzFeed in May that Castro “deserves to be on the short list,” and New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, who was born in Puerto Rico, said the concerted effort from Hispanic leaders to promote Castro reminded her of the united rally around Sonia Sotomayor when she was under consideration for a Supreme Court nod. Clinton and Castro haven’t spoken since they appeared together on a panel in Washington in April, but people close to the campaign acknowledged that it’s politically useful for the candidate to keep his name in the public conversation, long before her operation formally starts vetting prospects. That way she can implicitly emphasize to Hispanic voters that she is taking their concerns about representation seriously. “A lot of Latino Democrats are concerned about what happens if Marco Rubio becomes the [Republican nominee], or Jeb Bush, or even if Scott Walker becomes the nominee and he chooses Rubio to be the VP,” said a Democratic strategist close to the Clinton camp, adding that many see Castro as an easy solution to the dilemma. And while the early pro-Castro campaign is risky, it effectively ensures he will be considered seriously when it comes time for Clinton to choose a running mate, assuming she wins the nomination. “There’s an entire art to getting yourself on the list,” explained California Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, a veteran of Bill Clinton’s White House who helped to vet Al Gore. “There’s value to being talked about.” “But at the end of the day,” Lehane said, “there are really two factors: How does the [candidate] really personally feel about the person who is going to be the No. 2, and the single biggest factor is: Is the person ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? That’s a ‘You know it when you see it’ issue.” The answer to the first question could change as Clinton travels the country, especially if Castro emerges as a campaign surrogate, considering that the two have met only a handful of times and that he is actually closer to Bill Clinton than to Hillary. But Lehane’s second question — and Castro’s inexperience — is giving some Washington Democrats pause. The HUD secretary has been in Washington for less than a year after running San Antonio from 2009 to 2014, and Democratic staffers and lobbyists in the capital arched eyebrows and whispered about Castro’s policy chops following what they saw as his inelegant performances on “The Daily Show” and in congressional budget hearings this year. Some Democrats told POLITICO that Castro would be a better candidate four years down the road and that Clinton might face serious trouble if she were to put him on the ticket. “Yes, he’s a rising star, and people even talk about him being the first Latino president,” said the Democratic strategist allied with Clinton. “But now is just not the time, in this day and age when people are looking for real presidential experience. [President Barack] Obama was on the receiving end of charges of not being prepared.” “John McCain chose Sarah Palin and was bashed for that,” she added. “She has more experience than [Castro] does.” Castro, at least in public, coyly dismisses the veep buzz, telling CNN recently, “If I had a dime for every amount of speculation that happens in D.C., you know, I think all of us would be wealthy.” But the public nature of the pro-Castro campaign has nonetheless rubbed some Clinton allies and staffers the wrong way: One Democratic campaign veteran who is in frequent contact with Clinton’s top donors said such a high-profile effort all but ensures that Castro will have a harder time getting through the eventual vetting process. And it has also functioned to bring other vice presidential contenders to the public eye. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper recently announced he has an autobiography coming out around the time the vice presidential conversation may be heating up, and many Clinton loyalists are enamored of Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, widely considered the front-runner for the post. But the fact remains that Clinton’s team views courting the Hispanic vote as a top priority as she looks to replicate Obama’s electoral success with minorities. Clinton’s decision to unveil her immigration policy in Nevada was no mere happenstance, and when she returns to the state later this month she will speak at conference of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. Even so, Castro’s ethnic background may not be as effective in appealing to Hispanic voters as some believe. As one Clinton ally put it: “Tim Kaine speaks Spanish much better than Julián Castro does.” *Hillary Clinton Cannot Afford to Lose Black Voters <http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-cannot-afford-to-lose-black-voters-20150603> // National Jounal // EMILY SCHULTHEIS – June 3, 2015* Turnout will drop compared to Obama's two elections, but she's about to roll out a policy platform aimed directly at African-American voters. Barack Obama didn't need to do much—almost anything—to win record turnout from African-American voters. Hillary Clinton will need to pull out all the stops to score just a fraction of that support. An exaggeration? Black political leaders don't think so. "Make no mistake, there will be some drop-off," said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, a former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, whose comments echoed those of other influential African-American Democrats. Indeed, black leaders concede it will be nearly impossible for Clinton to replicate the level of turnout Obama's candidacy generated among this core demographic—a group of voters central to the national coalition necessary for a Democrat to win the White House. So she'll need to coax them to the polls by honing specific messages about policies relevant to the black community, something her team says she's preparing to unveil. On Thursday, Clinton will call for expanded early voting in every state, including weekend and evening hours over many days before Election Day—positions supported by Democrats who say working-class voters need greater access to the polls. And she'll specifically criticize laws in North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin that, she argues, reduced rather than expanded access to the polls. These are significant targets for Clinton. Democrats have their eyes on changing demographics in counties in North Carolina, Texas, and elsewhere that might begin to shift those states away from Republicans, perhaps as soon as 2016. Black voters, specifically, are growing as a share of the electorate in many states. But while pollsters think Clinton will win them by similar margins to Obama—95 percent of African-Americans voted for the president in 2012—her team should not underestimate the challenge she will have motivating African-Americans to show up when the first black president isn't at the top of the ticket. In 2012, the U.S Census Bureau estimated that just more than 66 percent of eligible black voters showed up at the polls—the highest turnout ever for this demographic group, higher even than turnout among whites. Indeed, Obama's support among black voters "went off the charts," said Brookings demographer William Frey—enough so that minority turnout, especially black turnout, was a deciding factor in the president winning a second term. And in states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, a difference in turnout of even a few percentage points could have big repercussions, Frey added. "You could call it the excitement factor," he said. "At least in these states … where blacks are a huge part of the minority population, she's going to need that." In other words, unlike Obama, Clinton will really have to work for high black turnout. "I can't in all honesty say that she will receive the same level of support as an African-American president," said Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio, "but clearly I do believe that if her message is strong she can get close." Late last week, Clinton appointed LaDavia Drane, the former executive director of the CBC, as her African-American-outreach director. Drane joins a staff at Clinton's Brooklyn headquarters with several other high-profile African Americans among its ranks, including Marlon Marshall, the director of state campaigns; Maya Harris, a top policy adviser; and Karen Finney, a senior spokeswoman. Harris, sister of California Democratic Senate candidate Kamala Harris and formerly of the Center for American Progress, has done research specifically on encouraging greater turnout of minority women, and she argued that they are a reliable voting bloc when they're given strong policy reasons to vote. That's true of black voters overall, she noted, and is part of the campaign's calculus. "One thing we know is that issues matter—that at the end of the day, whether [African-American] voters are going to turn out is going to depend on whether they have been motivated to turn out," Harris told National Journal. "Secretary Clinton is well-situated to do that, both in terms of what she has already demonstrated in her life's work and in the issues she's talking about." That motivation will come partly from policy proposals and partly from focusing on parts of Clinton's biography, the campaign says. Speaking in South Carolina last week, she put deliberate focus on her early career experiences at the Children's Defense Fund and her work for women and children. The campaign is also talking about specific policy positions that are relevant to the black community—health care, a minimum-wage increase, substance-abuse issues, and perhaps most noticeably, criminal-justice reform, which Clinton addressed in a speech at Columbia back in April. Clinton aides are quick to note that it was her first policy speech as a candidate—and with its proposals to provide body cameras for police officers nationwide and end the "era of mass incarceration," it was a direct response to unrest over police activity in Baltimore and other cities. "Her speech in New York was amazing," said Bakari Sellers, a former South Carolina state legislator who backed Obama in 2008 but is now supporting Clinton. "It's a serious plank in terms of African-American outreach, it's one that can be developed, it's one that can help galvanize not just your typical participants … but also a new generation of voices." The other key piece of necessary strategy is the ground game. Cleaver said African-American leaders are welcoming signs from Clinton that her team will build a robust turnout operation in urban areas, which is something Obama—whose candidacy was naturally a source of excitement to many black voters—didn't need to do. Clinton's 2016 team, with campaign manager Robby Mook at the helm, is placing heavy emphasis on grassroots strategy; it has sizable field teams in the four early states. "The president did not have to do a lot in the urban core, and didn't—he used his resources elsewhere," Cleaver said. "So I think you're going to find elected officials celebrating the fact that there's a great deal of attention being paid to the ground game." That starts in South Carolina, the only one of the four early states with a large African-American population. Clinton's campaign has hired a team of staffers and field organizers—including state director Clay Middleton and state political director Jalisa Washington, both of whom are African Americans with strong ties to the state's politics. A half-dozen field organizers are already in place in the state, focusing on traditionally African-American neighborhoods and gathering places as they start to introduce themselves and the campaign to the state's voters."We are going to where the voters are. So we are in faith-based communities, we are at churches, we are at several social-justice organizations," Middleton said. "We have field organizers that look like the community and understand the community and can relate to those individuals." *Emily’s List Focuses Its ‘Madam President’ Program on Clinton <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/03/today-in-politics-welcome-to-the-party-lincoln-chafee/#post-mb-8> // NYT // Jonathan Martin – June 3, 2015* Emily’s List, the Democratic advocacy group for female candidates who support abortion rights, is beginning an independent expenditure effort dedicated entirely to *Mrs. Clinton.* Emily’s List has been running a program, Madam President, for two years that was dedicated to promoting the concept of electing a female president. It was implicit that Mrs. Clinton would be that candidate, but now the group is making their support official. In a memo to donors, an official with the group noted that the project would be aimed at persuading and turning out female voters in targeted states and would feature extensive polling, voter contact, TV ads and digital advocacy. The official, *Denise Feriozzi*, wrote that it would be the most extensive independent expenditure program in the 30-year history of the organization. As part of the push, Emily’s List is taking over the social media platforms that had been controlled by Ready for Hillary, the grass-roots organization built around nudging Mrs. Clinton into the presidential race. *Clinton campaign snares Box CEO in courting young tech millionaires <http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/03/us-usa-election-siliconvalley-idUSKBN0OJ1Y220150603> // Reuters // Sarah McBride – June 3, 2015 * The last time Hillary Clinton ran for the White House in 2008, Aaron Levie was too busy building his start-up company to pay much attention to politics. But earlier this year, the 30-year-old Levie led his company, Box, through an initial public offering, helping free a small portion of his time to support the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. A few weeks ago, Levie, whose company is worth more than $2 billion, agreed to host a fundraiser for Clinton. He sees big stakes for the tech sector in this election, Levie told Reuters, on issues ranging from improving the patent system to securing visas for foreign workers and limiting government surveillance. “There’s more intersection between the technology industry and policy than ever before,” said Levie, whose trademark mad-scientist hair showed signs of gray, countered by youthful bright orange sneakers. He said he was backing Clinton because Democrats' social policies, for example on marriage equality, resonated more with him than Republican ones. The campaigns of various White House hopefuls are looking to reel in the younger Silicon Valley influencers like Levie who could help raise some money for their candidates and also bring along some of the tech sector’s energy and cachet. Levie, whose company helps store data remotely in the “cloud,” is among several young Silicon Valley executives Clinton’s campaign has been courting. "Young, innovative entrepreneurs are key to growing and strengthening our economy," said a Clinton campaign spokesman. SILICON VALLEY A CHALLENGE But recruiting tech entrepreneurs can prove a challenge. Many lack enthusiasm for politics. For example, in April venture capitalist Marc Andreessen told Fortune he was "struggling between the anti-science party and the anti-economics party" and felt tempted to sit out the next election. Fundraising officials who declined to be named said they hoped the imprimatur of a few will make it easier to attract others, and Democrats have a long list of prospects. “The next crowd is Twitter, Facebook, Airbnb," said venture capitalist Steve Westly, who served on President Barack Obama’s national finance committee during the 2008 election. While some of those companies have been around for years, many of their employees are relatively new to their wealth. Twitter and Airbnb representatives didn't respond to requests for comment. A Facebook spokesman declined comment. Many in Silicon Valley gravitate toward Democrats, because the party is seen as more in sync with the tech community on social issues such as gay marriage. But Republican 2016 hopefuls such as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul are trying to woo the technorati on economic and regulatory issues. A packed room of start-up workers at his San Francisco office opening last month suggested he may be having some success. Some big names in technology are already involved in politics. Twitter chief executive Dick Costolo is a longstanding Democratic donor, while Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg gives to candidates of both parties. COLLEGE DROPOUT Levie said he has donated only once to a candidate, Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York. He still hasn’t registered to vote in California, his home for almost a decade, relying instead on his parents to forward him his ballot from Washington state. A dropout from the University of Southern California, Levie founded Box with some friends and ran it for a time out of his uncle’s garage near San Francisco before landing hundreds of millions in venture capital backing. Friends and business associates such as Emanuel Yekutiel, deputy finance director for Clinton, helped spark his interest in her campaign, Levie said. The clincher: a May 1 meeting in Palo Alto where Clinton campaign officials, including chief technology officer and former Google executive Stephanie Hannon, met with about 50 executives and venture capitalists and highlighted the importance of building a cash reserve for the campaign. Among the invitees: Palmer Luckey, the 22-year-old co-founder of Oculus Rift, a virtual-reality company bought last year by Facebook for $2 billion, according to someone involved in the event. Though Levie says campaign support will take a backseat to running Box, he weighs in on election issues with vigor. Last month, he criticized Rand Paul on Twitter over his comments at a congressional hearing where he compared the “right to healthcare” to the enslaving of doctors. "Dude, you should be a script writer for `The Hunger Games`, not running for President," Levie wrote on Twitter, referring to the movie about death matches in a dystopian, ruthless society. *Clinton campaign opens five more Iowa offices <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/03/hillary-clinton-opens-campaign-offices-iowa/28417509/> // The Des Moines Register // Tony Leys – June 3, 2015 * Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is demonstrating its commitment to competing in Iowa by announcing the opening of five new offices in the state. The new locations are in Ames, Council Bluffs, Des Moines, Dubuque and Iowa City, according to a press release Wednesday from spokeswoman Lily Adams. The campaign already had opened offices in Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Sioux City and Waterloo. Such offices are used for recruiting and training volunteers, holding meetings and holding phone-calling efforts. The campaign also said it has six "regional organizing directors" and 21 organizers on the ground in Iowa. "Each day our organizers are out talking to Iowans about why Hillary Clinton is the champion we need in the White House and they will continue to have those conversations in these offices, in homes, and online," state director Matt Paul said in the release. Clinton finished a disappointing third in Iowa's 2008 Democratic caucuses. She has stressed that she will compete hard for the state this time around, even though she holds a commanding lead in polls. *OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE* *Chafee to unveil presidential run, puzzling longtime allies <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f901b910949f41e4b2d3a368978b6087/chafee-unveil-presidential-run-puzzling-longtime-allies> // AP – June 3, 2015 * Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee plans to formally open his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination on Wednesday, setting off on a quixotic political quest that has left even some of his closest allies scratching their heads. Chafee, a former Republican turned independent who joined the Democratic Party two years ago, surprised many when he announced plans to explore a presidential run in April. Since then, he's made little effort to set up a competitive campaign operation, beyond a few visits and calls to activists in the early voting states of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina. While his primary competitors travel the country raising money and wooing supporters, longtime Chafee strategists and donors say they know little about his intentions — or even his rationale for running. "He's not done anything other than posture on some issues," said Mike Trainor, a former Chafee aide. "The question he's going to have to answer is what credible indications can he give that he is at all ready to run a national campaign." Hillary Rodham Clinton, the dominant Democratic candidate, has set a goal of raising $100 million for her primary bid. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who entered the race last week, has said he's already raised at least $4 million. And allies of former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley have established a super PAC to support his bid. All three have begun building robust campaign operations with staff across the country, a step Chafee has yet to take. In previous campaigns, Chafee has spent significant sums from his family fortune to further his political ambitious, for example, dropping $1.8 million on his 2010 gubernatorial bid. But running for president is significantly more expensive than seeking statewide office, with some pegging the estimated cost of a successful 2016 campaign at more than $1 billion. "The time will come, but it's not now," Chafee said of his plans to raise money, in an interview with The Associated Press last month. "Perhaps after I announce." Chafee also faces questions about his rationale for challenging Clinton. Though most of the Democratic field has focused on pocketbook issues, calculating that the falling unemployment rate masks a lingering feeling of economic insecurity, Chafee says he's "alarmed" by international instability, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa. "I don't like where this is going," he said in a Web video announcing his exploratory committee. His opposition to Clinton, Chafee has said, is driven by the belief that the next president should not be someone who supported the war in Iraq, which he calls "one of the worst decisions in United States history." Then a Republican, Chafee was the lone GOP senator to vote in 2002 against the invasion. Clinton, then a New York senator, voted to authorize the war, which became a major issue during her 2008 campaign. Clinton now opposes putting American soldiers on the ground in Iraq, other than as advisers to the Iraqi forces. "This has to be fought by and won by the Iraqis," she said after a campaign event in New Hampshire last month. Chafee left the Republican Party in 2007 to become an independent and supported President Barack Obama in both his campaigns. After winning election as governor, Chafee became a Democrat in 2013, but he opted against seeking re-election amid low approval ratings. Those decisions attracted plenty of national media attention, which former aides say Chafee was happy to encourage. So far, his latest political maneuver has attracted far less notice, even from his hometown paper — a fact that's frustrated at least one person very close to the soon-to-be candidate. "No one has contacted him," wrote his wife, Stephanie Chafee, on Facebook nearly three weeks after his April announcement. "so SAD!" *Lincoln Chafee expected to announce longshot presidential bid <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/03/lincoln-chafee-expected-to-announce-longshot-presidential-bid/> // WaPo // Jose DelReal – June 3, 2015* Former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee (D), a one-time Republican U.S. senator who notably broke with the GOP on the 2002 Iraq war authorization, is expected to announce Wednesday that he will seek the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Chafee’s decision to run, which he plans to announce in an evening speech at George Mason University, makes him the fourth Democratic hopeful to officially enter the race. But he's already been the first to directly and consistently attack frontrunner Hillary Clinton -- particularly over the Iraq War vote that helped sink her first presidential bid. "I don't think anybody should be president of the United States that made that mistake" of voting for the Iraq War, Chafee told The Post in April. "It's a huge mistake, and we live with broad, broad ramifications today — of instability not only in the Middle East but far beyond and the loss of American credibility. There were no weapons of mass destruction." Chafee, the son of Rhode Island Sen. John Chafee (R), was appointed to U.S. Senate after his father died in 1999, leaving the seat vacant. As a liberal Republican, Chafee was re-elected to a full term in 2000, before losing in 2006. He officially left the Republican Party the following year. He was elected governor as an independent in 2010 and joined the Democratic Party in 2013. His announcement Wednesday comes less than two years after he decided not to seek a second term as governor amid low approval ratings and the prospect of a bruising primary. Central to Chafee's presidential campaign: his 2002 Senate vote against authorizing the use of military force in Iraq in 2002, when he was the only Republican senator to oppose the measure. Instability in Iraq has become an unexpected campaign issue in the GOP presidential race. Chafee's hoping it will once again take center stage in the Democratic contest too. “Don't forget that probably the biggest reason that Senator Obama, at the time, defeated Hillary Clinton in '08 was because of the Iraq war vote. That was the issue,” Chafee told CNN in April. “And that's my big issue here, because we are dealing with [the] ramifications of that huge mistake that Senator Clinton made in 2002, which I did not make, and we live with it today.” [Lincoln Chafee accuses Hillary Clinton of diplomatic clumsiness, says ‘America loves an underdog’] Clinton’s other rivals for the Democratic nomination have so far mostly stopped short of direct attacks on the former secretary of state. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley (D), who last week announced his candidacy, has made subtle digs the frontrunner that focus on her perceived coziness with Wall Street and her long history in Washington. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has staked out populist positions that sometimes fall far to Clinton's left, but takes pains to avoid mentioning her explicitly. Chafee does not appear concerned with subtlety. Several weeks ago, he suggested that heightened tensions with Russia might be traceable to a symbolic, incorrectly-labeled "reset button" Clinton presented to that country's leadership several years ago. “In the early days, they tried to restart with Russia and she presented the Russian foreign minister with the restart button. And they got the Russian word wrong. They said, 'This means over-charge,' and it was an insult,” he said. “Look what is happening with Putin and with Russia – Ukraine, selling arms to Iran – and it all could have started with the diplomatic mistake, getting the word wrong.” Chafee has said that he does not expect to raise nearly as much money as Clinton, but that he takes comfort in knowing that “America loves an underdog." In a year when one of the candidates seeking the Democratic nomination isn't even a member of the party, Chafee isn't concerned that his past party allegiance will raise eyebrows in his relatively new partisan home. "I have not changed. My old liberal Republican stand on the issues does line up with the Democratic Party — women’s reproductive freedoms, support for working families. I have a 30-year record,” he said in April. “Also note that of the candidates here, [former Virginia senator] Jim Webb was a Republican and Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl." A Washington Post/ABC News poll released Tuesday suggested Clinton has the support of 63 percent of likely Democratic voters nationwide, with Sanders at 10 percent and O’Malley at 3 percent. Chafee registered 1 percent support. *Launching '16 bid, Chafee refuses to rule out talks with IS <http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=bQB0P6jf> // AP // Lisa Lerer – June 3, 2015* Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee entered the race for president Wednesday by calling for the U.S. to switch to the metric system, take an "open-minded approach" to drug trafficking and consider negotiating with Islamic State militants. With his announcement, Chafee became the biggest longshot among Clinton's rivals, who have a long way to go to avoid becoming historical footnotes in the 2016 campaign. He did so by casting himself as an anti-war candidate who opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but he quickly detoured into a list of policy proposals that are likely to be non-starters on the campaign trail. Among them was refusing to rule out talks with Islamic State militants, a violent extremist group that has tortured and beheaded prisoners and opposition fighters as it has overrun parts of Iraq and Syria. A U.S.-led coalition has launched airstrikes against the extremist group since last August, but Chafee pointed to what he said was the group's protection of antiquities in some of the territory they've taken as a reason to reconsider. "It's early," he said. "We're coming to grips with who these people are and what they want." Chafee, a former Republican turned independent who joined the Democratic Party two years ago, has made little effort to set up a competitive campaign operation, beyond a few visits and calls to activists in the early voting states of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina. His launch Wednesday was made during a subdued speech in suburban Washington before a small group that consisted mainly of reporters. "We must deliberately and carefully extricate ourselves from expensive wars," Chafee told a half-full law school classroom at George Mason University. "We need to be very smart in these voluble times overseas." Along with moving to the metric system, the policy prescriptions in his speech included ending capital punishment, allowing National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden back into the U.S. without punishment and repairing relations with Venezuela. His priority would be to end all wars. "Let's wage peace in this new American century," he said. Longtime Chafee strategists and donors said earlier they know little about his intentions - or even his rationale for running. "He's not done anything other than posture on some issues," said Mike Trainor, a former Chafee aide. "The question he's going to have to answer is what credible indications can he give that he is at all ready to run a national campaign." Clinton has set a goal of raising $100 million for her primary bid. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who entered the race last week, has said he's already raised at least $4 million. And allies of former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley have established a super PAC to support his efforts. All three have begun building robust campaign operations with staff across the country, a step Chafee has yet to take. In previous campaigns, Chafee has spent significant sums from his family fortune to further his political ambitions - for example, dropping $1.8 million on his 2010 governor's race. Running for president is significantly more expensive than seeking statewide office, with some pegging the estimated cost of a successful 2016 campaign at more than $1 billion. Unlike the other Democratic challengers, who've focused on pocketbook issues, Chafee has staked his campaign on growing international instability. His opposition to Clinton, Chafee said, is driven by the belief that the next president should not be someone who supported the war in Iraq. Then a Republican, Chafee was the lone GOP senator to vote in 2002 against the invasion. Clinton, then a New York senator, voted to authorize the war, which became a major issue during her 2008 campaign. Clinton now opposes putting U.S. soldiers on the ground in Iraq, other than as advisers to the Iraqi forces. Though he never mentioned Clinton by name Wednesday, Chafee took several veiled swipes at her candidacy, describing the controversies over her family foundation, finances and use of a private email account and server while secretary of state as "regrettable." "We just can't have that," he said. "We need to just get back the respect and admiration of the international community." Chafee left the Republican Party in 2007 to become an independent and supported President Barack Obama in both his campaigns. After winning election as governor, Chafee became a Democrat in 2013, but opted against seeking re-election. *Iraq War focus for Lincoln Chafee campaign launch <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/politics/lincoln-chafee-2016-election-announcement/index.html> // CNN // Dan Merica – June 3, 2015 * Lincoln Chafee has been elected to office as a Republican senator and an Independent governor. Now he's got his sights set on the White House as a Democrat. A defining issue for Chafee has been the war in Iraq; he was the lone Republican to vote against authorizing the war as a senator in 2003. Hillary Clinton was among the Democrats to vote in favor of giving President George W. Bush the authority to invade. When Chafee announces he is running for president on Wednesday evening in a speech at George Mason Center for Politics & Foreign Relations in Arlington, Virginia, expect him to focus on that vote he took as senator 13 years ago and how he differs on the issue than Clinton. Chafee has told CNN that he feels Clinton's vote should disqualify her from the presidency, even though it happened more than a dozen years ago. "Considering the premise for invading Iraq was based on falsehoods and considering the ramifications we live with now from that mistake, I would argue that anybody who voted for the Iraq War should not be president and certainly should not be leading the Democratic Party," he said in an interview after he announced he was exploring a presidential run in April. Clinton has said she regretted the Iraq vote, and told reporters last month that she "made a mistake, plain and simple." According to Debbie Rich, Chafee's spokeswoman, the former governor will make his decision to vote against authorizing the war a key argument behind his rationale for running. The speech, Rich said, will not be deeply biographical, despite the fact few people know Chafee, but will instead focus on his vision. "I don't see a lot of 'rah rah, this is who I am' in the speech," Rich said. "It is more about his vision and his record." Chafee's strategy on the Iraq War is simple: Damage Clinton on an issue on which he was diametrically opposed. Chafee has said he doesn't worry about staking his campaign on a backward looking issue, and is proving that by repeatedly returning to the Iraq War vote in interviews. So far, however, the issue has failed to move the needle for Chafee. In a May CNN/ORC poll, the former governor failed to get even 1% support from self-identified Democrats and independents. In the same April poll, the former senator received 1%. He is more liberal than Clinton on other issues, too. He supported gay marriage before she did, for instance. But he is more of a hawk on fiscal matters. Chafee, a former horseshoe specialist, told CNN in April that he wouldn't bet on himself in the 2016 race, but added that he isn't concerned with his abysmal polling. The election is a "long, long way away. And any political historian can give innumerable examples of 1 percenters who have gone on to success," he said. "Maybe even Bill Clinton himself?" From the start, Chafee has been a somewhat reluctant candidate. He announced he was exploring a run with such an understated video and website that nearly every political journalist and operative were blindsided by the decision. And, according to his spokesman, Chafee backed into his decision to announce on Wednesday. After getting ahead of himself by telling reporters, including CNN, that he was "running," Chafee and his team knew they had to announce soon. "All the media outlets kept asking," Rich said. "When this opportunity came up that he was speaking on foreign policy, which is one of his passions, he decided he would use that opportunity to make a decision." After announcing his presidential run, Chafee will head straight to New Hampshire, a state he and his advisers say he has to do well in to have any chance at winning the presidency. After visiting Keene, New Hampshire for a meet and greet with local Democrats on Tuesday night, Chafee will hold a similar event in Lebanon, New Hampshire. "I am new at this. But I am a New Englander, so New Hampshire voters have heard of me, read about me in the Boston Globe," Chafee said in an interview last month. "I haven't campaigned in either state, so I don't know what to answer." *In Presidential Bid, Lincoln Chafee Calls For Metric System <http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-presidential-bid-lincoln-chafee-calls-for-metric-system-1433373940> // WSJ // Byron Tau & Reid Epstein – June 3, 2015 * In a presidential campaign turning largely on stagnant incomes and national security, Lincoln Chafee announced his bid for the White House on Wednesday with an unusual policy stance: He called for adoption of the metric system. Mr. Chafee, a former Republican and independent who is seeking the Democratic nomination, cast the proposal as a step toward global comity. “Here’s a bold embrace of internationalism: let’s join the rest of the world and go metric,” Mr. Chafee said at his campaign kickoff in Virginia. The policy raised questions about what American traditions might have to change—football fields might be 91.44 meters, rather than 100 yards, and the distance from home plate to first base measured as 27.432 meters, rather than 90 feet. Mr. Chafee, a former Rhode Island governor and senator, said that the U.S.’s insistence on using inches, feet, quarts and gallons set the country apart from the global community. He described the process of converting to metric as “easy.” As a model, Mr. Chafee pointed to Canada, where he also said that he has lived. “Only Myanmar, Liberia and the U.S. aren’t metric. And it will help our economy,” he said. His surprise embrace of the metric system caught even potential allies off guard. The U.S. Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act in 1975 calling the system the “preferred” one for trade and commerce. Still, widespread adoption has been scant. Paul Trusten, the vice president of the U.S. Metric Association, was shocked Wednesday when told that Mr. Chafee called for the country to adopt the metric system. “Who?” he asked. He then added: “Oh, my gosh.” Mr. Trusten, a pharmacist in Midland, Texas, said he wasn’t aware of any presidential candidate ever advocating for “metricazation.” People in the metric community, Mr. Trusten said, expected support from President Barack Obama, though that never materialized. They were disappointed by the White House’s response, in 2013, to a citizen petition calling for adopting the metric system. “I had very high hopes that Mr. Obama was going to be a leader in this because of his discussion of science progress and science initiative…but it never came up,’’ Mr. Trusten said. The problem, Mr. Trusten said, is that no American politician has shown sufficient leadership when it comes to the nation’s system of weights, measurement and distances. “Setting a standard of measurement should be a matter of national assent. It’s something that should be raised, not be made a matter of tyranny but as a matter of leadership,’’ he said. Mr. Chafee, a long shot for the presidency, is perhaps best known as the only Republican senator to vote in 2002 against the invasion of Iraq. He won the governor’s office in Rhode Island in 2010 as an independent before becoming a Democrat. In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Chafee joins former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Gov. Martin O’Malley as a candidate. *Does Anybody Remember Lincoln Chafee's Facebook Password? <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-03/does-anybody-remember-lincoln-chafee-s-facebook-password-> // * *Bloomberg // Ben Brody – June 3, 2015* Getting ready to launch a presidential campaign is a lot of work. There's a speech to write, staff to hire, and social-media profiles to touch up. That last task is tripping up Lincoln Chafee, a former Rhode Island governor who is set to announce Wednesday evening that he is setting out on a long-shot quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. In a public Facebook post on May 28, Chafee's wife, Stephanie, asked, “Does anybody from my Husband's staff remember his FB page access?” A spokeswoman for Lincoln Chafee, Debbie Rich, confirmed on Wednesday the post was authentic. His campaign has lost track of the log-in credentials to the Facebook page that staffers started and managed for Chafee as governor, Rich said, and that page seems to be attracting more attention than the page he has set up for 2016, so now they'd like to merge the two. His gubernatorial page has about 6,100 likes and a verified checkmark, but hasn't had anyone posting to it since October. Chafee left office in January after serving one term. His 2016 Facebook page has fewer than 200 likes. National Journal editor Scott Bland pointed out Stephanie Chafee's post on Twitter on Wednesday. The contender's wife “just thought some of her people who were her Facebook friends might have been the one that set it up,” Rich said. The former governor's wife has previously commented on Facebook about how little media coverage her husband is getting, according to the Associated Press. “No one has contacted him,” she wrote after he announced the formation of an exploratory committee in April, according to AP (the post no longer appeared to be available to the public on Wednesday). “so SAD!” *President Obama’s popularity numbers are running well behind historic norms <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/03/bad-news-for-dems-obamas-still-unpopular-good-news-people-think-hillary-is-different/?wprss=rss_the-fix&tid=sm_tw_pp> // WaPo // Scott Clement – June 3, 2015 * President Obama's job ratings have lost steam since a small early-2015 surge, but Democrats are positive about changes Hillary Rodham Clinton might bring, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll. With 18 months left in office, the poll depicts an unappealing legacy taking shape for Obama. His job ratings are significantly below average for presidents in the past 70 years, he receives sharply negative marks for dealing with the Islamic State, and Republicans are far more passionate in dislike of Obama than Democrats are in supporting him. Each factor poses challenges for Democrats seeking to secure a third consecutive term for the party. Americans, though, expect Clinton to offer a different path; 58 percent expect she will come up with new policies if elected president rather than follow Obama's, and most who expect new ideas say this is a "good thing." Among Democrats, two-thirds expect Clinton to follow her own path and the vast majority see this as a positive move. Overall, 54 percent say she'll either pursue new policies and that it's a good thing (44 percent) or that she'll pursue the same policies and that's a good thing (10 percent). The Post/ABC poll finds 45 percent approve of the way Obama is handling his job while 49 percent disapprove. Obama's approval marks are better than the low 40s of late last year, but down from 50 percent approval in January and 47 percent in March. Other public polls showed an even more modest rise, with current ratings also tilting negative. Obama gained traction early this year after months of strong economic news, and a January Post/ABC poll found 41 percent saying the economy was at least "good" -- up from 24 percent in late 2013. The economy's shrinking first quarter might have stalled Obama's gains, but the poll shows the issue is not as much of a drag on his approval as before -- his economic approval rating is two points above his overall job approval mark, a positive gap that occurred in just five of 56 previous Post/ABC surveys. Americans are still far from cheery on the issue, with 73 percent saying they are very or somewhat worried about its direction over the next few years. One possible reason Obama's overall numbers lag behind his economic numbers: Americans are increasingly upset with Obama's handling of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. By a 24-point margin, more disapprove than approve of Obama's handling of the situation (55-31) less than a month after the terrorist group captured the major Iraqi city of Ramadi. The negative judgment marks a flip from September, when 50 percent approved of Obama's handling of the issue after he ordered airstrikes to combat insurgents. The issue has highlighted Obama's often-weak support from fellow Democrats for his performance on foreign affairs; fewer than half of Democrats approve of how he has handled the issue (49 percent), 28 points lower than his overall job rating among fellow partisans. Historically, Obama's standing is below the 56 percent average of presidential approval ratings in Washington Post/ABC News and Gallup polls dating back to the 1930s. His 45 percent mark is also just below average for other two-term presidents at this stage. He is significantly higher than George W. Bush (35 percent) and Harry Truman (24 percent) but lower than Ronald Reagan (52 percent), Bill Clinton (59 percent) and Dwight Eisenhower (64 percent) at this point in their presidencies. A bigger challenge for Obama's personal legacy is the sheer intensity of disapproval, which was also seen under George W. Bush. Nearly four in 10 (38 percent) strongly disapprove of his job performance, while 22 percent strongly approve. At the root of this gap are vastly different levels of passion among Democrats and Republicans. Fully 73 percent of Republicans strongly disapprove of Obama, compared with 45 percent of Democrats who strongly approve. In June 2007, partisans were flipped by almost identical numbers, with 73 percent of Democrats strongly disapproving of Bush and 40 percent of Republicans strongly approving. *O’Malley’s Mangled Wage Statistic <http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/omalleys-mangled-wage-statistic/> // FactCheck // Brooks Jackson – June 3, 2015 * Democratic presidential contender Martin O’Malley claims that “70 percent of us are earning the same or less than they were 12 years ago.” That’s not correct. Actually, weekly paychecks for rank-and-file workers are 6.6 percent higher than they were a dozen years ago, even after adjusting for inflation. O’Malley was citing figures that don’t reflect a spike in real wages and earnings that has taken place over the past year or so. Real hourly wages are up 2.3 percent since the end of 2013, and they have risen faster for rank-and-file workers than for supervisors. Real weekly earnings are up even more, thanks partly to a slightly longer average work week. O’Malley, a former governor of Maryland, made the claim in his May 30 speech formally announcing that he is running for his party’s nomination. And he repeated it the following day when he appeared on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos. An Outdated Source When we asked where O’Malley got his figure, a campaign spokeswoman told us it came from a report by the Economic Policy Institute, released June 4 last year. But the figures in that report are now badly out of date, and didn’t quite back up what O’Malley said anyway. The EPI found that between 2000 and 2013, real hourly wages of the lowest-earning 30 percent of workers did indeed fall, and those workers in the range between 30 percent and 40 percent saw no increase at all. But EPI’s figures (see table 1 on page 11) show wages for all but the bottom 40 percent increased at least a bit. For those between the bottom 40 percent and the top 30 percent, the increase ranged from 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent annually. EPI characterized this group’s wages as “essentially stagnant,” and we would not disagree with that. But it’s not the same thing as “earning the same,” as O’Malley claimed. In a more recent report, released Feb. 19, EPI found that real wages fell for nearly all groups between 2013 and 2014, rising only for the bottom 10 percent and those in the 40th percentile. (See Table 1.) However, EPI’s figures are based on year-to-year comparisons, and thus fail to reflect a remarkable and broad spike in real wages and earnings recorded in more recent, month-to-month figures published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. EPI’s research and policy director, Josh Bivens, said this rise will be reflected in the group’s next annual report. “It’s true that real wages over the past 12 months have been pushed up a lot by falling oil prices, but, I think that’s clearly a temporary phenomenon and those gains will be clawed back when oil prices rise in the future,” Bivens told us. “But they have definitely provided a boost to purchasing power in the short-term, it’s true.” As we’ve noted before, falling prices for gasoline and other fuels have actually pushed down the Consumer Price Index recently, which in turn has helped push up the purchasing power of the dollar. A Spike in Real Wages and Earnings Temporary or not, the gains have been substantial and broad. “Real” hourly wages, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics expresses in constant 1982-1984 dollars to adjust for inflation, haveincreased by 2.3 percent since December 2013, after a long period of stagnation or decline since the end of the Great Recession in 2009. That figure is for all employees in the private workforce taken together. (Both the EPI and BLS wage and earnings figures cover only private sector employees, and exclude government workers.) BLS does not provide statistics broken down by wage level percentiles, as the EPI report did. But it’s clear the recent gains were not concentrated at the top. BLS does provide a breakdown for “production and nonsupervisory” employees, who make up 82 percent of all workers, and who are paid less on average than their bosses. Those rank-and-file workers have seen their real hourly wages go up 2.7 percent since the end of 2013, an even bigger increase than the average for all workers. It’s also worth noting that O’Malley used the word “earned,” and weekly earnings have risen even faster than hourly wages recently. That’s because workers are putting in slightly more hours than they did at the end of 2013. Since December 2013, weekly paychecks have gone up 2.9 percent for all workers, and 3.1 percent for rank-and-file workers. We also looked at how real earnings — the measure O’Malley used — stacked up against those of “12 years ago” — the time period he specified. And it turns out that as of April, weekly paychecks for rank-and-file, nonsupervisory employees were 6.6 percent higher than they were in April 2003. *Martin O’Malley counters Hillary Clinton: I’m not new to immigration reform <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/martin-omalley-counters-hillary-clinton-im-not-new-to-immigration-reform-118599.html#ixzz3c2L5W1gM> // Politico // Jonathan Topaz – June 3, 2015 * Martin O’Malley, struggling to emerge from the long shadow of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, is betting on immigration as a break-out issue that can win him a strong share of the Latino vote. He’s casting Clinton as a late-to-the-party figure on immigration reform, and he’s likely got an edge on Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is enjoying a surge of attention in the presidential race but is not prioritizing immigration in his campaign. “It’s central to our nation’s character and central to our nation’s economy … For me, it’s a pretty essential part of what it’s going to take to get things going in the right direction,” O’Malley said in a phone interview with POLITICO Wednesday, ahead of a Q&A with Hispanic Chamber of Commerce president Javier Palomarez. And after Hillary staked out an aggressive, and relatively new, stance on the issue last month, O’Malley delivered his own promise during the event: he would pursue immigration reform in his first 100 days in office and would use executive action, if needed. In the interview earlier in the day, O’Malley said his record speaks for itself and also says something about Clinton. He argued his leadership on immigration while he was Maryland governor was an example of challenging Washington orthodoxy — particularly in his fight against the White House and Clinton when he spoke out last summer against the fast-track deportation of the flood of Central American unaccompanied minors across the border. In many ways, he placed the issue as central in the larger narratives of his campaign — a generational contrast with Clinton and his gubernatorial record. While he declined to challenge Clinton or Sanders directly — he never used their names — O’Malley alluded to politicians who failed to speak up and declined to buck the party, apparent references to Clinton. “When nobody else would speak up about the deplorable treatment of the Central American refugee kids coming to our country for sanctuary, I stood up and spoke very directly,” he said. While Clinton impressed – and genuinely surprised – immigration activists with her Nevada speech last month in which she called for a pathway to citizenship and for more robust executive action on immigration, O’Malley is arguing that he’s had their backs all along. Not all activists are convinced, though, that O’Malley will get a significant advantage over Clinton with Latino voters by portraying her as a latecomer. Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, says there’s little distinction between the three candidates on immigration. He argued that Clinton pushed Obama to the left on immigration during their 2008 campaign, noting in particular a famous moment on the trail in Nevada in which Clinton, meeting with immigrant families, said: “No woman is illegal.” “If Latino voters in the Democratic Party were to look over the timeline of Hillary Clinton’s relationship with the Latino community, those roots are pretty deep,” Noorani argued. “I guess O’Malley is trying to chip away at those roots and find a lane.” O’Malley’s doing a good deal of Hispanic outreach early in his campaign. Since his announcement last Saturday in Baltimore, the former governor conducted one of his first interviews with Univision and his appearance with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Wednesday was one of his first public engagements as a candidate. He has also hired Gabriela Domenzain, a sought-after operative and former director of Hispanic media for President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign. O’Malley’s also pointing to his tenure as Maryland governor from 2007 through early 2015, during which Maryland passed the DREAM Act, which granted in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants, as well as a law to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. His team also touts a big increase in contracts for Hispanic small businesses in Maryland. In the afternoon Q&A on Wednesday, O’Malley pledged to scale down deportations and take more executive actions. When asked about foreign policy, he immediately began speaking about outreach to Latin America and the border crisis this summer. “You definitely see a day-and-night contrast with Gov. O’Malley and Secretary Clinton … Hillary Clinton has a dismal record on the issue,” said Cesar Vargas, co-director of the DREAM Action Coalition. “It’s nice the Hillary is actually saying great words, but we’re not going to fall for it.” Added Clarissa Martinez, deputy vice president at National Council of La Raza: “In O’Malley’s case, his immigration record is not something that has taken shape as a result of his wanting to run for president … O’Malley has a stronger position among the Democrats. Because it’s not just words. It’s deeds.” And O’Malley is proudly pointing to that high-profile and heated back-and-forth last summer with the White House and its connection to Clinton. While Clinton backed the Obama administration’s push to fast-track the deportation process, in order to try to stem the tide of unaccompanied Central American children along the U.S.-Mexico border, O’Malley pushed back. “It is contrary to everything we stand for to try to summarily send children back to death,” he said at the time, a statement that prompted a phone call from White House Domestic Policy Director Cecilia Muñoz and further criticism from the administration. Some activists still bristle at Clinton’s backing of the White House. And there are still wounds from the 2008 primary season in which Clinton famously was vague on several occasions about whether she supported driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. Clinton’s campaign in April said she supports the policy, which quickly prompted a sharp retort from O’Malley — “I’m glad Secretary Clinton’s come around to the right positions on these issues.” Asked during the interview on Wednesday whether Clinton has been late on immigration issues, O’Malley took a long pause. “I’ve never hesitated on these issues, even when some would say that it was politically risky,” he said. Sanders, meanwhile, hasn’t been emphasizing immigration. While immigration was featured prominently in O’Malley’s announcement address last weekend, with a DREAM-er originally born in Panama as one of the opening speakers, Sanders was introduced by labor leaders, affordable housing advocates and campaign finance activists. He didn’t mention immigration in his speech, which had fourteen different policy sections and lasted about a half hour. The senator rarely talks about it on the stump; at a recent town hall in D.C., he said that while immigration was an important issue, it wasn’t as central as the other issues he discusses far more. “If people are going to get to know him, they need to get to know him on the basis on what he believes are the biggest issues facing our country,” said top Sanders adviser Tad Devine — meaning campaign finance reform, income inequality and climate change. He noted also that Vermont has a relatively small immigrant population. *Martin O'Malley: Makes No Sense To Keep 11 Million In Shadow Economy <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/martin-omalley-makes-no-sense-keep-11-million-shadow-economy-n369336> // NBC News // Suzanne Gamboa – June 3, 2015 * Attempting to further capitalize on his immigration record, 2016 Democratic hopeful Martin O'Malley on Wednesday promoted immigration reform as a way to improve wages for all Americans. "How are you going to get wages to go up if you allow 11 million people to live in a shadow economy?" O'Malley asked at an event sponsored by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. He further said immigration needs to be talked about as a national economic and security priority "not for this group or that group, but for us" as a country. O'Malley committed to addressing immigration during his time in office if elected, but only would go so far as to say he hoped to make it happen within the first 100 days he is in the Oval Office. Obama pledge in 2008 to take up a comprehensive immigration reform bill in his first year, an unkept promise that was used against the president in 2012. Immigration was one of a range of issues O'Malley addressed in his first public event since declaring on Saturday that he is running for president. In the almost one hourlong discussion, O'Malley also took subtle swipes at the Obama administration and was evasive in answering a question about what some see as a velvet gloved treatment of his chief rival Hillary Clinton in the campaign. Asked if he was "Ready for Hillary," O'Malley said he and other candidates have reason for running and "now the public gets to decide." Although the Obama administration often points to economic gains under Obama, O'Malley said "we need to get our economy functioning again." He was most animated in discussing the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal and "the secrecy with which it was thrust upon us." Obama has won fast track authority for the agreement, giving him the authority to negotiate it and holding Congress to only an up or down vote with no amendments or filibustering of the agreement. O'Malley said the North American Free Trade Agreement between the U.S., Mexico and Canada led to dislocation and loss of jobs and devastation in Mexico and hurt small communities. A good trade deal "would level the playing field without diminishing our standards for labor and workers and our standards when it comes to the protection of the environment," he said. Javier Palomarez, USHCC president, reminded O'Malley that his chamber supports the trade pact and asked him to agree that it contains protections for labor and the environment. But O'Malley declined to go along, saying he'd let Palomarez know when he's had a chance to read the agreement. "'When you have a secret deal and the only people who get to see it are the great captains of corporate America who have more cash than they've had in a long time . . . and now we are told 'trust us' on the secret agreement that we are not allowed to read as a people before our representatives have to fast track it, it's not the way our country is supposed to work," O'Malley said raising his voice. The Republican Party issued a statement saying O'Malley's policies while he was governor of Maryland hurt families and small business. The event was another example of the elevated struggle among the presidential campaigns to win the increasingly valuable Latino vote that voted 2-1 for Obama in 2012 and made up about 11 percent of people who went to the polls. Next week, Hillary Clinton plans to be in Las Vegas and speak to the National Association of Elected and Appointed Officials conference, which she announced earlier Wednesday. *Martin O'Malley Wrongly Says That Wages Haven't Gotten Better For Americans <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/03/martin-omalley-wages_n_7503198.html> // HuffPo // Brooks Jackson – June 3, 2015 * Democratic presidential contender Martin O’Malley claims that “70 percent of us are earning the same or less than they were 12 years ago.” That’s not correct. Actually, weekly paychecks for rank-and-file workers are 6.6 percent higher than they were a dozen years ago, even after adjusting for inflation. O’Malley was citing figures that don’t reflect a spike in real wages and earnings that has taken place over the past year or so. Real hourly wages are up 2.3 percent since the end of 2013, and they have risen faster for rank-and-file workers than for supervisors. Real weekly earnings are up even more, thanks partly to a slightly longer average work week. O’Malley, a former governor of Maryland, made the claim in his May 30 speech formally announcing that he is running for his party’s nomination. And he repeated it the following day when he appeared on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos. An Outdated Source When we asked where O’Malley got his figure, a campaign spokeswoman told us it came from a report by the Economic Policy Institute, released June 4 last year. But the figures in that report are now badly out of date, and didn’t quite back up what O’Malley said anyway. The EPI found that between 2000 and 2013, real hourly wages of the lowest-earning 30 percent of workers did indeed fall, and those workers in the range between 30 percent and 40 percent saw no increase at all. But EPI’s figures (see table 1 on page 11) show wages for all but the bottom 40 percent increased at least a bit. For those between the bottom 40 percent and the top 30 percent, the increase ranged from 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent annually. EPI characterized this group’s wages as “essentially stagnant,” and we would not disagree with that. But it’s not the same thing as “earning the same,” as O’Malley claimed. In a more recent report, released Feb. 19, EPI found that real wages fell for nearly all groups between 2013 and 2014, rising only for the bottom 10 percent and those in the 40th percentile. (See Table 1.) However, EPI’s figures are based on year-to-year comparisons, and thus fail to reflect a remarkable and broad spike in real wages and earnings recorded in more recent, month-to-month figures published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. EPI’s research and policy director, Josh Bivens, said this rise will be reflected in the group’s next annual report. “It’s true that real wages over the past 12 months have been pushed up a lot by falling oil prices, but, I think that’s clearly a temporary phenomenon and those gains will be clawed back when oil prices rise in the future,” Bivens told us. “But they have definitely provided a boost to purchasing power in the short-term, it’s true.” As we’ve noted before, falling prices for gasoline and other fuels have actually pushed down the Consumer Price Index recently, which in turn has helped push up the purchasing power of the dollar. A Spike in Real Wages and Earnings Temporary or not, the gains have been substantial and broad. “Real” hourly wages, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics expresses in constant 1982-1984 dollars to adjust for inflation, have increased by 2.3 percent since December 2013, after a long period of stagnation or decline since the end of the Great Recession in 2009. That figure is for all employees in the private workforce taken together. (Both the EPI and BLS wage and earnings figures cover only private sector employees, and exclude government workers.) BLS does not provide statistics broken down by wage level percentiles, as the EPI report did. But it’s clear the recent gains were not concentrated at the top. BLS does provide a breakdown for “production and nonsupervisory” employees, who make up 82 percent of all workers, and who are paid less on average than their bosses. Those rank-and-file workers have seen their real hourly wages go up 2.7 percent since the end of 2013, an even bigger increase than the average for all workers. It’s also worth noting that O’Malley used the word “earned,” and weekly earnings have risen even faster than hourly wages recently. That’s because workers are putting in slightly more hours than they did at the end of 2013. Since December 2013, weekly paychecks have gone up 2.9 percent for all workers, and 3.1 percent for rank-and-file workers. We also looked at how real earnings — the measure O’Malley used — stacked up against those of “12 years ago” — the time period he specified. And it turns out that as of April, weekly paychecks for rank-and-file, nonsupervisory employees were 6.6 percent higher than they were in April 2003. *O’Malley on the Stump <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/03/first-draft-focus-omalley-on-the-stump/> // NYT // June 3, 2015 * Martin O’Malley, a Democratic presidential candidate, sought to seize on the immigration reform debate on Wednesday, pledging to take on the issue within the first 100 days of his administration. Mr. O’Malley, a former Maryland governor, made the remarks at a United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce event in Washington, where he was interviewed by the group’s president, Javier Palomarez. “Absolutely,” he told Mr. Palomarez about addressing immigration as an immediate priority. He said that addressing immigration had been so difficult because politicians treated it like a niche issue affecting a specific voting bloc as opposed to a critical economic policy. Mr. O’Malley also tried to remind people of his executive experience, a past-is-prelude approach he is certain to continue in an effort to stand out from Hillary Rodham Clinton. Struggling in the polls, Mr. O’Malley is trying to get a toehold in the Democratic primary, in which Mrs. Clinton has a strong lead and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has gained early momentum. Mr. O’Malley believes immigration provides him with that opportunity, and he has tried to highlight actions on the issue he took in Maryland, such as a law for in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. He has also tried to paint Mrs. Clinton, who has told immigrant rights advocates that she would go further than President Obama’s executive actions halting some deportations, as new to the issue. Separately, the “super PAC” supporting Mr. O’Malley, Generation Forward, began placing television ad buys for two Iowa media markets, to air Friday through Sunday, according to a person tracking the early ad spending. *Martin O’Malley Calls For More Restrictions on NSA Surveillance <http://time.com/3908016/martin-omalley-national-security-agency/> // TIME // Sam Frizell – June 3, 2015 * Former Gov. Martin O’Malley said that recent reforms to the Patriot Act did not go far enough in curtailing the National Security Agency, arguing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court should include a public advocate. “The USA Freedom act was a step in the right direction, and I’m glad that it passed and the president signed it,” said O’Malley, who is running for the Democratic nomination for president. “I would like to see us go further in terms of a role for a public advocate in the FISA court,” he continued. “As a lawyer myself and by training, I think our national security and our rights would be better served if we had a bigger role for a public advocate in the FISA court.” O’Malley’s remarks at the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday afternoon marked the first time the two-term governor has laid out a notable policy position on mass surveillance since becoming a presidential candidate. He has thus far staked his candidacy on a progressive economic platform, including regulating Wall Street and pushing for immigration reform. President Obama signed into law on Tuesday sweeping legislation that dissolves the NSA’s authority to monitor data on millions of Americans’ phone calls, instead requiring that phone companies store the data themselves. If the government wants to access call data, it has to first acquire a court order with FISA. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who is running for the Republican nomination, has made reforming surveillance a central platform of his presidency. But O’Malley differed with Paul on how to do that. Over the weekend in New Hampshire, O’Malley said he opposed Paul’s move on Sunday to delay a vote on to extend the Patriot Act. Paul’s delay ultimately led to the NSA surveillance authorities lapsing for nearly two full days, but paved the way for the USA Freedom Act to pass on Tuesday. “I think we could be less safe if we resort to obstructionism when it comes to something as important as protecting our homeland from the threat of terror attacks,” he said, BuzzFeed news reported. *O’Malley super PAC to air early television ads in Iowa <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/03/omalley-super-pac-to-air-early-television-ads-in-iowa/> // WaPo // John Wagner – June 3, 2015 * A super PAC supporting Democrat Martin O’Malley’s presidential bid is preparing to air television ads in Iowa highlighting the former Maryland governor’s willingness to stand up to Wall Street “bullies.” The $25,000 ad buy by the Generation Forward PAC is relatively modest, but it represents the first 2016 presidential advertising on television on the Democratic side in Iowa, the nation’s first caucus state. Ron Boehmer, a spokesman for the PAC, which is barred by law from coordinating with O’Malley’s campaign, said it’s possible more money could be put behind the ad, which he said will air on network affiliates around the state. O’Malley, considered a long shot against Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination, announced his bid on Saturday. The ad features footage from O’Malley’s announcement speech at Federal Hill Park in Baltimore, where he noted that the chief executive of investment bank Goldman Sachs recently said he would be fine with either Clinton or Republican Jeb Bush as president. “I bet he would,” O’Malley told the crowd. “Well, I’ve got news for the bullies of Wall Street. The presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.” Since then, O’Malley’s aides have sought to highlight the comments of Fox Business Network correspondent Charles Gasparino, who reported this week that O’Malley is “public enemy No. 1” at Goldman Sachs. The super PAC’s ad closes with that quote from Gasparino. In recent months, O’Malley has laced his speeches with calls for tougher Wall Street regulations, an issue on which his advisers argue Clinton is weak because of past support from the financial sector. On Wednesday, at a forum hosted by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, O’Malley was asked if he plans to take campaign contributions from Wall Street banks and their executives. He said he probably already had done so and plans to continue doing so. “There’s a lot of good people who work in our financial industry,” O’Malley said, adding that many of them are also “saddened” by bad behavior by some of the big banks. *Wall Street Execs Take Aim at O’Malley Campaign Hypocrisy <http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/2015/06/03/wall-street-execs-take-aim-at-omalley-campaign-hypocrisy/> // Fox News // Charlie Gasparino – June 3, 2015 * Wall Street executives are fighting back against Martin O’Malley, branding the former Maryland governor and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate a hypocrite for attacking the big banks after what they say is a largely unsuccessful attempt to collect fat-cat campaign contributions, the FOX Business Network has learned. O’Malley, who announced Saturday that he is challenging former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, has made his opponent’s ties to the big banks the center piece of his nascent campaign. But since at least the beginning of the year, O’Malley himself has eyed contributions from executives at several major Wall Street banks, according to people with direct knowledge of O’Malley’s fundraising. These people say in recent months, O’Malley met key officials from Morgan Stanley (MS), and, according to O’Malley campaign officials, he is looking for contributions from what he considers “reformed minded bankers” at other firms such as JP Morgan (JPM) and even Goldman Sachs (GS), whose chief executive Lloyd Blankfein was singled out by O’Malley in his announcement speech for having too much influence with Clinton. It’s unclear how much—if any money – O’Malley has or will receive from the big banks; both his political action committee and his campaign have until July 15 to file contribution disclosures. While governor of Maryland, O’Malley received $559,000 from people and entities labeled “securities, investments” and “commercial banks,” according to disclosure forms. Many Wall Street executives have branded O’Malley as “public enemy No. 1” for his recent spate of attacks on their influence on public policy. Some of those execs are now calling him a hypocrite for making class warfare and bank bashing a central theme of his campaign against Clinton after meeting with financiers. “O’Malley has not been shy about meeting with the big banks for money,” one senior Wall Street executive with direct knowledge of the matter said. “That doesn’t mean he will be successful; in fact no one I know has given him anything.” Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan had no comment. "They can try to leak as many meaningless tidbits as they want, but Governor O'Malley has shown he will stand up to his own party to call for real structural and accountability reforms of Wall Street. His message is the same everywhere - Wall Street must be held accountable once and for all,” O’Malley spokeswoman Halley Morris said in a statement. An O’Malley campaign official speaking on a not for attribution basis added that a recent meeting between the candidate and Morgan Stanley Vice Chairman Tom Nides was a “political meeting,” and was not with the sole purpose of benefiting the O’Malley campaign. “Obviously [Nides is] a close confidante of the Clintons given his relationship with the Clintons,” the source said. Nides served as deputy secretary of state under Clinton before he took the post at Morgan Stanley. Two Candidates Go Head-to-Head Clinton, the former Obama Secretary of State and first lady, has received millions of dollars in speaking fees from corporations, such as Goldman and is expected to raise millions of dollars from the finance industry given her close relationships with major player such as Blankfein and Larry Fink, the chief executive of money-management powerhouse BlackRock (BLK). Cheryl Mills, a key Clinton adviser and Clinton Foundation board member, is also a board member of Blackrock. Wall Street executives say Fink is interested in a cabinet spot – like Treasury Secretary -- in a Clinton Administration . A Blackrock spokesman had no comment on the matter. O’Malley ignited a firestorm among Clinton’s vast army of Wall Street supporters on Saturday when he announced his candidacy by attacking her ties and those of Republican presidential front runner and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to major players in the finance industry. “Let's be honest, they were the ones who turned our economy upside-down in the first place. And they are the only ones who are benefiting from it,” O’Malley said in his speech. “Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest repeat-offending investment banks in America. Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he'd be just fine with either Bush or Clinton. Well, I've got news for the bullies of Wall Street --the presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.” FBN has previously reported that the heads of the big Wall Street firms believe either a Clinton or Bush presidency would further their goals of weakening recent financial regulations such as Dodd Frank. Clinton leads O’Malley by wide margins in recent polls, but her operatives are said to be worried about O’Malley’s line of attack and that her relationships with Wall Street firms at the center of the 2008 financial collapse could have resonance particularly among progressive Democratic Party voters. *Sanders Calls for 'Political Revolution' <https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sanders-calls-political-revolution_963850.html> // The Weekly Standard // Michael Warren – June 3, 2015* “Is Finland crazy? I want somebody to comment on that.” Bernie Sanders was speaking Wednesday morning in a basement classroom at Johns Hopkins University’s Washington campus. The Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate had been asking the group of 50 or so to think about what sort of country they wanted to live in. During a short Q&A, a Finnish graduate student named Hans spoke up to ask about student loan debt. After some prodding by the senator, Hans revealed that not only did he pay no tuition for his studies but he was actually being paid by the government for living expenses. That sounded like the kind of country Sanders wanted to live in. “Are people in Finland—a beautiful country—are they crazy about saying, as I understand it, that every young person in Finland should have the opportunity to go to college fully and invest in their young people?” Sanders said to the audience. “Well, raise your hands! And if they’re not crazy, why isn’t it happening in America? What are you doing about it?” A student asked what young people can do to fix the problems of the country, and Sanders went into a stemwinder. “If you are concerned about the future of this country, the patriotic thing to do, the thing to do in respect to the founding fathers of this country, those people who fought and died in Okinawa in World War II, and all the wars that we have fought, is to get involved. And I know it’s not a cool thing to get involved. Get involved in politics? Hey, there’s a party down the street. Let’s get drunk. Let’s get high. That’s what being young and alive is about. Well, if you really want to be patriotic and you really want to be a hero, and you really want to show your concern a few miles away from here who have no opportunity whatsoever, you know what? Have some courage. Do what your friends are not doing,” he said. If a Bernie Sanders campaign event sounds a bit like a lecture from your grandfather, that’s because it kind of is—if your grandfather were an avowed socialist with a funny, sarcastic streak. He touted the social welfare paradises of places like Finland and Denmark, getting laughs from the crowd when joked that free education and health care were the awful consequences of “European socialism.” It was a friendly crowd at Johns Hopkins, with questioners asking about paid maternity leave (he’s for it), foreign policy (he was “one of the leaders of the opposition” to the Iraq war in 2003), and the federal minimum wage (it ought to be $15 an hour, he says). When one older man prefaced his question by saying it was an “honor” to be in his presence, Sanders interrupted him. “No, no, no. Hold it, hold it, hold it,” Sanders said. “That makes me nervous. It’s not an honor to be in my presence. It’s an honor to be in your presence. I’m just a person like you who happens to be a senator.” Sanders’s socialism is less intellectual and more populist. “The major issue facing our country,” he said, by way of introduction, “is the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality.” There’s a moral element, too. “In my view, there is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom ninety percent. There is something profoundly wrong when ninety-nine percent of all new income generated in this country goes to the top one percent today,” said Sanders. “Are you comfortable with that?" For Sanders, the gross wealth inequality means the rich have not only corrupted our culture and society but our government and politics as well. We don’t talk about these inequality issues, he said, because “the folks who essentially own the country would prefer us not to discuss” it. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which removed limits on donations to outside political groups and which Sanders calls “one of the worst” in U.S. history, has opened the floodgates for moneyed interests in politics. In fact, Sanders said, he would consider support for overturning Citizens United as a “litmus test” for any Supreme Court nominees he would name as president. Sanders excoriated the libertarian and Republican-friendly Koch brothers for their plans to spend nearly a billion dollars in the next election cycle on campaigns and advocacy. But left unmentioned was one of his rivals for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, who has and will continue to raise money from Wall Street, Hollywood, and other centers of money and influence. Sanders has been muted in directly criticized Clinton on wealth and inequality issues, instead opting for a more general argument, as he did Wednesday. “What I’ve called for in this campaign is what I call a political revolution,” he said. You have to go into your heart of hearts. I can’t do that for you. And you gotta look around and say, you know, men and women fought and died to preserve American democracy. Are you content with where we are right now?” *Bernie Sanders Calls for More and Earlier Debates <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/03/bernie-sanders-calls-for-more-and-earlier-debates/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Politics&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body> // NYT // Alan Rappeport – June 3, 2015* Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is employing a new strategy that he hopes will help him stand out in the growing field of Democrats who are running for president: He’s calling for more debates. The Democratic National Committee has agreed to sanction six debates starting this fall. But on Wednesday, Mr. Sanders circulated a petition calling on the party to start the debates this summer. Mr. Sanders has said that Democrats need more debates to cut through the noise of attack ads and sound bites. He has even suggested that Republicans could participate in early debates. “I’d like to have myself and other Democratic candidates on stage with some of the Republican candidates and let the American people hear from both sides on the big issues,” Mr. Sanders said. Leaders of both parties have been reluctant to allow too many debates out of concern that primary fights could become too bruising. And Fox News, sponsor of the Republican debates, has said that it will limit the number of candidates who can participate to prevent the debates from becoming too unwieldy. For Mr. Sanders, considered a long-shot to beat Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination, more debates would be one way to gain access to a national audience without using up advertising funds. “In the long haul of a presidential campaign, candidates like myself spend a lot of time traveling to states with early primaries speaking directly to voters,” Mr. Sanders said. “But we can only be in so many places at once, and so the media ends up distilling these discussions down to sound bites for evening newscasts. Debates change that.” Former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland announced his candidacy last week, and Lincoln Chafee, the former senator and governor from Rhode Island, is also expected to join the Democratic race on Wednesday. *Sanders slams Jeb Bush over Social Security remarks <http://thehill.com/policy/finance/243931-sanders-slams-jeb-over-social-security-remarks> // The Hill // Rebecca Shabad – June 3, 2015 * Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday slammed former Gov. Jeb Bush’s (R-Fla.) recent comments about raising the retirement age for Social Security. Bush suggested the age to get Social Security should be raised from 65 to 68 to 70. “At a time when more than half of the American people have less than $10,000 in savings, it would be a disaster to cut Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age,” the Democratic presidential candidate replied in a statement. “It is unacceptable to ask construction workers, truck drivers, nurses and other working-class Americans to work until they are 68 to 70 years old before qualifying for full Social Security benefits,” added Sanders, who has pushed to expand Social Security benefits. Bush called for a hike in the retirement age in an interview with CBS News’s “Face the Nation.” “I think it needs to be phased in over an extended period of time,” Bush said. “We need to look over the horizon and begin to phase in, over an extended period of time, going from 65 to 68 or 70. ... And that, by itself, will help sustain the retirement system for anybody under the age of 40.” Bush, who is exploring a presidential bid, also said he would be open to slashing benefits for wealthy people and their beneficiaries. “I think it ought to be considered, for sure,” Bush said. “I have a hard time understanding what world Gov. Bush and his billionaire backers live in,” Sanders responded on Wednesday. "Gov. Bush has made clear that he wants to protect Social Security for those who have earned it. And yet, reform it so it's still around for younger generations," Right to Rise PAC spokesman Matt Gorman told The Hill in response to Sanders's comments. Right to Rise PAC is Bush's leadership political action committee. Hillary Clinton, considered the Democratic front-runner for president, chastised Republicans in April for attempts to change Social Security. “What do we do to make sure it is there? We don’t mess with it, and we do not pretend that it is a luxury — because it is not a luxury. It is a necessity for the majority of people who draw from Social Security,” she said during a stop in New Hampshire. Clinton is expected to hold a kick-off rally in New York this month, about two months after officially jumping into the 2016 race. After that, she's expected to roll out more specific policy platforms. *GOP* *Jeb Bush to announce presidential bid June 15 in Miami <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/elections-2016/jeb-bush/article23061837.html> // Miami Herald // PATRICIA MAZZEI AND ALEX LEARY – June 4, 2015* Nearly six months after saying he was “actively” exploring the idea of running for president, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will officially enter the race June 15 in Miami. “Governor Bush is thankful for the support and encouragement he has received from so many Americans during the last several months and looks forward to announcing his decision,” spokeswoman Kristy Campbell told the Miami Herald and Tampa Bay Times. Bush, 62, picked Miami Dade College, the largest institution of higher education in the country, as his announcement location in a nod to his passion for education policy and a campaign theme of expanding economic opportunities for people who, in his words, want to “rise up.” The college’s mission is to give every student who wants a college degree a chance to get one. More information about the 3 p.m. event at the college’s Kendall campus is at jebannouncement.com. The announcement will follow a weeklong trip for Bush to Europe that begins Monday, giving him a close look at foreign policy issues that have been a central focus of the presidential contest so far. Despite having a famous last name and raising what is expected to be a breathtaking amount of money, Bush has struggled to break out of a growing pack of GOP contenders. The group includes fellow Floridian Marco Rubio, who is pitching himself as a fresh face against “outdated” politicians, a line seemingly directed at Democrat Hillary Clinton but also at Bush, who was governor from 1999-2007. Rubio ignored conventional thought that he would stand down for Bush, a mentor, and jumped in the race April 13. In the weeks since, Rubio has gained momentum in the polls and attracted the support of wealthy backers. Bush startled the political world on Dec. 16 when he announced on Facebook that he was “actively” considering a run for president. In recent months, he has been traveling the country extensively, giving speeches focused on improving educational and work opportunities for Americans. But his all-but-official status has attracted growing criticism from campaign finance watchdogs, newspaper editorial boards and other candidates. It also has caused some clumsy moments. On CBS News’ Face the Nation on Sunday, Bush said, “I would like to run,” as if something was holding him back. A while before that, in Nevada, he accidentally said he was running — then corrected himself. The decision to wait so long has a major financial upside, as Bush has been free to work directly with the Right to Rise Super PAC, started by his allies, and raise unlimited money. Watchdogs have filed several complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department. Asked on Face the Nation whether he was violating the law, Bush said: “I would never do that.” As a declared candidate, Bush’s interaction with the committee will be limited. People giving directly to his presidential campaign are tapped out at $2,700. Still, the Super PAC has amassed tens of millions of dollars already, and its staff has become deeply familiar with Bush’s objectives. He could push some traditional functions of a campaign to the Super PAC, which will continue to raise large sums. On Monday, Bush departs for Germany, Estonia and Poland, key U.S. allies. Bush likely will use the trip to draw a contrast to President Barack Obama, whom many Republicans see as weak on foreign policy. Poland has been pushing for the United States to get more involved in curbing Russia’s meddling in Ukraine. Bush also will “discuss policies to promote growth, innovation and technologies to address the changing global economic environment and ways to foster prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic,” according to a Reuters story previewing the visit. Back in Miami, the bilingual Bush will make his presidential announcement at a diverse college that boasts more than 165,000 students and has gotten used to hosting politicians. President George W. Bush delivered the Kendall campus commencement in 2007. He introduced his younger brother, who was in the audience, as always “mi hermano” — always my brother. The Kendall campus is in the heart of Miami-Dade County’s largely Cuban-American suburbs. It’s the university’s second-oldest campus, built in 1967 on 185 acres of land and housing 13 buildings for a variety of academic programs ranging from architecture to business to science. Bush made K-12 education central to his tenure in Tallahassee, and he has spent his years out of office pushing for higher standards — including the contentious Common Core — and expanded access to charter schools across the country. Rubio chose to make his presidential announcement at a Miami Dade College institution with Cuban significance, too — downtown Miami’s Freedom Tower. The iconic Biscayne Boulevard building is where Cuban exiles were first welcomed into the United States, beginning in 1964. Today, it houses the school’s Museum of Art and Design. For Bush, the choice strikes a far more populist tone than, say, the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables, where he plays golf regularly and has had his private business office for years. His campaign headquarters also are in a decidedly unflashy part of town, a sturdy West Miami-Dade County office building near the working-class and largely Hispanic neighborhoods of Sweetwater and Fontainebleau. After his announcement, Bush will embark on a tour of early primary states. *Jeb Bush, Taking His Time, Tests the Legal Definition of Candidate <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/politics/jeb-bush-taking-his-time-tests-the-legal-definition-of-candidate.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news> // NYT // Eric Lichtblau & Nick Corasaniti – June 3, 2015 * Jeb Bush is under growing pressure to acknowledge what to some voters and a number of campaign finance lawyers seems obvious: He is running for president. The lawyers say Mr. Bush, a former Florida governor, is stretching the limits of election law by crisscrossing the country, hiring a political team and raising tens of millions of dollars at fund-raisers, all without declaring — except once, by mistake — that he is a candidate. Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to the spending and disclosure restrictions. Some limited activities are allowed for candidates who are merely “testing the waters” for a run. “When you look at the totality of the activities, could a reasonable person conclude anything other than that he is seeking the presidency?” asked Karl J. Sandstrom, a campaign finance lawyer who served on the Federal Election Commission. For a candidate to avoid restrictions by simply not declaring his candidacy, he said, “makes a mockery of the law.” The issue is not one of mere semantics. If Mr. Bush did declare that he is running, it would bring a raft of election restrictions, including a limit of $2,700 on contributions, and a ban on “coordinating” with a “super PAC” he has used to raise money. But much of campaign finance law is a subject of dispute, and defining who is a candidate is no exception. David M. Mason, a former F.E.C. commissioner, said a 1981 case involving the possible presidential campaign of the former Florida governor Reubin Askew gives politicians wide latitude to take steps to “explore” a run. “You can’t enforce the law based on what everybody ‘knows’ because that requires you to be a mind reader,” Mr. Mason said. “The broad impression — ‘oh yeah, he’s campaigning, he’s been in Iowa, he made a speech, then went to New Hampshire’ — is not enough to make him a candidate.” Mr. Bush, who announced in December that he would “actively explore” a White House bid, has said repeatedly that he has not made a decision. But he has faced rising skepticism in recent weeks. In an appearance Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” the host, Bob Schieffer, asked Mr. Bush bluntly whether he was violating the law by not declaring himself a candidate for the White House. “No, of course not,” Mr. Bush responded, appearing jarred by the question. “I would never do that.” Mr. Bush said he was “nearing the end of this journey of traveling and listening to people, garnering, trying to get a sense of whether my candidacy would be viable or not.” He added, “We’re going to completely adhere to the law, for sure.” Mr. Schieffer sounded incredulous. “Now you’re not telling me there’s a possibility you may not run?” he asked. Mr. Bush did not waver. “Look, I hope I — I hope I run, to be honest with you,” he said. “I would like to run. But I haven’t made the decision.” Last month, he slipped up for a moment, telling reporters in Nevada, “I am running for president in 2016.” He quickly corrected himself, adding “if I run.” In his appearance at $25,000-a-head fund-raisers in Washington, New York and elsewhere, Mr. Bush and his advisers are using what are technically considered outside groups — two political action committees, both called Right to Rise — to take in the money, rather than creating an official campaign organization to do it. Last week, two campaign watchdog groups, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, called on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether Mr. Bush had broken election law by evading restrictions on candidates. The groups called his noncandidacy “a charade” and called on prosecutors to intervene because they said the F.E.C. — perpetually gridlocked — was unlikely to do anything. The groups filed an earlier complaint with the F.E.C. in March charging that Mr. Bush and three other politicians — Martin O’Malley, a Democrat; and Scott Walker and Rick Santorum, both Republicans — were evading campaign finance restrictions by not declaring themselves candidates. (Mr. O’Malley and Mr. Santorum have each declared their candidacy in the past week.) “You can say you haven’t decided,” said Trevor Potter, the president of the Campaign Legal Center. “But if you go off and look like a candidate and act like a candidate and amass funds, it doesn’t matter. You are a candidate in the eyes of the law.” As he travels through Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and other key states, Mr. Bush has certainly seemed like a candidate. He arrives in a black sport utility vehicle, talks about his vision for the country, shakes hands, answers questions and poses for photographs with voters until aides drag him to his next event. “I really like campaigning,” Mr. Bush told businessmen in Portsmouth, N.H., last month, before quickly adding, “I’m not a candidate.” By all accounts, Mr. Bush is enjoying what he calls the “journey” of a possible candidate, but he has made sure in most appearances to throw in the legal caveats. “Let me be clear,” he said Tuesday at an event in Orlando, Fla. “If I run, if I’m a candidate — and that decision is going to be coming real soon — my intention is to run on my record and my ideas and try to win the presidency. “ Amid the verbal jujitsu, reporters have begun to press Mr. Bush. In Lansing, Mich., a reporter asked him, “How important is transparency in a presidential candidate?” Smiling, Mr. Bush asked if it was a trick question. “Where are you going with it?” he asked. The reporter then ticked off an account of Mr. Bush’s recent visits and fund-raisers before asking, “Are you running for president?” Chuckling, Mr. Bush said, “Not yet.” He quickly took another question — this one on Senator Rand Paul, a declared Republican candidate. The wait is making some voters anxious. As Mr. Bush was leaving a Lincoln Day dinner in Bath Township, Mich., a woman wearing a photograph of the former governor around her neck chased him outside. “Run, Jeb, run!” she chanted. “Run, Jeb run! We need you!” Mr. Bush smiled and waved as he was driven away. *With some donors doubting Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio seizes an opening <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-some-donors-doubting-jeb-bush-marco-rubio-seizes-an-opening/2015/06/03/bf18ab74-09a4-11e5-9e39-0db921c47b93_story.html> // WaPo // Matea Gold & Sean Sullivan – June 3, 2015 * Marco Rubio is benefiting from pockets of discontent in Jeb Bush’s sprawling money network, winning over donors who believe the 44-year-old freshman senator from Florida offers a more compelling persona and sharper generational contrast against Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. Rubio is working to seize the moment by making an all-out push to lock down financial backers in the coming month — hopscotching the country in a nonstop series of fundraisers that are limiting his presence on the campaign trail. While he faces stiff competition in the money race from Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in particular, Rubio’s in-person courting sessions are starting to pay off. Longtime Bush loyalists and other big-money players on the right have emerged from the meetings raving about his abilities, according to people familiar with private gatherings he has had around the country. “After meeting Marco and listening to him — he is almost astounding, he is so articulate and he has got such great vision,” said Anthony Gioia, a top GOP fundraiser in Buffalo. Gioia raised more than $500,000 for George W. Bush and then served as his ambassador to Malta but is supporting Rubio this time. “I hate to overuse the word transformational, but I really feel he is,” he said. It is not just veteran bundlers coming aboard. Rubio has recently gained the backing of heavyweight players such as Oracle founder and billionaire Larry Ellison — who is hosting a campaign fundraiser in Silicon Valley next Tuesday — and Randy Kendrick, an influential Arizona donor and the wife of Arizona Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick, who hosted the senator at their Phoenix home last month. “I’m looking for someone who is an inspiration,” said Kendrick, who plans to work her network to bring other donors aboard. It remains to be seen whether the passion for Rubio will translate into huge financial sums. He has the support of billionaire Miami auto dealer Norman Braman, who has committed to putting as much as $10 million into a pro-Rubio super PAC, but allies concede that their efforts are dwarfed by Bush’s massive fundraising apparatus. The former Florida governor has been amassing a record tens of millions in his allied super PAC, in part by tapping into a national network of ambassadors and other senior appointees who served in the previous two Bush administrations. The Rubio strategy: target less prominent donors and bring new ones into the fold. “You’ve got the Bush family rolodex that is what, 50 years old or more,” said J. Warren Tompkins, head of the pro-Rubio super PAC Conservative Solutions. “The rest of these guys are small donors. You have to go and grind it out and do a lot of meet-and-greets.” As a result, Rubio is spending less time than some other declared candidates in the early nominating states, making just one visit each to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada since launching his campaign in April. Instead, his itinerary this spring includes stops in Oklahoma, Illinois, Texas, Florida, Idaho, New York, California and Pennsylvania, according to a person familiar with his schedule. At every stop, the campaign is signing up new bundlers. And in some cases, Rubio has also made side appearances before clutches of potential super PAC donors. His repeat visits to the nation’s biggest money centers are helping him make inroads in places such as Texas, where Bush, Sen. Ted Cruz and former governor Rick Perry all have claims on state donors. “You look at that and think, ‘Gosh, how can anyone else break in?’ ” said George Seay, a Dallas-based investor who is supporting Rubio. “But Marco has been very successful in Texas and will continue to be. I think the more people get exposed to him realize he’s not just a good background story — he’s a very, very deep talent.” Rubio is benefiting in part from a growing uncertainty among some top fundraisers about Bush’s ability to resonate with the party base, particularly in the wake of his stumbling answers last month about the Iraq war and his brother, the 43rd president. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll this week showed that Bush, who led the GOP field for months, has slipped into a two-way tie for third place. At a gathering of the Republican Governors Association’s top donors last month in Dallas, one of the main topics of discussion was that Bush appeared less formidable a candidate than he had a few months ago, according to several participants. “One consensus seemed to be that, ‘Wow, Jeb is really raising lot of money, but he doesn’t seem to be striking a chord with voters,’ ” said one well-connected Republican who participated in the meeting and requested anonymity to detail private conversations. Bush “has not come on as strong as I would have thought,” said Edwin Phelps, a private-equity investor who is a major GOP donor. “I’m disappointed in how he handled questions on something he knew would come up. Jeb hurt himself, but it’s early enough in the cycle he can right the ship.” In the meantime, many donors are casting their support wide and giving to multiple contenders, still weighing who has the best shot in a general election. “I don’t have conviction right now toward any candidate,” said Phelps, who has donated to Bush and plans to contribute to Rubio as well. “I think that’s how a lot of us feel who are mainstream Republicans. There is a strong, deep-seated sentiment that we want someone who can get elected.” Rubio still faces skepticism in some donor quarters, however, particularly among those who are not eager for the party to field a first-term senator as its nominee. He must also navigate his own policy and personal land mines. At her fundraiser last month, Kendrick said Rubio got some hard questions on immigration, a fraught issue for the Florida senator. He was a co-sponsor of a Senate immigration reform bill that provided a path to citizenship for up to 11 million illegal immigrants, but he later backed away from the legislation. But Rubio acquitted himself well, Kendrick said. “He’s threading the needle on immigration, and he got several questions where he very honestly and skillfully answered those questions about the things that needed to be done first,” she said. Before she signed on to help Rubio, Kendrick said she “was open and interested” in all the candidates, adding: “I just felt that Rubio rose above the others in his depth and knowledge about policy.” Other veteran fundraisers described their conversion into Rubio supporters as more of a thunderbolt experience. “I’ve been in politics a lot time, since Ronald Reagan, and he is really unique,” Gioia said. “From my point of view, it’s like the movie ‘Jerry Maguire’ — he got me on ‘hello.’ ” *Why Jeb Bush Can't Bank On Faith Like His Brother Did <http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/03/411569509/why-jeb-bush-cant-bank-on-faith-like-his-brother-did> // NPR // Don Gonyea – June 3, 2015* Evangelical voters are a major force in Iowa Republican politics. A force that can tip the balance in the state's marquee event: the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. And it's been that way for a long time. Sixteen years ago those voters delivered in a big way for a Texas governor named George W. Bush. But it's not likely that the younger brother of that successful presidential hopeful will get that same kind of support in the 2016 election. Jeb Bush is certainly a deeply religious man — and he shares his brother's conservative views on key social issues. But despite that, many religious voters view the former Florida governor with suspicion. Last month Jeb Bush visited Iowa's Loras College, a small, Catholic liberal arts school located in Dubuque. It may have been an ideal place to talk about his faith in some detail, but the comments he did make came more as an afterthought at the end of his remarks. "Gosh, what was it, twenty years ago I converted to Catholicism," Bush said, "It was one of the smartest things I've done in my whole life." He spoke to a small audience of just over a hundred. Seated in the front row was his wife, Columba Bush, a lifelong Catholic whose religion he joined when he was in his 40s. Bush went on to say, "I believe that it is the architecture that gives me the serenity I need, not just as a public leader or in life. It gives me peace. It allows me to have a closer relationship with my creator." It was a firm statement of belief. But it was considerably different than the almost evangelical way George W. Bush spoke about his faith during his first presidential campaign. At the Iowa Straw Poll in the summer of 1999, the future president was cheered when he said, "America's strongest foundation is not found in our wallets. It is found in our souls." As a candidate, George W. Bush often talked about personal redemption. Including how at age 40 he quit drinking, and how he embraced religion with the help of none other than the Reverend Billy Graham. He often spoke of protecting the unborn, as he did in a debate during the 2000 general election campaign. "I think what the next president ought to do is promote a culture of life in America," he said. That played very well with Iowa evanglicals and Bush coasted to victory in the Iowa caucuses. But Christopher Budzisz, a political science professor at Loras College, says George Bush got those voters with more than words. He used organization as well. "One thing the Bush campaign was very concerted about was reaching out to the church networks and getting advocates for the candidacy oftentimes outside the gaze of the media or public conversation," said Budzisz. He says that's not happening in the same way for Jeb Bush. Evangelical voters are more organized in Iowa than they were four presidential elections ago. And they make up 60 percent of GOP Iowa caucus participants. Despite Jeb Bush's opposition to abortion — and same-sex marriage — many voters here see him as moderate. This reaction, from Republican voter Byron Carlson, a physician, is not unusual: "I would say I'm a Christian conservative, but I think at this time it's a wide open field with lots of options." After seeing this Bush speak recently, he added, "Jeb just wasn't that impressive to me listening to him." Bob Vander Plaats, who heads the state's top social conservative organization The Family Leader, praised Bush's record in dealing with the Terri Schiavo case when he was governor of Florida. Bush fought the removal of the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube, even after she'd been unconscious for more than a decade. Still, Vander Plaats acknowledges ambivalence toward Bush. He points to Bush's saying he'd run a campaign to win the general election and not just the primaries. "That may be code for, 'Do you really want to champion conservative values?'" Vander Plaats said. And there's dislike of Jeb Bush's support for Common Core education standards and his call for a path to legal status for immigrants in the U.S. illegally. This year's GOP field looks to be huge. It could grow to 15 or more. And many of them are making a hard play for evangelicals. Vander Plaats says that's good, and bad. "And the reason it's bad is because it can divide its support quickly which really weakens the impact we can have in the process," he said. That could create an opening for Jeb Bush. It would also please Republicans like 60-year-old Dave Richter who came to see the still officially-undeclared candidate at the town hall in Dubuque. Richter says, "I'm a little afraid of the Christian right, it's infiltrated government to too big of a degree" adding "I think it's problematic." But despite Richter's concerns, in Iowa those evangelical voters do matter, a great deal. Especially in the caucuses. Four elections ago, George W. Bush got them to pull together to give him an important first win in the race for the nomination. For Jeb, his best bet may be if they don't. *There will be blood: Prepare for nasty Jeb Bush — but don’t expect any fingerprints <http://www.salon.com/2015/06/03/there_will_be_blood_prepare_for_nasty_jeb_bush_but_dont_expect_any_fingerprints/> // Salon // Jim Newell – June 3, 2015* When is Jeb Bush going to stop being so boring and get mean? This is the question on the minds of the political press corps. Sure, it’s nice that he’s open to any and all questions from reporters and voters alike, but does he have to answer them with his wishy-washy technocratic details? When’s he going to start calling his opponents terrible names so reporters can sex up their Jeb stories a bit? Everyone wants to see some blood. The hope, now that Bush is tumbling from presumed frontrunner status, is that he’ll be forced to mix it up a little instead of responding to questions with, say, a critique of the wording in subclause 2(b)(ii) of some education bill from 1995. The further you tumble from contention, the more you have to resort to weird humiliating stunts to get attention in this field of dozens of candidates. And there’s no better place to start getting nasty than at Walt Disney World. Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a malevolent ghoul straight out of the German folk stories on which most classic Disney movies are based, held an economic summit yesterday at the sweltering Orlando money-suck where dreams come true. Bush, finally on some friendly turf, used the occasion “to more forcefully attack opponents” than he’s previously been willing to do, according to the Washington Post. ”Bush has mostly avoided sparring with Republican contenders,” the Post writes, “saying that he’s not yet an official candidate and is eager to be a ‘joyful’ alternative for voters upset by partisan warfare. But that strategy doesn’t appear to be working.” Alright, so give us the skinny: what did he say? Did he call Scott Walker a dingdong? Did he throw a trash can at Ted Cruz? Did he literally murder Mike Huckabee? Ehh, not really. He made the bold decision — you’ll never believe this — to criticize Rand Paul on national security. He said that Paul was “wrong about the Patriot Act.” Bam! “He also delivered his most personal swipe yet at Rubio,” the Post writes, “in response to the senator’s suggestions earlier in the day that Republicans should elect younger leaders.” Okay, let’s see this uppercut: “It’s kind of hard to imagine that my good friend Marco would be critical of his good friend Jeb,” Bush said. Oh. That’s it? Yeah, so… I’m not quite sure that we saw the sharper, meaner, more aggressive and debased Jeb Bush that we were all promised here. Seems more like he simply said he disagreed with Rand Paul and made a light joke about the media’s obsession with getting him and Marco Rubio to prematurely destroy each other. Bush’s refusal to engage in direct bloodsport against his opponents is no fun, sure, but if everyone can just wait a few months, it will happen. Jeb Bush may seem like a total boob now, but it’s never a good idea to get between a Bush and an election. As Jeb said yesterday, “there are motivations for every candidate. Mine would be to win.” The Bushes are perfectly willing to set aside their WASPy sense of manners and do what it takes to win elections. George H.W. Bush, an old-school Connecticut Yankee, was willing to wear clownish cowboy clothes for a full two years if that’s what it took to beat Michael Dukakis. More importantly: he was willing to go hard after the Willie Horton issue — while leaving outside groups to run the infamously nasty ad, keeping his hands clean. George W. Bush, too, was able to win 2000 South Carolina primary when certain mysterious outside forces launched a guerrilla smear campaign against John McCain. Now, thanks to our Supreme Court, campaign finance regulations are structured to allow candidacies to get as nasty as they so desire while offering the candidates themselves full deniability. Jeb Bush’s Right to Rise super PAC is expected to have at least $100 million dollars with which to work in trashing anyone who dare nip at Bush’s heels. Much like Mitt Romney in 2012, Bush can simply blush and say “Who, me?” when asked about some horrific ad that his super PAC unleashes Marco Rubio or Scott Walker. Everyone can relax. “Jeb Bush,” in the amorphous sense of the whole apparatus that exists to win Jeb Bush the presidency, will get quite nasty at the precise moment that it becomes politically necessary, even if Jeb Bush personally just keeps prattling on about some tweak he wants to make to existing small business tax credits. *Fox News Poll: Bush, Walker, Carson top GOP pack, support for Clinton down* <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/03/fox-news-poll-bush-walker-carson-top-gop-pack-support-for-clinton-down/www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/06/03/0603152016nsaweb/www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/06/03/0603152016nsaweb/>* // Fox News // Dana Blanton – June 3, 2015* National security is a much bigger issue for Republicans this time than during the last primary. And more GOP hopefuls make it official -- yet they barely move the needle. Bernie Sanders nearly doubles his numbers and support for Hillary Clinton dips -- even as Democrats say they’re not concerned about allegations of her dishonesty. These are some of the findings from the latest Fox News poll on the 2016 presidential election. There’s no true frontrunner in the race for the GOP nomination - and not all the candidates in the poll have declared yet. The new poll, released Wednesday, finds three Republicans receiving double-digit backing from GOP primary voters: former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker each receive 12 percent and neurosurgeon Ben Carson gets 11 percent. They are followed by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 9 percent, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 8 percent, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 7 percent, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 6 percent and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 5 percent. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who will make his candidacy official Thursday, and businessman Donald Trump get 4 percent each. Three Republicans officially threw their hat in the ring recently. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham announced June 1, former New York Gov. George Pataki announced May 28 and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum declared May 27. Each receives 2 percent. Businesswoman Carly Fiorina and Ohio Gov. John Kasich also each garner 2 percent. The top four favorites among the Tea Party movement are Walker (22 percent), Cruz (17 percent), Carson (12 percent) and Paul (11 percent). It’s no wonder the GOP race is so splintered. Of the candidates tested, about one in five Republican primary voters say they would “definitely” vote for six of them: Walker (22 percent), Carson (21 percent), Rubio (21 percent), Bush (20 percent), Cruz (19 percent) and Paul (19 percent). More than half say they would “never” support Trump (59 percent). That’s the highest number saying they would never vote for a particular candidate. Christie comes next (37 percent), followed by Bush and Huckabee (24 percent each) and Paul (20 percent). Bush alone has the distinction of being in the top five of both the “definitely” and the “never” vote for lists. Walker, who is still unannounced, looks especially well-positioned among GOP primary voters. Not only does he have the highest number saying they would “definitely” vote for him (22 percent), but he also has the lowest “never” vote for number of those tested (eight percent). GOP voters are most likely to “want more info about” Kasich (60 percent), Fiorina (55 percent) and Walker (47 percent). The priorities of Republican primary voters have changed significantly since last time around. Forty-six percent say economic issues will be most important in deciding their vote for the GOP nomination. That’s down 30 percentage points from the 76 percent who said the same in 2011. And 36 percent now say national security will be their deciding issue -- more than four times the 8 percent that said so four years ago. For 12 percent, social issues will be most important, up from six percent. On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remains the clear frontrunner for the nomination with 57 percent support among self-identified Democratic primary voters. Still, that’s down from 63 percent last month, and marks only the second time in more than a year that support for Clinton is below 60 percent. Her highest support was 69 percent in April 2014. At the same time, support for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders nearly doubled, from six percent last month to 11 percent now. He was at 4 percent in April. The most recent Democratic contender to jump in the race, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, garners 4 percent. That’s a nice bump from the less than one percent support he got before his May 30 announcement. Vice President Joe Biden (8 percent) and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (7 percent) -- both are undeclared -- still best O’Malley. Despite Clinton controlling the field, most Democratic voters -- 69 percent -- say someone else could still win the nomination. That’s more than twice the 28 percent who say the race is over. Most Democratic primary voters, 68 percent, say they are not worried about allegations of Clinton’s dishonesty and unethical behavior. Thirty-one percent are concerned, including 10 percent who feel “very concerned.” For the broader electorate, however, recent allegations against Clinton may be more problematic. A 61-percent majority of voters thinks it is at least somewhat likely that the Clintons were “selling influence to foreign contributors” who made donations to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. A significant minority of Democrats (41 percent) feels that way, as do a majority of independents (66 percent) and most Republicans (82 percent). Pollpourri Would you rather the next president be a Democrat or a Republican? The poll asks voters that simple question and finds … a split! Forty percent prefer a Democrat and 39 percent a Republican. The results are also evenly divided among independents: 24 percent say Democrat, 24 percent Republican and 35 percent “other.” By a 51-39 percent margin, more voters say it would be “a bad thing for the country” if a Democrat wins the presidential election and continues President Obama’s policies. That includes 88 percent of Republicans, 52 percent of independents and 20 percent of Democrats. About the same number of voters says they would be “very” interested in watching a presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush (38 percent), as they would between Clinton and Fiorina, the other female candidate (35 percent), or between Clinton and Paul (35 percent). And women are as likely to want to watch Clinton debate Bush (37 percent) as they are to want to see Clinton debate Fiorina (36 percent). The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,006 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from May 31-June 2, 2015. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The margin of error is higher among the subgroups of Democratic and Republican primary voters (+/-5%). *Republican Conservative Base Shrinks <http://www.gallup.com/poll/183491/republican-conservative-base-shrinks.aspx> // Gallup // Frank Newport –June 3, 2015 * The percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who describe themselves as both social and economic conservatives has dropped to 42%, the lowest level Gallup has measured since 2005. The second-largest group of Republicans (24%) see themselves as moderate or liberal on both social and economic issues, while 20% of all Republicans are moderate or liberal on social issues but conservative on economic ones. These data are from Gallup's Values and Beliefs poll, which since 2001 has included questions asking Americans to rate themselves as conservative, moderate or liberal on social and economic issues. These trends show not only that Americans as a whole have become less likely to identify as social or economic conservatives, but also that Republicans' views are changing along the same lines. This change in recent years has been significant. The percentage of Republicans identifying as conservative on both dimensions has dropped 15 percentage points since 2012, largely offset by an increase in the percentage who identify as moderate or liberal on both dimensions. Still, the current ideological positioning of Republicans is not unprecedented; the proportion of social and economic conservatives was as low or lower from 2001 through 2005. Republicans' Ideology Varies Significantly by Age The percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are conservative on both social and economic issues rises steadily with age. An analysis of aggregated surveys conducted since the 2012 election shows that the size of the social and economic conservative group is twice as large among Republicans aged 65 and older as it is among those aged 18 to 29. This may be good news for GOP candidates who are running on a conservative platform and can assume that older Republicans will constitute a sizable portion of primary and caucus voters. But it would not be such good news when it comes to the challenge of energizing a broader base of Republican voters to come out to vote in the typically higher-turnout general election. Implications The recent shift in how Republicans view themselves ideologically may have significant implications for the coming GOP presidential nomination fight, particularly in terms of how the candidates will try to position themselves to maximize their appeal. Republican candidates are dealing with a party base that is today significantly more ideologically differentiated than it has been over the past decade. A GOP candidate positioning himself or herself as conservative on both social and economic issues theoretically will appeal to less than half of the broad base of rank-and-file party members. This opens the way for GOP candidates who may want to position themselves as more moderate on some issues, given that more than half of the party identifiers are moderate or liberal on social or economic dimensions. The caveat in these campaign decisions is that not all Republicans are involved in the crucial early primary and caucus voting that helps winnow the pack of presidential candidates down to a winner. Ideology on both social and economic issues is strongly related to age, and primary voters tend to skew older than the overall party membership. This could benefit a more conservative candidate in the primary process, but that advantage could dissipate in the general election. Democratic candidates will be dealing with party identifiers who are mostly moderate or liberal on social and economic issues, with a significant divide between these two groups. A forthcoming story will look at the Democratic ideological situation in detail. Survey Methods Results for the most recent Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 6-10, 2015, with a random sample of 1,024 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Results for the aggregated Gallup polls conducted in 2013-2015 are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 3,587 adults, aged 18 and older. For results based on this sample, the margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. *Rick Santorum Wants Pope Francis To Stop Talking About Climate Change <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/02/rick-santorum-pope-climat_n_7498768.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016> // HuffPo // Ed Mazza – June 3, 2015* Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum says he loves Pope Francis, but he wants the pontiff to stop talking about climate change. Santorum, a devout Catholic, told Philadelphia radio host Dom Giordano on Monday that the pope should "leave science to the scientists." His comments come as the pope, who earned a master's degree in chemistry before turning to the priesthood, becomes increasingly vocal about climate change. Pope Francis is preparing a groundbreaking encyclical to be released in the coming weeks that's expected to make the case that taking action to fight climate change is a moral and religious imperative. Santorum described himself as a "huge fan" of the pope and said he appreciates the pontiff's commitment to family issues, but he wants the church to stay out of science. “The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think that we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we're really good at, which is theology and morality,” Santorum said. "When we get involved with political and controversial scientific theories, I think the church is not as forceful and credible." His full comments from "The Dom Giordano Show" are included below. The discussion of the pope starts at about the 10-minute mark. Despite his pleas to the pope, Santorum has a history of rejecting established science. He denies that climate change is man-made and has dismissed global warming as a "hoax" despite the fact that 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that "climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities," according to NASA. Santorum has also rejected evolution and instead believes in "intelligent design,” according to Discover magazine. Pope Francis says evolution does not contradict church doctrine. *George W. Bush tops Obama on favorability in new poll <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/243858-george-w-bush-tops-obama-on-favorability-in-new-poll> // The Hill // Mark Hensch – June 3, 2015 * A new survey finds that more Americans view former President George W. Bush favorably than President Obama. The CNN/ORC poll reveals that 52 percent of Americans see Bush positively, while 43 percent do not. In contrast, U.S. voters are split on their views of Obama. The new poll finds that 49 percent view Obama favorably, while 49 percent do not. Those ratings for Obama are down from a similar poll in March. During that sampling, 52 percent of Americans viewed him positively, while another 46 percent did not. Bush’s numbers, meanwhile, mark a major shift for the former president since he departed office in early 2009, CNN said. It noted that back then, Bush received a favorability rating from roughly one third of those surveyed. Bush’s favorability, CNN added, has remained below the 50-percent threshold most of the time since his presidency. Just one year ago, it said, the former president had a 46-percent favorability rating. Another 51 percent, however, still viewed Bush unfavorably. Bush’s new score reflects more positive views of him across a wide variety of groups. CNN said that the former president has notched an 11-point favorability increase among men, a 10-point increase among Republicans and an 8-point increase among suburbanites. He also saw his favorability increase 10 points among those with household incomes under $50,000 and 9 points among young adults under age 50. CNN said that Bush still remains the least popular among Democrats, liberals, non-whites and those under age 35. Despite this, its poll found increasing warmth for the former president among some of those groups. Approximately 70 percent of Democrats view Bush unfavorably, a decrease from February, 2009, when 85 percent took a negative view of him. In addition, 68 percent of liberals still view the former president negatively, an improvement from the 90 percent who disliked his administration in February 2009. CNN/ORC surveyed 1,025 adults from May 29-31 via telephone for its latest poll. It has a 3-percentage0point margin of error. *Texas’ Economic Hiccup Complicates Rick Perry’s 2016 Pitch <http://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-economic-hiccup-complicates-rick-perrys-2016-pitch-1433357991> // WSJ // Nathan Koppel & Colleen Mccain Nelson – June 3, 2015 * In his previous bid for the White House, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry trumpeted his role as the leader of an economic juggernaut cranking out jobs while much of the U.S. struggled. But as Mr. Perry prepares to announce an anticipated second run for president on Thursday, the “Texas Miracle” is looking less impressive amid falling oil prices that have led to thousands of job cuts in his home state. That has created an opening for challengers to say Mr. Perry’s jobs record was attributable more to good timing—namely the hydraulic-fracturing oil-and-gas boom—than to the business-friendly mix of low tax rates and light regulations that he has frequently cited. Texas lost more than 25,000 jobs in March according to state figures, its first monthly net decline in more than four years, after adding nearly 458,000 jobs in 2014, more than any other state. It bounced back in April but still only added 1,200 new jobs, far below other large states. Mr. Perry is still talking up his economic record as he tours the country, but he is also seeking to broaden his appeal by citing his agricultural roots as a native of tiny Paint Creek and his military service as a former Air Force transport pilot. The 65-year-old Republican is also arguing that he is the most seasoned executive in the crowded GOP field, having been governor of the nation’s second most populous state for a record 14 years. “I have faced my share of leadership tests,” Mr. Perry told a crowd last month at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Oklahoma City. He added that “there was no manual” to guide him when he faced such challenges as housing Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Texas, or responding to the nation’s first diagnosed case of Ebola in Dallas. Mr. Perry’s allies and advisers say his fiscal conservatism and the jobs created under his tenure would be a huge selling point in a second presidential campaign. “The Rick Perry jobs record has seeped into the mind-set of Republican activists all over the country and will be a significant calling card,” said Ray Sullivan, a former Perry chief of staff and co-chairman of a super PAC created to boost a Perry presidential bid. Abby McCloskey, policy director for Mr. Perry’s political-action committee, said it was remarkable that Texas has a 4.2% unemployment rate even with an oil and gas industry downturn and a surging dollar. “Texas, contrary to popular image, is not all about oil,” she said. As governor, Mr. Perry launched a campaign aimed at luring companies to relocate to Texas, traveling the country and pitching the state as the best in which to do business. He also endorsed the wide use of state incentive payments to technology and health-care companies, among others. The Texas legislature this year curtailed the use of such incentive payments. Economic experts said Mr. Perry can lay claim to having helped diversify the Texas economy, which is projected by economists and state officials to continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace. “Perry can still make the point that he oversaw tremendous growth and diversification of the economy,” said Terry Clower, a professor at George Mason University in Virginia who has studied the Texas economy. Still, falling oil prices have shaken Texas’ claim on economic supremacy. Kevin Hassett, the director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, said Texas’ economic success was indisputable a year ago—when oil prices were higher. Today, “the story is a little more complicated,” said Mr. Hassett, who advised the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney and John McCainbut hasn't signed on to work for a 2016 candidate. In an interview shortly before leaving office in January, Mr. Perry said he had done everything possible to insulate the state against falling oil prices. “We made tremendous progress in expanding and diversifying the Texas economy,” he said. The changing economic picture is just one challenge Mr. Perry faces as he attempts to rebound from his unsuccessful first presidential bid nearly four years ago. He continues to be weighed down by a felony indictment related to a veto he issued as governor. He has denied wrongdoing and filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, which is pending before an appellate court in Austin. The former governor also is in the single digits in a field expected to include more than a dozen Republicans, and he is working to overcome any lingering negative impressions by primary voters. The last time around, after briefly claiming front-runner status, he stumbled with a couple of debate answers and ultimately dropped out. Mr. Perry, who has conceded he was ill-prepared in his last race, has underscored the preparation he has undertaken the second time around, immersing himself in the intricacies of policy. As Mr. Perry said in a recent radio interview, “just being the governor of the state of Texas was not enough.” Brandon Rottinghaus, a political-science professor at the University of Houston, believes Mr. Perry can likely counter any attacks on his economic record. But other challenges, like the indictment and the famous “oops” moment during a debate in his earlier campaign, may be tougher to overcome, he said. “The one-two strike of the indictment and communication failures of the 2012 race will make it hard for him to get his footing” Mr. Rottinghaus said. *Scott Walker Says 2016 Announcement Coming After Budget Wrap at End of June <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-03/scott-walker-says-2016-announcement-coming-after-budget-wrap-at-end-of-june> // Ali Elkin – June 3, 2015 * Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said Wednesday he will announce whether or not he plans to run for president after the state budget is passed, which he says will happen in short order. “I haven't made an announcement yet and won't until after the budget's done at the end of this month,” the Republican said, appearing on Fox News's Fox and Friends. Walker had wanted to finish the budget process in record-early time, but that goal now appears to be out of reach, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported Tuesday. “We do have a lot of stuff that we need to get ironed out,” said Wisconsin state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald. Sticking points–including among some legislators of Walker's own party—are funding for roads and a new basketball arena, according to the newspaper. The current budget expires June 30. “Past legislatures and governors have sometimes even gone past the July 1 deadline. That forces the state government to run on the provisions of the old budget until the new one passes,” the newspaper said. *Wisconsin Abortion Ban Would Allow Father To Sue For Emotional Distress <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/03/wisconsin-abortion_n_7502558.html?1433347480> // HuffPo // Laura Bassett – June 3, 2015 * Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said this week that he would sign a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy that does not contain exceptions for rape and incest victims, if the bill reaches his desk. The measure also contains a less-discussed provision that would allow the father to sue the doctor for "emotional and psychological distress" if he disagrees with the abortion, regardless of his relationship with the woman having the procedure. Wisconsin Assembly Bill 237 would ban abortions after 20 weeks "postfertilization," which doctors would measure as 22 weeks of pregnancy since pregnancies are usually measured from the woman's last menstrual period. If the bill becomes law, doctors who perform an abortion after this time could be charged with a felony and fined up to $10,000, or face up to three and a half years in prison. In addition to those penalties, the bill would allow the father to sue the doctor for damages, "including damages for personal injury and emotional and psychological distress," if the doctor performs or attempts to perform an abortion after the 20-week limit. The man does not need to be married to the woman or even in a relationship with her to sue her doctor, as long as the pregnancy is not a result of sexual assault or incest. The bill also says the woman can sue. Walker and the co-authors of the bill, state Rep. Jesse Kremer (R) and Senate President Mary Lazich (R), did not respond to requests for comment. The Wisconsin House and Senate are expected to vote on the bill next week. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports reproductive rights, 6 of the 11 states that currently ban abortion at 20 weeks postfertilization -- Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma -- have similar language tucked into their respective laws that allow the parents to sue a doctor who performs an abortion after that point. In Kansas, the provision applies to the father only if he is married to the woman who had the abortion. So far, the 20-week ban is not standing up well in court. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho's law last week, ruling it "unconstitutional because it categorically bans some abortions before viability." The Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade in 1973 that states cannot ban abortions before the fetus would be viable outside the womb, which is estimated to occur between 22 and 24 weeks of pregnancy. Republican supporters of the bill argue that abortions should be banned after 20 weeks because fetuses can feel pain at that point -- a theory that has been refuted by the mainstream medical community. "Whether you're pro-life or not, that's a good time to say that shouldn't be legal after a time when an unborn child can literally feel pain," Walker told reporters this week. Opponents of the bill point out that less than 1 percent of abortions occur after 20 weeks, and the women who seek them have often discovered severe medical problemswith the fetus that were not clear in earlier tests. Marcy Stech, a spokeswoman for the progressive women's PAC EMILY's List, said the Wisconsin bill is "extreme, outrageous and profoundly wrong." "A woman’s right to choose is hers and hers alone," Stech said. "Scott Walker is the last person on earth who should be telling women how to make their deeply personal decisions." *Scott Walker dead set against path to citizenship but has no answer for what to do with 11 million undocumented residents <http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/scott-walker-dead-set-against-path-to-citizenship-but-has-no-answer-for/2232154> // Tampa Bay Times // Alex Leary – June 3, 2015* Scott Walker said he adamantly opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but was vague in an interview with the Tampa Bay Times about what should be done with the 11 million people already in the U.S. “My belief is that because the system is so broken, we need to do the other things I mention before we can even begin to start talking about what the president and the next congress can do,” Walker said, referring to his call for more border security and enforcement of existing law. “Until we deal with those other issues, any potential solution is largely irrelevant.” Walker’s comments continued an uneven response to the vexing issue of immigration since he emerged as a presidential hopeful. The Wisconsin governor once supported a path to citizenship, but earlier this year veered to the right, then backed off a bit. The shifting positions have left many wonder what exactly does he think should be done. “I said I was opposed to the Gang of 8, so I never said I supported that,” Walker said in an interview Tuesday afternoon at the Disney hotel where Gov. Rick Scott held his presidential forum. In 2013, Sen. Marco Rubio and seven other senators worked out a comprehensive bill, which would have added billions in more security spending while providing an eventual pathway to citizenship. (Rubio has famously backed away from his own legislation but still supports citizenship.) Walker said his new view has been shaped by President Obama’s executive actions and by taking with border-state governors and voters across the country. “Certainly we’re a nation of immigrants,” he said. “There’s a number of things that have to be done, starting with securing the border, enforcing the laws that are on the books. I’ve made it clear that I don’t support amnesty for citizenship. But you’re not ready to say what should happen to the 11 million, whether they should eventually given some legal status, which is kind of Jeb Bush position, or citizenship, which is what the Rubio bill would have granted? “It’s left up to the next president and congress,” Walker replied. “Specifically when it comes to citizenship, I don’t believe there should be any amnesty regardless of the circumstances. There is a current process by which anyone in the world can seek citizenship and that’s the path people should use.” He said depending on what is done with security and other reforms, “Things and circumstances will changes, conditions will be different depending on how effectively we do (those first steps).” In April, Walker went farther than other Republican hopefuls when he suggested legal immigration should be scaled back. That brought condemnations from immigration activists and some Republicans, who are worried the fight for the presidential nomination is putting the party back in a nativist mode that hurt “self-deport” Mitt Romney. (Allies say his remarks were misinterpreted and he just wants to control flow as workers are needed or not.) “I’ve only said that legal immigration should be focused on American workers, their wages, as the top priority,” Walker said. Bush, appearing at the same forum on Tuesday, said immigration reform needs to be tackled, “for crying out loud,” to grow the economy. Walker disagrees, though his argument overlooks Bush’s point that the labor pool is getting older and more workers will be needed. “There’s too high a number of American – both citizens and legal residents --- who are not in the workforce today who could and should be,” Walker said. “Before we start talking about anything else we need to figure out ways to make sure that everyone who is here who is able to work is getting the skills and the education, the qualifications and the encouragement to get into the workforce.” *Rand Paul calls out Jeb Bush for defending NSA <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-criticizes-jeb-bush-nsa-spying-iraq-war-118597.html> // Politico // Katie Glueck – June 3, 2015 * Rand Paul is slamming Jeb Bush over the former Florida governor’s defense of National Security Agency data collection, the latest round in the Kentucky senator’s battles with his own party on the issue. “Just like he was confused for weeks about his position on the Iraq war, Gov. Bush appears completely unaware of the facts about the government’s illegal and unnecessary spying [on] the American people and made it clear his position is based on politics, not policy and the Constitution,” Paul spokesman Sergio Gor said in a statement on Wednesday, jabbing a likely 2016 rival over Bush’s previous equivocating about whether he would have invaded Iraq given the intelligence available now. The Paul presidential campaign’s pushback follows an interview Bush gave to Fox News a day earlier, when Bush said that most of the criticism of the NSA stems from Democrats. His comments come after a heated debate in Congress over the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, during which Paul raised strenuous objections about data collection allowed under the law. “While Rand Paul and a few others have expressed concerns about civil liberties — and I respect that although I don’t see any shred of evidence that anybody’s civil liberties are being violated — the great preponderance of people that want to overturn the Patriot Act are on the left,” Bush said on Fox, when asked whether there was a divide between the “Rand Paul wing and pretty much everyone else.” Bush continued, “And we need to … give people some room in the Democratic Party to be strong supporters of defending the homeland again. I think we need to restore a bipartisan consensus on this. The great majority of Republicans are supportive of the NSA.” On Tuesday, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act, which sought to balance security measures with more privacy protections. Paul, who did not vote for the measure, has spent the better part of a week tearing into bulk data collection and forced the expiration of elements of the PATRIOT Act, a move that played well with his libertarian-leaning base but sparked outrage from more hawkish corners of his party. Gor’s statement, an effort to fire back at that GOP criticism, referenced a bad week for Bush last month, when it took him days to say he wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq given today’s knowledge of intelligence failures in the lead-up to the war. *When Rand Paul steps in it <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-2016-interview-118612.html> // Politico // MANU RAJU – June 4, 2015* The 2016 contender says he’s no programmed pol. But straight talk can be a dangerous thing After Rand Paul said GOP defense hawks had “created” ISIS, he told Sean Hannity: “I think I could have stated it better.” When he claimed some of his adversaries were “secretly” hoping for a terrorist attack so they could blame him for shutting down the PATRIOT Act, the next day he admitted that “hyperbole” got the better of him “in the heat of battle.” And when Paul quipped that he was “glad” his train didn’t stop in Baltimore in the wake of riots there, he later offered “regret” that his comments were “misinterpreted.” As Paul has sought to stand out from the clustered GOP presidential field, he’s finding that his freewheeling, off-the-cuff speaking style can cut both ways. His supporters say it’s what’s refreshing about him: He’s not a typical programmed pol who spews the same talking points over and over; there’s an authenticity that’s rare in today’s poll-driven politics, they say. But his critics say it betrays a lack of discipline that should concern Republicans in a general election — when any rhetorical blunder can trigger a media circus lasting days — let alone in the White House. In an interview, Paul spurned advice he often receives to “say the same thing over and over again,” even as he acknowledged his comments are “not always perfect.” “People have to choose what they want,” he told POLITICO this week. “If they want robots, who say the same thing over and over again, there are plenty of them. If they want something more genuine, where everything is not always perfect — we’ll see what people want. I am who I am.” The 52-year-old ophthalmologist may seem like a political neophyte, given that his 2010 Senate victory was his first foray into elective politics. But he has spent a good portion of his life around the spotlight, learning the political ropes from his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, whose brand of libertarianism set him apart from much of his party. And, like his father, he has methodically worked to portray himself as a different type of candidate, including speaking to an array of different audiences and not shying away from the press. It’s in stark contrast to other candidates who fear unscripted moments and adopt a more disciplined approach to the media when running for higher office. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for one, has not participated in a formal sit-down interview and has sharply limited press availability since announcing her presidential run in April. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who was known for his willingness to engage with reporters in the Capitol, is now limiting — if not avoiding — interactions with Hill media. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) takes questions from reporters and often gives long-winded answers, but he rarely deviates from the precise point he’s trying to make. Paul said Clinton’s press avoidance strategy may have spared her some bad headlines in the short term, but he asserted it’s backfired on her lately. “She’s had a bad month. I think I like my month better than her month,” he said. Of course, Paul isn’t the front-runner for his party’s nomination, so he has a lot more to gain than Clinton does by mixing it up with the press. In the past month, Paul became the scourge of his caucus for his defiant stand against the PATRIOT Act, forcing a two-day lapse in the law by refusing to allow a temporary extension to pass. As GOP hawks slammed the libertarian-minded Paul over his view that the anti-terrorism law invaded privacy rights, the Kentucky Republican took to the floor in a rare Sunday night session and made a rather incendiary claim. “People here in town think I’m making a huge mistake,” Paul said. “Some of them, I think, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me.” A day later, Paul was walking it back. “I think hyperbole can sometimes get the better of us,” he told reporters outside the Capitol. Last week, Paul was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” when he was asked about Sen. Lindsey Graham’s position that a more restrained foreign policy empowered Islamic State militants. “ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS,” Paul said. “These hawks also wanted to bomb [Syrian leader Bashar] Assad, which would have made ISIS’ job even easier. They created these people.” After an uproar, Paul was confronted about the comments on Hannity’s Fox News show. “Ultimately, I think I could have stated it better,” Paul said. “The ultimate people who are responsible for terrorism are obviously the terrorists.” In the POLITICO interview, Paul said the backlash was an instance of him saying something “1,000 times” and then changing his wording once, prompting criticism. He said he should have also pinned blame on Clinton and President Barack Obama for backing policies that created ISIS. But he stood by the essence of his remarks that Republican hawks are culprits, as well. “The comments I said about ISIS, I’ve said 1,000 times,” Paul said. “I used one different word — which is probably not the correct word — the ‘created’ word. I probably should have said, ‘enabled’ or ‘make worse.’ And all things I’ve said, a million times, and I still believe that.” Such comments have already given fodder to Paul’s foes. “I think it really shows how little understanding he has on both the conflict and the challenges and the threat it presents to the security of the United States,” said Arizona Sen. John McCain, a leading GOP hawk who backs Graham (R-S.C.) for president. Unlike some candidates who tend to hew closer to their scripts, Paul, at times, grows weary of giving the same defense of a policy position. So he is prone to veer off topic and offer a new argument publicly. Doing that, however, has its risks. His advisers have tried to impress upon Paul the need to hash out his line of thinking privately before speaking publicly about it for the first time. For instance, when he said on Fox Business Network in 2013, “I don’t care” if a drone were to kill a man robbing a liquor store, it seemed incongruent with his 13-hour filibuster the month earlier against U.S. policies on unmanned drones. And after contending in February during a testy CNBC interview there were cases of vaccinations causing “mental disorders” in some children, he later stressed he believes all kids should be inoculated, even tweeting a picture of himself getting a booster shot. Paul’s supporters believe voters will cut some slack to a candidate who’s unafraid to speak his mind. “It’s a two-edged sword, yet his greatest strength,” said Brian Darling, a former senior aide to Paul. “It’s a risk at times when comments get him in trouble. But it’s a huge upside in the sense that people know he’s a genuine guy.” Darling added: “Rand Paul may be the new ‘Straight-talk Express’ from the Senate,” a riff on McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign slogan. While Paul comes across as a no-nonsense senator, he occasionally likes to flash his sense of humor. Yet, his timing can sometimes fall flat, as it did when he quipped on Laura Ingraham’s radio program about moving quickly through Baltimore amid riots there in April. “I’m glad the train didn’t stop,” he said. The remark undercut his long-running effort to reach out to communities of color, and Paul and his team moved quickly to contain the fallout. Missteps aside, Jesse Benton, a longtime political adviser to Paul who is married to the senator’s niece, said the senator has improved vastly as a communicator during his short time in public office. “I think he’s a master at it, but even a master is not always perfect,” said Benton, who now runs Paul’s super PAC. “Sometimes, he makes news in a way that is not exactly in the way he wants it. However, the vast majority of the news he makes is extremely positive for him.” *Scott Walker: Women Mostly Worry About Rape Pregnancies 'In The Initial Months' <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scott-walker-abortions-rape-incest> // Talking Points Memos // Ahiza Garcia – June 3, 2015* Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said Monday that he’d be willing to sign a 20-week abortion ban without exceptions for rape or incest, adding that women were mostly concerned about those issues "in the initial months" of pregnancy, television station WKOW reported. “I mean, I think for most people who are concerned about that, it’s in the initial months where they’re most concerned about it,” Walker said of pregnancies caused by rape and incest. “In this case, again, it’s an unborn life, it’s an unborn child and that’s why we feel strongly about it,” Walker said. “I’m prepared to sign it either way that they send it to us.” On Tuesday, a public hearing on the bill featured testimony from women who have had abortions and medical experts. While the Wisconsin State Assembly and Senate are expected to vote on the bill soon, none is scheduled. Walker, a potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, made news last week when he said ultrasounds were “pretty cool” while discussing Wisconsin’s mandatory ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. *Rand Paul: GOP Isn't Entirely Responsible For Creating ISIS <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/02/rand-paul-isis_n_7492994.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067> // HuffPo // Sam Levine – June 3, 2015 * Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) backtracked on his recent comments that hawkish Republicans were responsible for creating the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS. Last week, Paul said the Islamic State "exists and grows stronger" because of Republican hawks who were too eager to arm Syrian rebels. Pressed on those comments by Fox News Host Sean Hannity on Monday, Paul took some of the blame off Republicans. "I think ultimately I could have maybe stated it a little bit better," said Paul, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president. "The ultimate people who are responsible for terrorism are obviously the terrorists. So ISIS is responsible for the mayhem, the murders, the brutality, the beheadings, that's ISIS." Paul linked the rise of ISIS to the policies of President Barack Obama, but stopped short of saying his party was not responsible at all. "This was the policy of President Obama, it was the policy of Hillary Clinton and it was also the policy of some in my party who wanted to arm the Islamic rebels," he said. "And I warned at the time that the great irony is that you arm these people, one day we'll have to go back and fight against these weapons ourselves." Paul, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, faced criticism from conservatives for the comments. "Rand Paul does not belong in the Republican party when he carries that message," Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell last week. "You can have honest differences over what should be done in Iraq, what should be done in Syria, but to say that it was Republicans or Republican policies or Lindsey Graham or John McCain, that caused the growth of ISIS. That's totally untrue ... For him to so misread ISIS to me shows that he's totally unqualified to be commander-in-chief." On Monday, Paul said the rise of ISIS was an "unintended consequence" of arming Syrian rebels. "I would say that we can have a valid discussion over whether or not ISIS has grown stronger by pouring arms into the Islamic rebels in the Syrian civil war," Paul said. "It is objective truth that ISIS grew stronger the more weapons that went into the Syrian civil war. So I think it was an unintended consequence that ISIS grew stronger because of weaponizing these Islamic rebels in Syria." *'I use them, they use me': Local politicians profit from presidential hopefuls in early-voting states <http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-presidential-hopefuls-court-earlystate-politicians-20150602-story.html#page=1> // LA Times // Seema Mehta – June 3, 2015* Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker entered a fundraiser in a cavernous barn here on a recent sunny Saturday afternoon to the flashes of cellphone cameras and throngs of people seeking a handshake and a selfie. The front-runner in Iowa among those seeking the GOP nomination was the guest of honor, but he wasn’t raising money for a White House bid. The haul would go to Chad Airhart, the recorder for Dallas County in central Iowa. “Thanks for letting us come by and join with you; thanks for your leadership,” Walker told Airhart, as the recorder’s supporters dined on bratwurst and baked beans, surrounded by hanging cow hides and saddles. “I’m honored to be here today.” In much of the nation, a top presidential prospect wouldn’t bother showing up to raise money for a local official who handles paperwork for a county of 66,000 people. But in Iowa, local politicians are showered in love for one important reason: They are gate-keepers to voters and party activists who will provide access to their networks and commit time to White House candidates hoping to make a splash in the state that holds the first presidential nominating contest. “I don’t know if spoiled is the right word,” said Airhart, who has endorsed Walker, even though the governor has not formally announced his candidacy. “I would say we’re blessed in Iowa to have this opportunity.” Republican Rep. David Young, a freshman Iowa congressman, was blunter. “I use them, they use me,” Young said. This year, he has raised thousands of dollars for his reelection campaign at a dessert reception headlined by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a pizza parlor fundraiser with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and a gathering at a farm-themed restaurant with Walker. In turn, the prospective candidates got to meet hundreds of Young’s supporters. Republican Rep. David Young, a freshman Iowa congressman, was blunter. “I use them, they use me,” Young said. This year, he has raised thousands of dollars for his reelection campaign at a dessert reception headlined by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a pizza parlor fundraiser with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and a gathering at a farm-themed restaurant with Walker. In turn, the prospective candidates got to meet hundreds of Young’s supporters. “It’s mutually understood and it’s accepted,” Young said. “It’s all OK because we’re unique here in Iowa because we’re first in the nation.” In the lead-up to the 2012 Iowa caucuses, candidates like eventual GOP nominee Mitt Romney announced dozens of new supporters who ranged from statehouse leaders to the mayor of De Soto, a town of 1,050 people. Courting of local leaders also happens in the other early-voting states of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Another way White House hopefuls curry favor is through political action committees. Bush’s Right to Rise leadership PAC, for example, has announced contributions of more than $240,000 since being formed in January. Candidates and parties in the four early states have received one-third of the amount. California, which is unlikely to play a role in the nominating contest because of its late primary date, has Republican candidates swarming the state raising money, but they rarely hold public events or court small-town mayors. “We are fortunate! Put as many exclamation points after that as possible,” said Jeff Kaufmann, chairman of the Iowa GOP. “I can’t express how fortunate Iowa is to be a carve-out state … but with that comes some pretty significant responsibility.” Airhart, a 7th-generation Iowan, grew up poor; his parents were teenagers when he was born, and his father spent time in jail. He said his upbringing on the East Side of Des Moines never suggested he would become an elected official who mingles with presidential candidates. “It’s mutually understood and it’s accepted,” Young said. “It’s all OK because we’re unique here in Iowa because we’re first in the nation.” In the lead-up to the 2012 Iowa caucuses, candidates like eventual GOP nominee Mitt Romney announced dozens of new supporters who ranged from statehouse leaders to the mayor of De Soto, a town of 1,050 people. Courting of local leaders also happens in the other early-voting states of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Another way White House hopefuls curry favor is through political action committees. Bush’s Right to Rise leadership PAC, for example, has announced contributions of more than $240,000 since being formed in January. Candidates and parties in the four early states have received one-third of the amount. California, which is unlikely to play a role in the nominating contest because of its late primary date, has Republican candidates swarming the state raising money, but they rarely hold public events or court small-town mayors. “We are fortunate! Put as many exclamation points after that as possible,” said Jeff Kaufmann, chairman of the Iowa GOP. “I can’t express how fortunate Iowa is to be a carve-out state … but with that comes some pretty significant responsibility.” Airhart, a 7th-generation Iowan, grew up poor; his parents were teenagers when he was born, and his father spent time in jail. He said his upbringing on the East Side of Des Moines never suggested he would become an elected official who mingles with presidential candidates. “We’re really fortunate. We have an opportunity to meet all the candidates, to go through the vetting process and hopefully pick the next president of the United States, whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat,” Airhart said shortly after Walker spoke at the annual “Blue Jean Bash” fundraiser. “We have that opportunity in Iowa that really no one else in the country has.” Democrats aren’t as aggressive this cycle in wooing Iowa’s politicians because their field of candidates is less competitive than the Republicans’. There is a long tradition of the state’s most influential politicians staging events that attract national candidates. Former Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin’s annual steak fry, which ran for 37 years and ended in 2014, was one that presidential hopefuls didn’t dare pass up. Republican Gov. Terry Branstad started holding an annual birthday fundraiser during his first term in the 1980s. The parties — including cupcakes decorated with images of the governor’s trademark mustache — are must-stops for White House candidates. olitical observers say the practice is getting increasingly common among lower-profile politicians, like Young and fellow first-term Rep. Rod Blum, neither of whom has endorsed in the 2016 contest. “It is a fascinating way for a first-term freshman member of Congress to get in front of a bunch of people who might not show up at any campaign event they might hold on their own,” said Craig Robinson, publisher of the influential Iowa Republican blog. Robinson said it was unclear whether neophyte politicians such as Young or Blum would emerge as “kingmakers.” “This is kind of new territory,” he said. Blum has held events with nearly every 2016 GOP presidential prospect. “For a freshman congressman like myself, obviously the crowds that a presidential candidate attracts are good-size crowds for me. It lets me dive into the crowds, and I’m reconnecting with supporters and also meeting new people,” he said. “Sometimes if it works out, we have a private event before or after the public event; we try to raise some money.” Such courtships are not without risks. Bush, Perry, former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina and businessman Donald Trump have faced questions about their support of Rep. Frank Guinta of New Hampshire, who is embroiled in a fundraising scandal that has prompted fellow Republicans to call for his resignation. And sometimes, the courting crosses the line. Former Iowa state legislator Kent Sorenson pleaded guilty in a pay-to-play scheme in federal court last year, admitting that he accepted $73,000 from then-Rep. Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign after dropping his endorsement of then-Rep. Michele Bachmann in favor of Paul shortly before the caucuses. But for the most part, the relationships are positive, and Iowa’s leaders sometimes marvel at the experience. Kaufmann recalled the 2008 nominating contest, when he was a state lawmaker and Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson — better known for being a “Law and Order” star — came for a visit. Thompson wanted to campaign in Kaufmann’s home county. “We walked up and down the streets of Tipton and talked to business owners I’ve known all my life,” Kaufmann said. “Here I am, little old me, in Tipton, Iowa, and I get to go around and introduce Fred Thompson. It was neat for me…. It enhances a local legislator’s image.” *TOP NEWS* *DOMESTIC* *Inequality a Major Issue for Americans, Times/CBS Poll Finds <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/business/inequality-a-major-issue-for-americans-times-cbs-poll-finds.html?src=twr> // NYT // Noam Scheiber & Dalia Sussman – June 3, 2015 * The poll found that a strong majority say that wealth should be more evenly divided and that it is a problem that should be addressed urgently. Nearly six in 10 Americans said government should do more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, but they split sharply along partisan lines. Only one-third of Republicans supported a more active government role, versus eight in 10 of Democrats. These findings help explain the populist appeals from politicians of both parties, but particularly Democrats, who are seeking to capitalize on the sense among Americans that the fruits of the economic recovery are benefiting only a handful at the very top. Far from a strictly partisan issue, inequality looms large in the minds of almost half of Republicans and two-thirds of independents, suggesting that it will outlive the presidential primary contests and become a central theme in next year’s general election campaign. “There is a small group of people in our country who own or control a vast majority of the wealth,” Stephanie Alteneder, 28, a high school teacher from Los Angeles, said in a follow-up interview. “There are a lot of systems set up so that the people who have money get to make more of it.” The percentage of Americans who say everyone has a fair chance to get ahead in today’s economy has fallen 17 percentage points since early 2014. Six in 10 Americans now say that only a few people at the top have an opportunity to advance. The nationwide telephone poll, conducted on landlines and cellphones May 28-31 with 1,022 adults, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The survey touched on several issues relating to the economy and the workplace, showing that four in five Americans support requiring employers to offer paid parental leave, and even more support paid sick leave. A majority also favors requiring chain stores and fast-food restaurants to inform workers of scheduling changes two weeks in advance or to compensate them with additional pay if they fail to do so. Seven in 10 Americans support an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 from $7.25 an hour, although Republicans are about evenly divided on the question. Americans were also skeptical of free trade. Nearly two-thirds favored some form of trade restrictions, and more than half opposed giving the president authority to negotiate trade agreements that Congress could only vote up or down without amending, a White House priority. Still, it was Americans’ views on the distribution of money and opportunity in the country that were most striking. More than half of higher-income Americans said that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed. Across party lines, Americans said the chance to get ahead was mainly a luxury for those at the top. “People have to get a high school education and they have to go to college as well, and then they go out there and can only get a low-paying job,” said Betty Burgess, 70, a retired textile worker from Lincolnton, N.C. Almost three-quarters of respondents say they believe that large corporations have too much influence in the country, about double the amount that said the same of unions. However, a majority of Americans said that workers who did not want to join a union at their workplace should be able to opt out of paying union fees, even as they benefit from the union’s protection and bargaining efforts. Unions generally oppose these so-called right-to-work measures. The phenomenon of public frustration about inequality rising several years into a recovery is not unprecedented. According to data that Leslie McCall, a professor at Northwestern University, has culled from the General Social Survey, a biennual survey by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, some measures of concern about inequality rose steadily after the 1990-91 recession and did not peak until 1996, after which they fell for several years. The source of the resentment, Professor McCall said, was that “people think the returns to economic growth should be going to people like them as much as they should be going to people at the top.” The poll also included a variety of intriguing findings about what Americans think should be done to reduce inequality. Six in 10 Americans opposed requiring fast-food chains and other employers of hourly workers to raise wages to at least $15 an hour, the aim of a two-and-a-half year nationwide campaign led in part by a major union. (On Tuesday, Francis Slay, the mayor of St. Louis, threw his weight behind an effort to gradually raise the minimum wage there to $15 an hour by 2020, following similar moves in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle in recent years.) When asked about the other end of the income spectrum, two-thirds of Americans favored raising taxes on people with annual salaries exceeding $1 million. By a 50-45 margin, they favored capping the income of top executives at large corporations, a measure that more than one-third of Republicans supported as well. Inequality Troubles Americans Across Party Lines, Times/CBS Poll Finds // NYT // Noam Scheiber & Dalia Sussman – June 3, 2015 Americans are broadly concerned about inequality of wealth and income despite an economy that has improved by most measures, a sentiment that is already driving the 2016 presidential contest, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found that a strong majority say that wealth should be more evenly divided and that it is a problem that should be addressed urgently. Nearly six in 10 Americans said government should do more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, but they split sharply along partisan lines. Only one-third of Republicans supported a more active government role, versus eight in 10 of Democrats. These findings help explain the populist appeals from politicians of both parties, but particularly Democrats, who are seeking to capitalize on the sense among Americans that the economic recovery is benefiting only a handful at the very top. Far from a strictly partisan issue, inequality looms large in the minds of almost half of Republicans and two-thirds of independents, suggesting that it will outlive the presidential primary contests and become a central theme in next year’s general election campaign. “There is a small group of people in our country who own or control a vast majority of the wealth,” Stephanie Alteneder, 28, a Democrat and a high school teacher from Los Angeles, said in a follow-up interview. “There are a lot of systems set up so that the people who have money get to make more of it.” The percentage of Americans who say everyone has a fair chance to get ahead in today’s economy has fallen 17 percentage points since early 2014. Six in 10 Americans now say that only a few people at the top have an opportunity to advance. The nationwide telephone poll, conducted on landlines and cellphones May 28-31 with 1,022 adults, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The survey touched on several issues relating to the economy and the workplace, showing that four in five Americans support requiring employers to offer paid parental leave, and even more support paid sick leave. A majority also favors requiring chain stores and fast-food restaurants to inform workers of scheduling changes two weeks in advance or to compensate them with additional pay if they fail to do so. Seven in 10 Americans support an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 from $7.25 an hour, although Republicans are about evenly divided on the question. Americans were also skeptical of free trade. Nearly two-thirds favored some form of trade restrictions, and more than half opposed giving the president authority to negotiate trade agreements that Congress could only vote up or down without amending, a White House priority. Still, it was Americans’ views on the distribution of money and opportunity in the country that were most striking. More than half of higher-income Americans said that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed. Across party lines, most Americans said the chance to get ahead was mainly a luxury for those at the top. Still, it was Americans’ views on the distribution of money and opportunity in the country that were most striking. More than half of higher-income Americans said that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed. Across party lines, most Americans said the chance to get ahead was mainly a luxury for those at the top. “People have to get a high school education and they have to go to college as well, and then they go out there and can only get a low-paying job,” said Betty Burgess, 70, a retired textile worker from Lincolnton, N.C., who is a Republican. Almost three-quarters of respondents say that large corporations have too much influence in the country, about double the amount that said the same of unions. However, a majority of Americans said that workers who did not want to join a union at their workplace should be able to opt out of paying union fees, even as they benefit from the union’s protection and bargaining efforts. Unions generally oppose these right-to-work measures. The phenomenon of public frustration about inequality rising several years into a recovery is not unprecedented. According to data that Leslie McCall, a professor at Northwestern University, has culled from the General Social Survey, a biennial survey by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, some measures of concern about inequality rose steadily after the 1990-91 recession and did not peak until 1996, after which they fell for several years. The source of the resentment, Professor McCall said, was that “people think the returns to economic growth should be going to people like them as much as they should be going to people at the top.” The poll also included a variety of intriguing findings about what Americans think should be done to reduce inequality. Six in 10 Americans opposed requiring fast-food chains and other employers of hourly workers to raise wages to at least $15 an hour, the aim of a two-and-a-half year nationwide campaign led in part by a major union. (On Tuesday, Francis Slay, the mayor of St. Louis, threw his weight behind an effort to gradually raise the minimum wage there to $15 an hour by 2020, following similar moves in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle in recent years.) When asked about the other end of the income spectrum, two-thirds of Americans favored raising taxes on people with annual salaries exceeding $1 million. By 50 to 45 percent, they favored capping the income of top executives at large corporations, a measure that more than one-third of Republicans supported as well. *Working dads make more money than working moms in every state <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/03/working-dads-make-more-money-than-working-moms-in-every-state/> // WaPo // Danielle Paquette – June 3, 2015* By now, after two zany Amy Schumer skits crashed this economic research Web site, you may have realized America’s gender wage gap is more of a maternal wage gap. Women, on average, make about 78 cents for every dollar paid to men. But at the start of their careers, the difference is much smaller. Consider millennial ladies, the slowest generation to have babies in U.S. history: They bag about93 cents for every guy-earned dollar. That average falls dismally, however, when kids enter the work-life balance. American mothers who work full-time earn 30 cents less than working fathers, according to an analysis by the National Women’s Law Center released today. “Stereotypes about mothers and fathers contribute to this disparity,” the researchers wrote. “Mothers are recommended for significantly lower starting salaries, perceived as less competent, and are less likely to be recommended for hire than non-mothers.” Beyond the obvious financial blow to families -- poverty touches half of kids living with single mothers, for example -- the psychological impact of receiving less pay for equal work can be devastating. Expectant mothers, anticipating judgment amid an otherwise joyful time, sometimes hide their bellies for as long as possible -- or plunge into overdrive at work to combat the stereotype, often at the expense of their health. Working moms make less than working dads in every state, according to the National Women's Law Center analysis. The maternal wage gap is smallest in Washington, D.C., where mothers typically make ten cents less than fathers, and highest Louisiana, where the difference is a whopping 42 cents. In seven states, dads make more than $20,000 annually than moms: Alaska ($21,000), Utah ($21,000), Wyoming ($22,000), Massachusetts ($23,000), Louisiana ($23,000), Connecticut ($25,000) and New Jersey ($25,000). *Republican Senators Will Sponsor A Bill To Protect Pregnant Workers For The First Time Ever <http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/06/03/3665919/pwfa-republicans/> // Think Progress // Bryce Covert – June 3, 2015 * On Thursday, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) will reintroduce the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), a bill aimed at helping pregnant employees stay safely on the job. For the first time ever, however, it will get Republican sponsorship from Sens. Kelly Ayotte (NH) and Dean Heller (NV), a Congressional staffer told ThinkProgress. The PWFA requires employers to offer their pregnant workers small changes so that they can keep working safely unless they can prove it would impose undue hardship on their businesses. Those accommodations could include switching from heavy lifting to light duty, more frequent bathroom breaks, or simply a stool to sit on. Today, two-thirds of first-time mothers work during their pregnancies, 80 percent of whom stay until their last month. Yet an estimated quarter million women are denied these changes every year, while even more say they don’t ask because they’re afraid of risking their jobs. Some women have ended up miscarrying, while others have been forced onto unpaid leave or fired when they asked for and were denied an accommodation. The Supreme Court recently sided with Peggy Young, a former UPS employee who was put on unpaid leave instead of being given light duty during her pregnancy. The Republican support comes after the PWFA was included in a vote-o-rama of budget amendments in March and got unanimous support. The bill has been introduced as its own piece of legislation multiple times in past years but only had Democratic sponsorship and didn’t advance. Meanwhile, states have advanced their own versions of the bill: 14 and Washington, D.C. require employers to give pregnant employees reasonable accommodations. *House GOP votes to block administration on immigration <http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:5d09dfe837474b7a8b7929ad96c6b1af> // AP // Erica Werner – June 3, 2015 * House Republicans have voted to block the Obama administration from spending any money against a lawsuit over the president's immigration policies. The 222-204 vote Wednesday came on an amendment by leading immigration hardliner Rep. Steve King of Iowa to a spending bill for the Commerce and Justice Departments. House Republicans spent weeks earlier this year trying to overturn President Barack Obama's executive actions from last fall that granted work permits and stays of deportation to millions of immigrants living in this country illegally. The House efforts were unsuccessful, but Republicans have claimed success anyway, noting that the policies have been put on hold by a federal judge in a lawsuit by a group of states seeking to overturn the actions. *INTERNATIONAL* *ISIS Making Political Gains <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/world/isis-making-political-gains.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news> // NYT // Anne Barnard & Tim Arango – June 3, 2015 * Days after seizing the Syrian desert city of Palmyra, Islamic State militants blew up a notorious prison there, long used by the Syrian government to detain and torture political prisoners. The demolition was part of the extremist group’s strategy to position itself as the champion of Sunni Muslims who feel besieged by the Shiite-backed governments in Syria and Iraq. The Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has managed to advance in the face of American-led airstrikes by employing a mix of persuasion and violence. That has allowed it to present itself as the sole guardian of Sunni interests in a vast territory cutting across Iraq and Syria. Ideologically unified, the Islamic State is emerging as a social and political movement in many Sunni areas, filling a void in the absence of solid national identity and security. At the same time, it responds brutally to any other Sunni group, militant or civilian, that poses a challenge to its supremacy. That dual strategy, purporting to represent Sunni interests and attacking any group that vies to play the same role, has allowed it to grow in the face of withering airstrikes. While the Obama administration has focused on confronting the Islamic State militarily, experts say the group’s recent victories point to the need for a political component in the strategy to counter the group — even after nearly 4,000 airstrikes by the American-led coalition and what United States officials say are the deaths of 10,000 ISIS militants. “They are hijacking legitimate demands,” Ibrahim Hamidi, a journalist and political analyst from the restive Syrian province of Idlib, said of the Islamic State. He has long argued that without more forceful international action against the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and a political program to empower Sunnis, support for the extremists will grow. “This is part of what makes them so dangerous,” he said. “Defeating them needs a comprehensive approach.” Sunnis form an aggrieved majority in Syria, where repression of a mostly Sunni uprising by Mr. Assad’s government, backed by Shiite-led Iran, exploded into war. And they are an aggrieved minority in Iraq, where Shiites are more numerous, after years of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite militias. But little has been done to give Sunnis a greater role in their own governance. Mr. Assad remains in power, backed by Iran and the militant group Hezbollah. And American officials are fighting an uphill battle to persuade Sunnis in Iraq to fight ISIS alongside the Shiite-led central government and Iranian-backed militias. That, Mr. Hamidi and other analysts said, has left some Sunnis willing to tolerate the Islamic State in areas where they lack another defender, especially in conservative communities like the ones in western Iraq and eastern Syria, where the group is strongest. The analysts emphasized that most Sunnis do not support the Islamic State’s harsh interpretation of Islam, or its brutality, but that some were becoming more susceptible to its political talk about protecting oppressed Sunnis. “Now, with the sectarian polarization of the region, under the skin of every single Sunni there is a tiny Daesh,” Mr. Hamidi, a Sunni, said, using the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State. By attacking ISIS in Syria while doing nothing to stop Mr. Assad from bombing Sunni areas that have rebelled, he added, the United States-led campaign was driving some Syrians into the Islamic State camp. “The coalition is scratching the skin and making this Daesh come out.” A slang word has even emerged, aid workers in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon say, for someone who supports ISIS just a little bit. Some people say, with a hint of sheepishness, “I’m a Dawoosh,” using an Arabic diminutive that suggests “a cute little Daesh.” In Iraq, the Islamic State has largely engulfed a pre-existing Sunni insurgency. It has deeper roots there, having grown out of Al Qaeda in Iraq, that sprang from resistance to United States after the 2003 invasion. In 2006, Iraq became embroiled in civil war, with Sunni and Shiite militias carrying out sectarian attacks on civilians. Now, some of those Shiite militias are among the most effective forces on the ground after the partial collapse of the Iraqi Army. But there have been reports of revenge killings by the militias, and some Sunnis trust them so little that they prefer the Islamic State. The situation in Syria is similar in some ways, with Mr. Assad relying on support from Iran and Iranian-backed militias. But the Islamic State faces greater challenges winning popular support in Syria, where its Iraqi leadership is viewed as foreign and where there remains a significant collection of Sunni insurgent groups opposed to both the Islamic State and the government. Washington is trying to recruit some of those rival groups to be trained and equipped as a front-line force against the Islamic State in Syria. But the program is small, with only 90 fighters in the first round of training, and recruiting is a challenge, since most Syrian insurgents place the highest priority on fighting the Assad government. Also arrayed against the Islamic State in Syria are many hard-line Islamist groups, including the Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front. They can match the Islamic State in espousing Sunni sectarian views, condemning minority sects, and reject its claim to represent Sunnis, calling them instead “khawarej,” a term from Islamic history signifying divisive outsiders. The Islamic State has made more inroads in areas where either it or the government has stamped out alternative insurgent forces. That was the case in Palmyra, the first city the group took directly from government forces, which had crushed a rebellion there in 2012. One resident of Palmyra who opposes both the Islamic State and the government said it was trying to persuade townspeople to view it as a liberator. “For the last seven years, they have been winning hearts and minds in Iraq,” he said, using only a nickname, Dahham, for safety reasons. “This is the same approach they are using in Palmyra, and nobody stood against them.” Rami Jarrah, an antigovernment activist who also opposes ISIS, said the group scored a victory by destroying the prison. The site has powerful resonance across the spectrum of opponents of Mr. Assad, from secular communists to Sunni Islamists accused of taking part in a Muslim Brotherhood insurgency that was crushed in the 1980s. Syrians who lost loved ones to abuses by the governments of Mr. Assad and his father, Hafez al-Assad, may now feel that while global powers ignored their pleas for help, “justice has been met at the hands of extremist militants,” Mr. Jarrah wrote on Facebook. With the recent gains by the Islamic State, Washington is tinkering with tactics and weapons. Anti-tank missiles are on their way to Iraq, to destroy American tanks that the group took from fleeing Iraqi soldiers. But United States military support has its limits, given the Iraqi Army’s weakness, which in turn reflects the divisions that have made Iraqi national unity elusive. “ISIS can only really be defeated by the Sunnis in Iraq,” said Emma Sky, a Briton who was a political adviser to the American military in Iraq. That is what happened in 2006, when the American military established the Awakening program, paying Sunni tribes to switch sides and fight Al Qaeda in Iraq and the greater Sunni insurgency. The United States, unable to act unilaterally as it did in 2006, is now pushing the Iraqi government to arm Sunni tribes to fight the Islamic State, but little has happened in the face of objections by harder-line Shiite leaders. There is also a reluctance among Sunnis to fight ISIS, because many do not see being governed by Baghdad as something worth fighting for. “We need assurances that those who are fighting against Daesh will have rights and be treated like Iraqis,” said Osama Nujaifi, a vice president of Iraq and a Sunni. Some Iraqi Sunnis, having seen what ultimately happened with the Awakening, take a once bitten, twice shy approach now. Envisioned as a long-term effort to empower the Sunni community, the Awakening collapsed because the Shiite-led Iraqi government never fulfilled promises of full- time jobs to the Awakening fighters. Sheikh Wissam al-Hardan, a Sunni from Anbar Province who is loyal to the government, said that Sunni fighters still on the payroll of what remains of the Awakening groups had not been paid in 15 months. “There is no reconciliation between the government and the Sunnis,” he said. “The government considers them as if they are all ISIS.” *Cuba officially off U.S. terror blacklist <http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/politics/cuba-terror-list/index.html> // CNN // Kevin Liptak – June 3, 2015 * The United States officially removed Cuba from its list of countries that sponsor terrorism on Friday, setting the two nations up for a full renewal of diplomatic ties. President Barack Obama originally announced in April that he was recommending that Cuba be removed from the terror blacklist after a State Department review. Friday marked the expiration of a 45-day period when Congress could have blocked the move. "The rescission of Cuba's designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism reflects our assessment that Cuba meets the statutory criteria," the State Department said in a statement Friday. The statement noted that the U.S. "has significant concerns and disagreements with a wide range of Cuba's policies and actions" but said these fall outside the criteria related to rescinding a state sponsor of terror designation. Cuba was originally placed on the terror list in 1982 when the U.S. government accused the Fidel Castro regime of sponsoring communist groups in Latin American and Africa. But independent analysts have for years cast doubt on the country's current terror ties, and the State Department said its association with certain groups had "become more distant." Three other countries are currently named as state sponsors of terror: Iran, Sudan and Syria. The terror listing was one of the final barriers to restoring diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. Obama announced in December that he was ending a nearly half-century of frozen relations, stating that the freeze wasn't benefiting either nation. The administration has already lifted some of the restrictions on travel and trade with Cuba, including permitting some ferries to run services from Florida to the island. American visitors are still required to obtain a license from the federal government before traveling to Cuba, though the Treasury has made it easier to obtain permission to go. The removal of the terror designation will also ease some trade restrictions, though in order for full economic ties to be restored, Congress will need to lift the embargo on Cuba that's been in place since 1960. Some lawmakers -- including Republican and Democratic Cuban-Americans -- staunchly oppose any normalization in relations with Cuba, accusing Obama of sidling up to a brutal dictatorship. House Speaker John Boehner said on Friday that Obama "handed the Castro regime a significant political win in return for nothing" by removing Cuba from the terror list. "The communist dictatorship has offered no assurances it will address its long record of repression and human rights abuses at home," Boehner said in a statement. Despite the objections, neither Boehner not other opponents of Obama's Cuba policy sought to block the terror designation removal in Congress. A GOP congressional source said leaders anticipated that overcoming a presidential veto on the measure would be difficult, and determined the practical effects of the removal were minimal. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, an expected contender for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, wrote in a statement that, "Neither continued repression at home nor Cuba's destabilizing activities abroad appear sufficient to stop President Obama from making further concessions to the Communist regime in Havana." White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest dismissed Republicans' concerns on the terror list removal and said the potential of Obama visiting Cuba remains a "presidential aspiration." In January Obama met with Cuban leader Raul Castro at the Summit of the Americans in Panama, the first time the leaders of the two countries had met for substantial talks since before the Cuban revolution. Visiting Miami on Thursday, Obama made a stop at the Shrine of Our Lady of Charity, a religious site honoring the patron saint of Cuba, to pay respects the large Cuban diaspora in the United States. Officials have been negotiating the reopening of embassies in Washington and Havana, though some sticking points -- like how freely American diplomats will be able to move around Cuba -- remain. The U.S. is eying the current head of the U.S. Interests Section in Cuba, Jeffrey DeLaurentis, as the first U.S. ambassador to Cuba in more than 50 years. Plans are being formulated to remodel the current building on Havana's waterfront that houses the interests section to use it as the embassy. *OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS* *Romney defeating Bush in GOP establishment primary <http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/243898-romney-defeating-bush-in-gop-establishment-primary> // The Hill // Brent Budowsky – June 3, 2015* Almost immediately after Mitt Romney announced he was not running in the 2016 race, I speculated that he may be engaging in a clever ploy to stay out of the line of political fire, hoping that former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) fails as a candidate and the growing army of GOP presidential candidates creates a deadlock for the Republican nomination, and the party turns to ... Mitt Romney! There are many scenarios that could unfold in the GOP race. It is certainly possible that a candidate such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R) could catch fire and seize the Republican nomination. I have an upcoming column about Rubio that considers his prospects. If Romney, the Republican 2012 nominee, is actually pursuing the Machiavellian strategy I suggest, recent events in the GOP make this scenario even more likely. Currently, the absurdly growing GOP field makes a deadlocked primary and convention process more likely, with numerous candidates holding between 8 and 13 percent of the GOP vote. The GOP debates could well become a farce with so many candidates. Next, in the unlikely event that one of the right-wing candidates such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) begins winning primaries, I guarantee that the entire GOP national party leadership will move aggressively to stop that candidate, correctly fearing that candidate would lose a landslide to Hillary Clinton (D). In this case they would almost certainly turn to ... Mitt Romney! For this scenario to unfold, there is a secondary primary process, outside the formal primary process, to determine who the establishment compromise nominee would be. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) could have played that role, but it ended on a bridge to New York. A Machiavellian Romney would have nothing to fear from Christie. In my theory, the big bet Romney would have to have made is that the Bush's campaign would fail, paving the way for Romney as the alternative to a rightist front-runner or a deadlocked convention. Let's be direct. This Romney bet, if he made it, appears to be paying off. Bush has been a very weak candidate, another name in a big bunch of mid-range candidates. Bush could not answer the obvious question about the Iraq War initiated by his brother, George W. Bush (Bush 43). A long list of aides, advisers, donors and supporters of Bush 43 are refusing to support Jeb Bush. Why? The right dislikes Jeb Bush even more than they dislike Romney. And Bush has very high negative ratings generally and among Republicans, while Romney gets great public relations from a charity boxing match and supports various GOP candidates in many states. The more Bush lags in the GOP sweepstakes, the more Romney gains in the GOP establishment primary within the larger primaries. Romney, by nature, is a takeover artist. Might he be planning his greatest takeover since the 2012 Republican National Convention? Every week brings more evidence that his big bet has a real chance of paying off. *Hillary Clinton is political, but her foundation isn’t <http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/06/03/the-work-clinton-foundation-apolitical/ICXwH5DOwKr19RTFBy02DN/story.html> // Boston Globe // Dan Payne – June 3, 2015 * THE MUCH-DISCUSSED Clinton Foundation builds partnerships with businesses, governments, nongovernment organizations, other foundations, and wealthy individuals. Like Robin Hood, the foundation used those resources to reduce childhood obesity and improve meals at 20,000 US schools, aid 56,000 small farmers in Malawi, launch programs to save forests in Cambodia, Guyana, Indonesia, Kenya, and Tanzania, and cut the cost of HIV/AIDS medications for 9.9 million people in 70 countries. Clinton detractors would have us believe the foundation is an arm of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. But judging by the politics of its donors, people give and support the foundation without regard to her campaign. Consider these big donors: Big Media is well-represented, an indication that they don’t see the foundation as a political arm of Campaign Hillary. Comcast, NBC Universal, News Corporation, Thomson Reuters, Time Warner, and Turner Broadcasting are big contributors; other big givers include Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom magnate and largest shareholder of The New York Times Company. Bloomberg News donated $500,001-$1 million. (Gifts are reported as a range.) If the foundation benefits Clinton’s candidacy, that will come as news to James Murdoch, co-chief operating officer for the company that owns Fox News, donated $1 million-$5 million, as well as his father Richard, who founded Fox News and gave $500,001-$1 million. Major conservatives have given major dollars. Calling itself “The #1 conservative site in the nation,” Newsmax Media chipped in $100,001-$250,000 and also $1 million-$5 million. The recently deceased Pittsburgh billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, principal heir to the Mellon family’s old banking, oil, steel and aluminum fortune, was described as “one of America’s leading funders of conservative causes.” He donated $250,001-$500,000. Even big name Republicans are on board. Many Republicans have supported Foundation events, including the Global Initiative meetings. Guests have included Laura Bush; former two-time presidential candidate Mitt Romney; TV host Donald Trump, who also forked over $100,000; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, presidential candidates Carly Fiorina; former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. What about Stephanopolous? Yes, George Stephanopolous, of ABC News, gave $75,000 to the foundation, which was publicly listed. Yes, he helped Bill Clinton’s campaign for president and should have told his bosses and his audience about his donation. But he gave to support efforts against AIDS and deforestation. His gift reveals nothing about his political history that wasn’t already known. How diverse can you get? None other than onetime vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin attended a Clinton Global Initiative session to hear a speech by Senator John McCain, the-then presidential nominee. The ideological variety of the foundation’s supporters shows its work is seen by even the most political people as apolitical. Many things can be said to criticize Hillary Clinton. But using the Clinton Foundation to advance her run for president isn’t one of them. *Democrats, Don’t Freak Out! <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/hillary_clinton_s_poll_numbers_have_fallen_democrats_shouldn_t_be_worried.html> // Slate // Jamelle Bouie – June 3, 2015 * George W. Bush is popular again. According to a new poll from CNN, the majority of Americans—52 percent—have a “favorable” view of Bush, versus 43 percent who still aren’t keen on the former president. And while he isn’t as popular as his post-presidential peers—including his father—he’s in far better shape than he was during his final days in office, when most Americans disliked and disapproved of his administration. But more striking than this is his stature versus the current president, Barack Obama. In addition to their survey on Bush, CNN also finds that the 43rd president is more popular than the 44th, who is as liked (49 percent approval) as he is disliked (49 percent disapproval). Conservatives, no surprise, are thrilled. But before touting these numbers as proof of Bush’s ultimate success—and Obama’s clear failure—they should consider this fact of public opinion: Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson aside, every president becomes popular, or at least more popular, out of office. Jimmy Carter was so unpopular he faced a powerful Democratic opponent to his re-election campaign and lost the general election in a popular and electoral vote landslide. But 35 years later, his favorable/unfavorable spread is also better than Obama’s. The other one-term president of the past generation, George H.W. Bush, has also recovered from his prior unpopularity. On the eve of the 1992 election, his approval rating was 43 percent. Today, 63 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the elder Bush, versus 31 percent who still aren’t convinced. Likewise, Bill Clinton was popular throughout his eight years—with an average approval rating of 55 percent—and has become more popular as his tenure has moved to memory. According to Gallup, he has an average post-presidential rating of 60 percent. Put bluntly, George W. Bush’s popularity isn’t news, although it would be if, after seven years of a quiet post-presidency, Bush was still as hated as he was at the end of 2008. With that said, what’s striking about the rehabilitation of Bush is that it’s concurrent with Hillary Clinton’s return from the stratosphere of public opinion. At this time four years ago—when she was chief diplomat and the 2012 election was still in the distance—Clinton was among the most popular figures in the country with a favorable rating of 60 percent. Indeed, just 31 percent of Americans held an unfavorable view of her. She was less popular in 2012, but not by much; the atmosphere was partisan, but not so much that it hurt her standing. That changed in 2013, as she slid from a 56 percent favorability rating in January to 48 percent one in December. And her numbers fell further in 2014, from a high of 50 percent to just under 47 percent at the end of the year. Her recent decline—as well as her higher unfavorables—are part of the same trend. Through 2012, less than one-third of respondents had a poor view of Hillary Clinton. By last month, the anti-Hillary crowd had grown to almost 47 percent of Americans, inching out her supporters. For the media, this reflects scandal. Between the email controversy, foreign donors, and the Clinton Foundation, the public is already weary from Hillary’s baggage. At the same time, those are relatively young stories—they’ve only been in the news a few months. If you want to understand the broad trend of Clinton’s decline, you have to look at her position: She was outside of politics. By leaving domestic politics after the 2008 election, Clinton entered a sort of post-presidency, not dissimilar to Bill Clinton’s or even George W. Bush’s. In public life, but out of the spotlight, she was no longer a partisan figure, which—for Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike—made her palatable. She wasn’t, to borrow from the New Republic’s Rebecca Traister, asking for anything. Now she is. And as she’s gone from a potential candidate to a live one, her popularity has climbed down from the stratosphere. Now, she’s back to where she was in 2007—a well-known and polarized politician with tremendous opposition on the right and substantial support on the left. Like Bush, her journey through public opinion has less to do with her and everything to do with her place in the political firmament. There is one difference. When he left office, Bush was genuinely unpopular, so much so that—four years later—a majority of voters still blamed him for the country’s poor economic conditions. For as much as Republicans might celebrate his present standing, I’d be shocked if they asked him to campaign for the eventual nominee. Americans have warm feelings for the former president, but that sentiment wouldn’t survive the scrutiny of a campaign. Clinton didn’t leave on a high, but she didn’t leave on a low either. When Obama claimed victory in the Democratic primary, 48 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Clinton. Which means that, with her current ratings, she’s returned to her norm as a partisan figure. And it’s a good one. By 2009, that 48 percent had become 50 percent as Democrats forgave and forgot the combat of the previous year. In the same way, the secret of her present decline is that it’s driven by Democrats, who will return to the “team” as the country enters election season. Despite everything, Hillary is in good shape. If you aren’t convinced, consider the reverse scenario. Imagine that the Republican Party had a former senator turned presidential candidate turned secretary of state, who at worst pulled a plurality of all voters, and who at best pulled a firm majority. Would the GOP reject her, or would they immediately embrace her standard, confident that—even with the inevitable scandals and criticism—they’re still positioned for victory. *A ‘favorable’ way to stop Hillary Clinton’s ‘trust’ fall <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/06/03/a-favorable-way-to-stop-hillary-clintons-trust-fall/> // WaPo // Jonathan Capehart – June 3, 2015 * Hillary Clinton’s first big rally of her 2016 presidential campaign will take place on Roosevelt Island on June 13. And it’s coming at the right time. Two national polls released Tuesday and a couple of fundraising stories out of New York spell trouble for the Democratic candidate. By making the case for her candidacy, putting forth ideas that can be debated and answering reporters’ questions, Clinton can use the next six months to turn all of this around. The Post-ABC News poll puts Clinton’s favorability rating at 45 percent, a seven-year low. The CNN-ORC poll has it at 46 percent, the worst it has been since 2011. That CNN survey also puts her unfavorable rating at 50 percent. The former secretary of state who once soared in public opinion is now upside down. To make matters worse, the public’s view of Clinton’s trustworthiness took a hit. In the CNN-ORC survey, it plummeted eight points since March, from 50 percent to 42 percent. When asked whether “is honest and trustworthy” applies to Clinton, 57 percent said no. That’s an eight-point jump since March. The Post-ABC News poll wasn’t as bad, with a five-point drop to 41 percent in trustworthiness. But there was a six-point spike in untrustworthiness to 52 percent. These numbers do not a president make. But I should point out that neither poll asked about the trustworthiness of Clinton’s two Democratic rivals — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley — or anyone in the cavalcade of Republican presidential hopefuls. Not trusting Clinton is one thing. A trust match-up between her and the declared GOP 9 and the undeclared six would be a much more useful measure. Of course, Clinton’s trust plunge has to do with an avalanche of stories about lingering questions about her e-mails, her private e-mail server and the fundraising actions of the Clinton Foundation. Each new revelation feeds the negative narrative that the Clintons play by different rules than the rest of us. Candidate Clinton’s March press conference about the server didn’t quell queries, and her relative silence since then contributed to the diminished opinion of her. Meanwhile, stories about the lack of enthusiasm among deep-pocketed Democratic donors are certain to add to the seeming mayhem around Clinton’s campaign. But, folks, I’m here to remind you that we are still at the beginning of a very long process. We know all about Clinton, but we don’t know what her candidacy is all about. That will change with her speech on the 13th at Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park. The national park commemorates President Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union address, otherwise known as the “four freedoms” speech. In it, FDR called for “a world founded upon four essential human freedoms,” including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. The symbolism of Clinton’s chosen location and the speech it honors gives a clue into where her campaign is headed. Translating FDR’s universal vision into specific and viable policies for a 21st-century nation and world is vital to Clinton right- sizing those poll numbers. So is answering direct questions from reporters, which The Post’s Anne Gearan reports will start happening around the same time as the big rally. The sooner Clinton gets this part of the campaign up and running, the better. It’s time she show that she can listen to the American people as she travels the country and talk to them at the same time. *MISCELLANEOUS* *Lanny Davis: Hillary Clinton and the frenzy of the media <http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/243964-lanny-davis-hillary-clinton-and-the-frenzy-of-the-media> // The Hill // Lanny Davis – June 3, 2015 * "Mobs of reporters and cameramen and other Big Timers were out there wearing bush jackets with leather straps running this way and that and knocking back their Pepsi-Colas and Nehis and yelling to each other and mainly just milling about, crazy with the excitement of being on the scene, bawling for news of the anguished soul of Louise Shepard. They wanted a moan, a tear, some twisted features, a few inside words from friends, any goddamned thing. They were getting desperate. Give us a sign! Give us anything! Give us the diaper-service man! The diaper-service man comes down the street with his big plastic bags, smoking a cigar to provide an aromatic screen for his daily task — and they’re all over him and his steamy bag. Maybe he knows the Shepards! Maybe he knows Louise! Maybe he’s been in there! Maybe he knows the layout of chez Shepard! He locks himself in the front seat, choking on cigar smoke, and they’re banging on his panel truck. ‘Let us in! We want to see!’ They’re on their knees. They’re slithering in the ooze. They’re interviewing the dog, the cat, the rhododendrons. … These incredible maniacs were all out there tearing up the lawn and yearning for their pieces of Louise’s emotional wreckage.” —Tom Wolfe, The Right Stuff (1979), describing the media scrum at the home of Louise Shepard, wife of Alan Shepard, America’s first astronaut, who had just returned safely from a suborbital flight in space. Has anything changed? Decades later, on May 22, Ruby Cramer of BuzzFeed was in the small town of Hampton, N.H., covering a Hillary Clinton event at — I am not making this name up — Smuttynose Brewing Co., a locally owned small business that proudly brews its own brands of beer. Cramer reported that a small group of 60 local townspeople attended, including Lenore and Gary Patton, ages 78 and 79, respectively. For about an hour, the Pattons and the five dozen other guests listened to Clinton talk “in granular detail” about challenges facing small businesses. The event was open to the press. And here’s what happened next, as reported by Cramer: “The spell of the everyday was broken. Clinton was swarmed by reporters. From the aisle, pressed up against the wall of beer cases stacked to the ceiling on pallet shelves, they gathered in a thick circle that happened to coalesce right around the two best seats in the house. Lenore and Gary Patton could not talk to the candidate they had come to see. They could not even get out of their chairs. “Cameras flashed wildly. Lenore was crunched. Gary had a tape recorder in his right ear, a television camera in his left, and microphones overhead. They were inches from Clinton, with her ‘in the eye of the hurricane,’ as Gary put it after watching her field questions on Iraq, her emails, and her image. (‘Do you have a perception problem?’)” Clinton responded by saying she would let voters decide for themselves. “ ‘Hey,’ Gary said to no one in particular. ‘She’s smart. She’s experienced. End of story. ... This woman has what it takes.’ ‘She has ideas for the direction of the country she wants to go in,’ said Lenore. ‘She cares about the middle class. We’re about as middle class as you can get.’ ‘She’s so experienced, she’s so bright, and she’s so adroit,’ her husband added. ‘And I came in here not necessarily feeling all of these things, but I go away thinking that we would be lucky to have her as the president, because she has so many attributes that you need. It’s an incredibly impressive performance.’ ” A CNN poll published on Tuesday reported that the former secretary of State’s favorable and trustworthiness ratings have dropped. Shocking! She has been pounded virtually every day for the last two months by mainstream media, far-right media and every Republican running for president, so that shouldn’t be surprising. Lest we forget, just recently The New York Times/CBS national poll showed that the percentage of Americans who rate Clinton as a strong leader has increased from 57 percent in March to 65 percent, and she is still defeating most Republicans in most polls by a significant margin. Is there a disconnect between Clinton and real voters like Lenore and Gary Patton? Or is the disconnect between the frenzied media scrum and partisan Republican presidential candidates, and real, everyday Americans? You decide. *Alexandria Phillips* *Press Assistant | Communications* Hillary for America | www.hillaryclinton.com