podesta_email_00962.txt

podesta-emails 11,294 words email

P20 P19 D6 D3 V11

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *​**Correct The Record Friday October 3, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Associated Press: “Clinton Feels ‘Grandmother Glow’ from Charlotte” <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HILLARY_CLINTON_FLORIDA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>* “Speaking to a national convention of female real estate professionals, the former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential contender called on business and political leaders to close the gap in wages and leadership positions between men and women.” *CNN: “New to Hillary Clinton's stump speech: Her granddaughter” <http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/politics/hillary-granddaughter-stump-speech/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter>* “Hillary Clinton rolled out a new addition to her usual stump speech geared towards women empowerment on Thursday: Her new granddaughter Charlotte.” *ABC News blog: The Note: “Hillary Clinton Adds Key Line to Pre-2016 Stump Speech” <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/10/hillary-clinton-adds-key-line-to-pre-2016-stump-speech/>* “‘I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy who was born in that hospital on the same day,’ Clinton told the crowd at the Loews Miami Beach Hotel, adding, ‘I just believe that. That’s the way I was raised.’” *NBC 6 (South Florida): “Hillary Clinton Signs Books in Coral Gables” <http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-Signing-Books-in-Coral-Gables-277900681.html>* “Thousands waited hours in the sun to see Former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday in South Florida.” *Fox News: “Hillary Clinton raises $1M for Dem Florida gov candidate Crist at fundraiser” <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/02/hillary-clinton-raises-1m-for-dem-florida-gov-candidate-crist-at-fundraiser/>* “Hillary Clinton raised $1 million for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist in a closed-door fundraiser in Coral Gables Thursday night, a Crist source confirms to Fox News.” *Foreign Policy: “Leave It to Hillary” <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/02/leave_it_to_hillary_clinton_obama_islamic_state_afghanistan>* “Clinton, who was too centrist for the political swing sought by the public in 2008, may be just right for a public desirous of splitting the difference between the shortcomings of one president who thought he could do it all unilaterally and another who built great coalitions to assist him in postponing problems until his successor could take office.” *Politico Magazine: Amb. Christopher R. Hill: “They Sent Me to Iraq. Then They Ignored Me.” <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/how-the-obama-administration-disowned-iraq-111565.html#.VC5-2fldWSo>* “Exhilarated and grateful, I stood on the edge of the landing zone in a line with a few other embassy personnel, all of us waving farewell to our secretary with the expectation she would be back soon. Three months later, Vice President Joe Biden took the lead on Iraq policy and she never returned.” *MSNBC: “The sleeper issue of the 2016 Democratic primary” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-sleeper-issue-the-2016-democratic-primary>* “Fracking is quickly emerging as an under-the-radar issue likely to influence the Democratic presidential primary in 2016, inflaming passionate opposition among the party’s base.” *The Week: “Can Bill Clinton save the Senate for Democrats?” <http://theweek.com/article/index/269161/can-bill-clinton-save-the-senate-for-democrats>* “Whether or not Bill Clinton can pull Pryor or other red-state Democrats across the finish line remains to be seen.” *Articles:* *Associated Press: “Clinton Feels ‘Grandmother Glow’ from Charlotte” <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HILLARY_CLINTON_FLORIDA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>* By Michael J. Mishak October 2, 4:05 p.m. EDT As she weighs another bid for the White House, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday she has a "grandmother glow" that's fueling her campaign for female empowerment and gender equality around the world. Speaking to a national convention of female real estate professionals, the former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential contender called on business and political leaders to close the gap in wages and leadership positions between men and women. Clinton, who joked that she felt that glow after the recent birth of her first grandchild, Charlotte, said she wanted all women to grow up in a world of "full participation and shared prosperity." "I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy who was born in that hospital on the same day," she said. In a speech that drew heavily on her own professional and personal experiences - including several references to her bruising presidential campaign in 2008 - Clinton said women face double standards in business and politics and that governments should work to enact policies that break down barriers to equal opportunity. Her remarks were met with standing ovations. "These ceilings I'm describing don't just keep down women, they hold back entire economies and countries," she said, "because no country can truly thrive by denying the contributions of half of its people." Clinton has repeatedly hit those themes as she travels the campaign trail to help Democrats in the midterm elections. On Thursday, she said the U.S. should eliminate what she called the "motherhood penalty" by requiring paid leave for new mothers. The measure, she said, would pave the way for more women to participate in the workforce. "Laws matter," Clinton said. "I believe 100 percent in women being able to make responsible choices, but it's hardly a choice if you're working at a low-wage job, you get no leave and you can't even afford to bond with your baby because you have to get back to work." Clinton was also in South Florida to promote her book about her tenure as the nation's top diplomat and to help Democrat Charlie Crist raise money for his gubernatorial campaign. Crist, a former Republican governor, is locked in a tight race with GOP Gov. Rick Scott, who has outspent the Democratic nominee by a 2-1 margin in television advertising. Clinton has said she expects to make a decision on a White House bid by the beginning of next year. The appearances help increase her exposure to voters in the nation's largest swing-voting state and allow her to reconnect with some of the same big-money donors who supported her and her husband's past political campaigns. *CNN: “New to Hillary Clinton's stump speech: Her granddaughter” <http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/politics/hillary-granddaughter-stump-speech/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter>* By Dan Merica October 2, 2014, 6:10 p.m. EDT Hillary Clinton rolled out a new addition to her usual stump speech geared towards women empowerment on Thursday: Her new granddaughter Charlotte. "I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy born in that hospital on the same day," the former Secretary of State said at the Commercial Real Estate Women Network Convention in Miami. Bill and Hillary Clinton became grandparents last week when their only daughter, Chelsea, gave birth to Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky on Friday, Sept. 26 in New York City. While it is obvious that that line is new for Hillary Clinton -- the baby was just born last week -- she was more overt in mentioning her granddaughter as a way to drive home her points. Clinton's speech both opened and closed with a mention of her new granddaughter. When the former secretary of state took the stage, a woman shouted, "You look beautiful!" Clinton laughed and said, "I think it is a grandmother glow." "She is doing great," Clinton said of Charlotte. "She is the most perfect, most beautiful, smartest five day old you will ever know." After delivering a speech that stressed the importance offering an equal playing field to women, Clinton closed her speech stating that with the right policies, her vision of equal pay, paid leave and affordable child care could be attained. That, Clinton said, is "the kind of country I want my granddaughter growing up in." Charlotte was also on the minds of many of the attendees -- and participants -- in Thursday's conference. While on stage with Clinton, Judy Nitsch, the president of CREW, asked what advice she will have for Charlotte when she gets older. "One is do the very best you can at everything you do... but learn from your mistake and your failures," Clinton said. "Second, be kind. Try to find a time for kindness every single day." Her last piece of advice was something, Clinton said, she hoped to model for her new granddaughter. "Find something you are passionate about, that you love to do," Clinton said. "And again, pursue it. It can be anything, it can be a sports, it can be the arts, it can be service. Find something that you really feel invested in." *ABC News blog: The Note: “Hillary Clinton Adds Key Line to Pre-2016 Stump Speech” <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/10/hillary-clinton-adds-key-line-to-pre-2016-stump-speech/>* By Liz Kreutz October 2, 2014, 3:48 p.m. EDT Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky is just five days old and already appears to be a living embodiment of themes her grandmother, Hillary Clinton, could put to use on the campaign trail. During her prepared remarks at a women’s real estate convention in Miami this afternoon, the former secretary of state used a line never heard before on her paid-speaking circuit: one about the future for her new granddaughter. “I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy who was born in that hospital on the same day,” Clinton told the crowd at the Loews Miami Beach Hotel, adding, “I just believe that. That’s the way I was raised.” Chelsea Clinton’s daughter, Charlotte, was born last week in New York City and is the first grandchild for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Thursday’s one-day visit to Miami is the first time Clinton has traveled outside of the state since the baby’s birth. Earlier this week, she cancelled her appearance at two other fundraising events in Washington, D.C., because of the new baby. In addition to her keynote at the CREW convention this afternoon, Clinton is also holding a book signing for her new memoir, “Hard Choices,” and campaigning for Florida’s Democratic candidate for governor, Charlie Crist. While Clinton still says she has not made a decision about running for president, equality for women and girls is an issue very close to her and one she will likely bring with her on the campaign trail should she decide to run. Her comments today indicate that the newest addition to the family is well-positioned to play a role in Clinton 2016 – even if just symbolically. *NBC 6 (South Florida): “Hillary Clinton Signs Books in Coral Gables” <http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-Signing-Books-in-Coral-Gables-277900681.html>* [No Writer Mentioned] October 2, 2014, 8:39 p.m. EDT Thousands waited hours in the sun to see Former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday in South Florida. Clinton was signing copies of her new book "Hard Choices" at Books & Books at 265 Aragon Ave. in Coral Gables. There, she spoke about her book and about becoming a grandmother just a few days ago, saying, "I highly recommend it!" Earlier on Thursday, Clinton spoke at the Crew Network Convention & Marketplace at the Loews Hotel in Miami Beach. Her message for the 1,200 professional women at the event was one of empowerment. "You can't get tied into knots by what others say and think, because we all know women sometimes get judged by different criteria -- even powerful women in powerful positions," she said. Karyl Argamasilla, with the Miami Crew chapter, said she took Clinton's message to heart. "At the end of the day, she's someone who has broken all the glass ceilings," Argamasilla said. At one point, a woman in the audience shouted out, "2016!" -- the only mention of a possible presidential run during Clinton's Miami stops. But those in attendance said they don't doubt she'll be joining the race. "She's already been to Iowa," said Steve Sails. "She's running." *Fox News: “Hillary Clinton raises $1M for Dem Florida gov candidate Crist at fundraiser” <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/02/hillary-clinton-raises-1m-for-dem-florida-gov-candidate-crist-at-fundraiser/>* [No Writer Mentioned] October 2, 2014 Hillary Clinton raised $1 million for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist in a closed-door fundraiser in Coral Gables Thursday night, a Crist source confirms to Fox News. The former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential contender headlined the fundraiser for Crist, a former Republican governor who is locked in a tight race with GOP Gov. Rick Scott. Scott has outspent the Democratic nominee by a 2-1 margin in television advertising. Clinton also spoke to a national convention of female real estate professionals on Thursday, and said her newborn granddaughter Charlotte is fueling her campaign for female empowerment and gender equality around the world. Clinton joked that she felt a "grandmother glow" after Charlotte’s birth, and said she wanted all women to grow up in a world of "full participation and shared prosperity." "I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy who was born in that hospital on the same day," she said. The Associated Press contributed to this report. *Foreign Policy: “Leave It to Hillary” <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/02/leave_it_to_hillary_clinton_obama_islamic_state_afghanistan>* By David Rothkopf October 2, 2014 [Subtitle:] The president arrives at a turning point, but it's unclear whether it means a new Obama or a punt to tomorrow. There is a scenario that one can imagine is unspooling in the mental multiplexes of the president and his top White House advisors. It is Christmas time. Stockings everywhere are filled to overflowing due to a resurgent U.S. economy. In Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State is beginning to wither under the pressure of the American-led coalition. In Afghanistan, a new government has repaired relations with the United States, and an agreement to leave a smallish U.S. military force in place promises to ensure stability for years to come. And a deal has been reached -- or is within reach -- for the United States and Iran that reduces the threat that Tehran will soon be overseeing a nuclear weapons arsenal. Sitting by a crackling fire, Barack Obama (who in the late summer of 2014 seemed on the verge of foreign-policy ignominy thanks to a string of lousy policies and bad luck) lifts his mug of eggnog high and toasts his team for engineering a remarkable turnaround. He has regained his mojo, and architects are scrambling to add back the foreign-policy wing to the plans for the Obama presidential library. No more Ditherer-in-Chief or Hamlet-on-the-Potomac jokes. The most powerful man in the world has re-entered the building! Of course, in order for this scenario to play out a number of things must go very well, and the public must willingly sets aside two major categories of knowledge: everything they know about the past and everything they might reasonably expect regarding the future. Setting aside for a moment the economy -- which is actually an area where the president and his team have made huge progress for which they neither give themselves nor receive enough credit -- the obstacles to this scenario on the foreign-policy front are formidable. The bombings that the United States conducts in Iraq and Syria need to do more than blow up the occasional Humvee or armed pickup truck; some capable ground force needs to take advantage of the impact these assaults do have. For such a mobile enemy to be defeated, key elements of its forces need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and sustain real damage, especially to the enemy's leadership ranks. In Afghanistan, the administration not only needs to cut a suitable deal, but the new government has to gather and maintain support, political enemies need to refrain from undercutting it, and the Taliban and other opposition forces need to sit on their hands. Finally, as far as Iran is concerned, not only does a deal have to be struck, but the political conditions associated with the deal have to be acceptable in both Washington and Tehran. This new deal cannot trigger new sanctions from the United States or new provocations from Iranian hard-liners -- to say nothing of the reactions that might come from America's allies like Israel or those central to the anti-Islamic State coalition. Experience suggests that all these things will be hard to achieve. It also suggests that other issues may emerge that could overshadow (or call into question) the president's foreign-policy rebound -- whether Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, being linked to protests in Hong Kong, or self-inflicted wounds like the president's ill-considered move to blame his lag in addressing the Islamic State threat on an intelligence community that had, in fact, warned him of the group's rise since it began last year. Experience also suggests that the approach the coalition is taking to defeat the Islamic State -- air power combined with dubious ground-force support -- is not going to work, that forces of instability have the upper hand in Afghanistan (both inside the government and out), and that even if Iran were to truly forswear nuclear weapons, it could still be a big thorn in the side of U.S. interests (as it has been for the past three decades, during which time it has never had, of course, nuclear weapons). All of this means that not only is the happy holiday scenario unlikely to unfold exactly as described, but even the momentary lift Obama's foreign policy is experiencing this fall is likely to dissipate when longer-term historical trends start to regain the upper hand. But one can hope. And there is no denying that the president has been both bolder in addressing the Islamic State crisis than he appeared just weeks ago and has been pretty stalwart (as has his State Department team) in pursuing the goals in Afghanistan and Iran that have been important goals of his since he took office. But there is another way to interpret recent moves and foreign-policy initiatives of the administration. They do not represent a change for the president. Instead, they are all really just a continuation of past policies and characteristics of how Obama deals with foreign policy. In each case, scratch the shiny surface rhetoric and one finds that what lies beneath is a common impulse -- to postpone many of the toughest choices associated with addressing major problems until after the president has left office. In short, the goal is to get out of the White House in one piece and leave the hard work to Hillary. Because hopes and wishes and spin of the White House aside, most of these U.S. policies seem to have been conceived with the idea of doing just as much as is necessary to handle the short-term political needs of the president while creating as little risk as possible for him during the remainder of his term in office. Indeed, you don't have to take my word for it. The president's own assertion that his primary foreign-policy goal is only to hit "singles" and "doubles" and not "do stupid shit" drives the message home with absolute clarity. Take the "war" against the Islamic State. First, the president has been resisting action to contain the rising threats associated with the conflict in Syria for three years. Two-hundred thousand people have died there; chemical weapons were used more than a dozen times; foreign fighters flocked to the fractured state; extremist groups flourished with the help of America's "friends"; and still nothing was done. Indeed, action was only taken when, after a series of gaffes and some horrifying videos of beheadings, the president was at the absolute nadir of his foreign-policy standing (doing little to effectively stand up to Putin didn't help). Indeed, the threat he seemed most concerned with came not from the Islamic State but from public opinion. Wait, you say, don't be so cynical. Obama took action. Well, did he? And was it designed to actually solve the principal threat to U.S. national security the Islamic State represents? The United States has only really committed to half its "degrade and defeat" formula regarding the extremist group. America may degrade it. But there is not a shred of evidence or even a stated belief on the part of this administration that the United States will, during Obama's term of office, defeat it. The Pentagon's own spokesperson said the effort will take three or four or perhaps five or six or even more years -- in other words, this campaign will continue into the next administration. While we have a coalition, virtually none of its members is committed to what is necessary to defeating the Islamic State -- boots on the ground. (We'll see what Turkey does in the wake of its vote Thursday, Oct. 2, to commit military force to the anti-Islamic State effort.) In fact, the public still doesn't know what the commitments of each of the members is. This is a formula for keeping a lid on a problem, for managing it -- not for solving it. Think about it from another perspective. Yes, terrorists are tricky and terrible. But the Islamic State is a force of only 20,000 to 30,000 that is roughly the size of the active military in the Dominican Republic. Or, the population of my hometown of Summit, New Jersey. By comparison, say, roughly 20 million people served in the German army during World War II -- which took six years to wage, of which the United States fought for three and a half. The Islamic State has no air force, no navy, no dependable resource base on which to draw; it has had little training and is using lousy equipment. Still we estimate that even if we take 26 of the richest and most powerful nations on Earth, including its sole superpower, and "commit" to fighting Islamic State forces, we will still probably be fighting them six years from now. That's not a commitment. That's an effort to keep a lid on things. Further, of course, the real problem is not the Islamic State -- it is the spreading, virulent militant extremism that the president has said he has no real desire to address, categorizing it as a "generational" problem for regional powers to handle even though it is clear its spread could destabilize large swaths of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Further, even if we beat back the Islamic State, we have no clear plan (or even a coherent policy) for how we will deal with the way that may strengthen the group's extremist enemies in Syria, the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, or forces in Iraq that might not be committed to the Sunni empowerment that is essential to truly stabilizing that country. As for Afghanistan, literally no one I know in the U.S. government or the NGO community who deals with the country believes the new Afghan government will be able to maintain control without a significant U.S. force (at least 10,000 or so) remaining in country, providing stability that will last precisely until the day they leave. In the meantime, all expect the Taliban to gain ground and political rivalries and corruption to eat away at the government like a cancer. In short, again, the best deals we are striking now are only likely to postpone the big issues until the term of the next president. When considering the Iran deal, since both sides want to reach an agreement, there are really only two possibilities: Either a deal will be struck by the deadline in November, or both sides will find a way to prolong talks. A permanent breakdown is just not going to happen. The most likely outcome is a phased series of steps to dismantle some of Iran's program to be accompanied by the sanctions relief the Iranians want and need. The first steps will be ones that the U.S. president can do without Congress. If Congress passes new sanctions, the president will veto them. Dealing with the sanctions that require congressional action will likely be delayed until, well, who knows -- maybe after the next president is in place. And of course, that president will have to deal with whether Iran is holding up its end of the deal, whether it is continuing to destabilize the region via Hezbollah, whether reformers can maintain their roles in the face of hard-line pushback, and the hard part of enforcing a deal in which, in all likelihood, the Iranians will get more of what they want (economic normalization) than we get of what we want (delaying their ability to get nuclear weapons -- we've already tacitly accepted the idea of their being able to build them within one year of breaking our agreement). With Putin, he will get all he wants, and we will not take any steps to preclude him from his next aggressive action. That too will be left for the next president. Dealing with the spread of violent extremism -- for the next president. Re-engaging with the necessary pivot to Asia -- likely left to the person who best championed that pivot in the first place, Hillary Clinton. The list goes on and is too long to cover here. (Also yes, I get it. Hillary may not run, may not be the candidate, may not beat a Republican challenger. But right now, I'll take that bet. She's the one person in the United States of America most likely to be its next president and thus the one person most likely to have to deal with all of Obama's unfinished business.) And therefore, in all likelihood, President Hillary Clinton's first major foreign-policy challenge will be much like that which faced President Barack Obama -- cleaning up the messes of her predecessor and sending a message to the world that she will not make the same mistakes. Perhaps that is inevitable. We have swung from one extreme to another, too much action to too little, too much appetite for risk to too little, too much of a conviction of America's centrality to world affairs to too little. Clinton, who was too centrist for the political swing sought by the public in 2008, may be just right for a public desirous of splitting the difference between the shortcomings of one president who thought he could do it all unilaterally and another who built great coalitions to assist him in postponing problems until his successor could take office. *Politico Magazine: Amb. Christopher R. Hill: “They Sent Me to Iraq. Then They Ignored Me.” <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/how-the-obama-administration-disowned-iraq-111565.html#.VC5-2fldWSo>* By Amb. Christopher R. Hill October 2, 2014 It was late April of 2009, and Hillary Clinton was coming to Iraq for her first official trip as secretary of state. Normally, visits by a secretary of state are a logistical nightmare for an embassy. As François Truffaut once said of making films: They start as an effort to create a masterpiece, and end as something you just want to get over with. But Embassy Baghdad was the visitor capital of the world. It had an entire “visits unit” staffed with former military personnel, more political and economic officers for note-taking than any embassy I had ever seen in the world, and logistical strengths in terms of a motor pool that were second to none. Managing the highly choreographed visit of a secretary of state would pose no strain on the embassy. I decided not to worry. After all, I was sure Clinton would be coming every few months. I had arrived myself in Baghdad only hours before as America’s new ambassador, in what was to be my final posting after a three-decade-long Foreign Service career that had taken me from the front lines of the Balkans conflict and the historic Dayton peace conference to Poland and South Korea. Much of what I saw on my arrival was the the military’s effort to set up the State Department as the successor organization in charge of Iraq. But letting go is hard to do, and the military was clearly uncertain whether the State Department, much less Embassy Baghdad, was ready for the responsibility. The military and its civilian camp followers were used to running everything in Iraq. Iraqi national security meetings held on Sunday nights included U.S. military officials as well as (for civilian sensitivities) the U.S. and British ambassadors, even though the British had pulled their troops out and could not even agree with the Iraqis on a residual maritime patrolling mission. I was appalled by the idea that anyone but Iraqis should be in attendance at an Iraqi national security meeting, but was told to avoid thinking that anything in Iraq should be what is considered normal elsewhere. I soon learned that the word normal, which I had always thought was on balance a good thing, was taken as a sign that the person did not really understand Iraq. After she arrived, Secretary Clinton put herself through a grueling day: meetings with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and senior Iraqi officials, and women who had lost their husbands to war and violence (alas, sometimes at the hands of our forces). Also, a kind of holdover from her days on the campaign trail: the proverbial town meeting with all sorts of people—young, old, women, men, muftis, seculars in gray suits, sheiks in flowing robes and keffiyehs, women in black chadors and checkered shemaghs, just about everybody. Finally, at the end of the long day there was a meeting with the U.S. Embassy staff in the large atrium of the half-billion-dollar embassy. Secretary Clinton, seeming to make eye contact with every person in the room, spoke eloquently and passionately, and with a sincerity that brought tears to some eyes. She said how important Iraq was to her, a top-tier issue, and how much she valued the staff at this embassy. She kindly introduced me as the ambassador she would leave behind, and said she would look forward to working with this embassy in the years ahead. To thunderous applause, she walked the rope line—connecting, it seemed, with everyone she shook hands with or simply touched. She took photos effortlessly with people, waited patiently as employees turned amateur photographers fumbled to find the flash switch on their cell phone cameras. She finally made her exit out of the embassy to the waiting car, her nervous security detail beginning to breathe a sigh of relieve that it was all coming to an end soon. I said goodbye in the car on the edge of the helicopter landing pad, and she made clear that I should call her whenever I needed her help—and I would really need help, she said in mock seriousness. Exhilarated and grateful, I stood on the edge of the landing zone in a line with a few other embassy personnel, all of us waving farewell to our secretary with the expectation she would be back soon. Three months later, Vice President Joe Biden took the lead on Iraq policy and she never returned. *** Soon after I arrived in Iraq, I was asked to produce a weekly memo for the president to update him on what was going on. This request turned into a month-long tug of war between the National Security Council staff and the State Department, because if I was to write a regular memo, surely it should be addressed to my direct boss, Secretary Clinton, first. Finally, in a decision worthy of King Solomon, it was decided that the memo would go to both the president and the secretary, but it would first make its way to the State Department, addressed “Madam Secretary,” so that the secretary could read and reflect on it, then forward it on to the president with her own cover note. Yet despite the ferocious fight the State Department had put up to make sure these memos did not go directly to the White House, in 15 months of writing them, I never received a single comment on them from anyone in the State Department. President Obama was the only person I ever heard from. It was increasingly unclear just who was doing what in the first six months of the Obama administration. An embassy, especially a large player like Embassy Baghdad, needs someone in D.C. to watch its back. I had had high hopes that Under Secretary Bill Burns would play that role, but he seemed to have been asked to do everything not Iraq, including taking on the task of ensuring that Iran policy would not be taken over by the White House with the creation of a special envoy position. Although special envoy Dennis Ross, a former Middle East envoy and an internationally respected expert on the region, was to sit at the department, the ease with which he enjoyed relationships in the White House (indeed, all across Washington) made it understandable why the secretary had wanted a crafty operator like Bill to shadow that issue. The decision to pull Bill away from Iraq meant that our backstop would be Deputy Secretary James Steinberg. Although a political appointee, Jim had had vast experience in the State Department and the White House during the Clinton administration and could be counted on as a steady presence in the interagency process, often a microwave cookbook of bad, half-baked ideas (such as micromanaging what kind of candidate lists to have in the Iraqi election law). Jim had an appetite for facts and figures and a talent for taking any idea, good or bad, and analyzing the perils of it in such a way that soon everyone would want to wheel it back into the garage for further work. Jim saved people from themselves on a daily basis. But within months, there were rumors that Jim was unhappy with his role at State. Jim was above all a foreign policy realist, especially on China, where he had delivered a thoughtful speech on the need to overcome “strategic mistrust” (during the first term of the Obama administration the word strategic was often married with another word, for example patience, to convey thoughtfulness in foreign policy), but his reflections on China were not necessarily what the administration was looking for at the time. He seemed increasingly unhappy with the more strident tone the Obama administration was taking on China and other issues. I knew he could not be counted on for long to carry water for us back in Washington. The State Department’s Near Eastern Affairs Bureau leadership was often criticized for being inadequately seized with Israel’s agenda. Many of NEA’s leaders had already done their Iraq time and had no intention of doing any more if they could avoid it. Iraq, so the thinking went, was someone else’s problem—especially the military’s, and rarely did Shia-led Iraq help on any regional issues that NEA was concerned about. Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman, a veteran Arabist who had had a career in the region in small but important posts, culminating as ambassador in war-torn Lebanon, seemed particularly distressed by Iraq, insofar as it caused him problems with the rest of the region and with the Pentagon suspicions that the State Department lacked commitment. In the end it was increasingly clear that Iraq remained the military’s problem, not the State Department’s. It is not to say that Iraq was not on people’s minds in Washington. But it was increasingly a legacy issue, a matter of keeping faith with our troops rather than seeing Iraq as a strategic issue in the region. Iraq got the bureaucratic reputation as a loser, something to stay away from. No question, Shia-led Iraq was the black sheep of the region, with no natural allies anywhere. Shia-led Iraq also did not fit into any broader theme that the administration was trying to accomplish in the Middle East. The launching of former Senate majority leader George Mitchell’s mission as the Middle East envoy had been grounded almost immediately by the decision to press the Israelis for a settlement freeze as a precondition to the resumption of talks. In June 2009, Mitchell’s team began to consider options for how to approach President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus to explore whether there might be flexibility on the issue of the Golan Heights. CENTCOM commander David Petraeus had taken the view that the Syrians had in fact been helpful on the increasingly peaceful border with Iraq, and that this level of cooperation should be rewarded with a senior U.S. trip to Damascus and discussions with Assad about broader issues. A senior-level trip to Damascus on Middle East peace would be controversial enough, so a cover story was concocted in which the discussion would involve border stability with Iraq. The department asked me to inform Maliki of our intention to talk with Assad, and to reassure him that the discussions were very preliminary, and that if they went anywhere they would surely not involve any requests made of the Iraqis. I had already met with Maliki on several occasions in my first few weeks at post. He was intelligent and thoughtful, tending to get down to business faster than the average Iraqi politician. He had a dry sense of humor, and some irony that also eluded many of his contemporaries, not to speak of Washington visitors often frustrated at the lack of any English-language capacity. Apart from saying “very good” excessively to visitors, Maliki appeared to offer very little, though. Extremely thin-skinned, he devoted much of his interpersonal skills to detecting any slights, real or imagined. Fortunately, this extreme sensitivity did not appear to extend to the casual clothing sometimes chosen by Washington visitors to the war zone. Maliki wore dark suits and dark neckties seemingly every day of the year. He listened to the reassurances I offered on Syria, and thanked me for the heads-up. Then, at first politely, and later not so, he got to the point, “You Americans have no idea what you are dealing with in that regime,” he said. “Everything for those people is a negotiation, like buying fruit in a market.” He gestured at the luncheon table. “If you even mention us [Iraq], Assad will see it as something you are concerned about losing and will make you pay in the negotiation for it. Please do not even say the word ‘Iraq’ to him. Just keep it on your Middle East negotiations. That is your business, not mine.” OK, I thought. That became a typical meeting with Maliki. Not a lot of fun, but at least I know where he stood. So much, I thought, for the idea that Maliki had some kind of special relations with the Assad regime. I sent the cable in to the department. Within a few days I learned from the embassy’s political-military counselor, Michael Corbin, who was soon to become the Iran-Iraq deputy assistant secretary and briefly visiting Washington in preparation for that assignment, that the proverbial road to Damascus had been closed for permanent repair. Not that I had thought it a particularly good idea to go there in the first place, but I asked Michael why the idea had been shelved, and whether Maliki’s skepticism had played any role. “No idea,” he told me, reflecting the chaotic information flow in Washington. On June 30, 2009, Maliki gave a speech to announce a major development in the U.S.-Iraqi Security Agreement. The occasion was the anniversary of the 2003 assassination of the Iraqi Shia leader Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim. After a few words in memory of the fallen ayatollah, Maliki shifted gears to describe the moment that U.S. forces would withdraw from populated areas as a great victory for the Iraqi people, which did not sit well with those who had backed the war effort. After all, Maliki was suggesting that what had happened was the U.S. forces had in effect been ordered to retreat. But as he talked more about the sacrifice that must attend such a great victory, I began to understand better what he was saying. In essence, Maliki was acknowledging that the Iraqi forces that would soon take over checkpoints and mobile patrols would have their problems doing so. He was bracing people for more casualties to follow. I understood what he was saying, but it sure didn’t win him any friends in Washington. The U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, spoke with him soon thereafter to tell him he needed to make a gesture, suggesting that during his upcoming visit to Washington he visit Arlington National Cemetery and lay a wreath. He did so, but it was too little, too late. Maliki’s reputation never recovered in Washington, and complaints about him, whether in matters of human rights or relations with Sunni neighbors, or his attitudes toward Americans, or political alliances within Iraq, all seemed to reinforce each other with the conclusion that Iraq would be better off with a new prime minister, perhaps one who did not seem systematically to upset every conceivable constituent group. Nonetheless, Maliki was a formidable player who could outwork and often outthink his rivals. For years, U.S. officials had looked for a strong Iraqi leader, and having found one they objected to the fact that he didn’t do what he was told. As my late colleague from the Bosnian conflict, Amb. Bob Frasure, had once said about a certain Balkan leader, “We wanted a junkyard dog like this for a long time. Why would people expect him to start sitting in our lap?” The Washington-based concerns about Maliki, reinforced by the complaints from other Arab countries, gave rise to the view that somehow we needed to replace him, as if this were our responsibility let alone within our capability. Foreign ambassadors in Baghdad, having heard the discontent reported by their colleagues in Washington, came to my embassy to ask me, “So, how are you going to get rid of him?” as if I had instructions to do so. My sense was that these foreign ambassadors were hearing typical Washington grousing and were then pole-vaulting to the conclusion that we were hatching a plan. Obviously that was not the case, but I could tell that the talk was reaching the ever-paranoid Maliki and not helping our relationship with him. I could see that a similar process was unwinding in Afghanistan. Even if the United States were a latter-day Roman Empire as some neocon pundits seemed to want, we still have to work with local leaders like Maliki and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. Reports that we were trying to get rid of them didn’t help. But even if we wanted to topple Maliki, you can’t beat something with nothing, and the Iraqi political landscape was not exactly blooming with new political prospects. As sparse as that landscape looked to me, I never lacked for advice coming from Washington, where some seemed to think that choosing Iraqi leaders was akin to forming a fantasy football team. People who had served in Iraq, and for whom time froze when they left, increasingly manned Iraq policy. Thus I was treated to suggestions, often in the form of admonishments, as to why I hadn’t recently visited such-and-such a politician, who, I was to glean, had been some kind of hot prospect back in 2004 and 2005. *** The fall of 2009 was a daily grind in Iraq’s political corridors as we lobbied the parties for the passage of an election law, on the basis of which there could be an election in early 2010. The Iraqis understood they needed to agree on an election law, but they would do so on their timetable, not ours. Hurrying them, as was Washington’s instinct to do, seemed to reinforce in the Iraqi minds that what we really wanted was to get an election, a new government, and pull our troops out. On Nov. 8, the Iraqi Council of Representatives overwhelmingly approved an election law, but two weeks later Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, the Sunni representative to the collective presidency—which also consisted of the president, the Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, and the vice president, the Shia politician Adel Abd al-Mahdi—used the power vested as a member of the presidency to veto the law. Hashimi’s main line of concern with me was the perfidy of the Shia and Kurds, and with Odierno he spent the lion’s share of his time seeking the immediate release of nefarious persons inexplicably, in his view, picked up by U.S. forces and held in detention centers. Ray always politely agreed to look into the matter, and would send back his political advisor to Hashimi with the bad news that the individuals in question could not be released at this time. The British-trained Hashimi would take advantage of Ray’s British political adviser to give a further spin on how bad things were—and how they were getting worse—due, of course, to the Americans. He then would give her still more lists of persons in detention who in his view had done nothing wrong. Hashimi vetoed the election law based on an issue that was very much a Sunni concern, but which had not played a major role during the parliamentary discussion of the law—the right of out-of-country Iraqis (read: Sunni refugees) to vote. Within weeks, a compromise was worked out. Vice President Biden, Washington’s point man on Iraq, and President Obama were pressed into service making telephone calls to senior officials, including offering a Washington visit for Massoud Barzani, the president of Iraqi Kurdistan. I welcomed Obama’s and Biden’s direct interest, but I knew that these senior-level phone calls were adding to the perception that the United States was desperate for an election law so that U.S. troops could be withdrawn. By signaling our interest in withdrawal, we began to lose more influence on the ground. The high-level calls had another unhelpful impact on our efforts. They became part of the toolbox, meaning that whenever there was an impasse on the ground, the idea of ginning up a telephone call quickly emerged on the to-do list. Senior phone calls also had still another negative impact on our efforts: Washington bureaucrats went operational. Thus we began to receive missives offering such nuggets of advice as “Never ignore Hashimi!” Of course, we had been in regular contact with him, but he wasn’t the great hope that some of these veterans of the early years had thought. Some of the Washington micromanagement extended to offering me advice as to who from the embassy I should bring along for meetings with Maliki and others. It all added up to an impression that Washington wanted out of Iraq. The parliamentary election on March 7, 2010, was a peaceful day. U.S. troops, working with Iraqi counterparts, ensured security throughout the country, and the number of incidents was remarkably low. The election results took weeks to tabulate, and when they finally came in they were very close. Ayad Allawi’s Iraq National Party, or Iraqiyya, a party that was disproportionately Sunni, won 91 seats, while Maliki’s State of Law coalition had 89 seats. A total of 163 seats would be needed to gain a majority of the 325-seat Council of Representatives, and it meant that the two top coalitions would be off to the races. Many of those seats would be controlled by the Kurds, and therefore by Barzani, who mistrusted both Maliki and Allawi. The difference between Maliki’s and Allawi’s approaches was striking. Maliki went to work, while Allawi went to CNN. Anytime I visited the prime minister’s office I would have to pass a row of tribal chiefs waiting their turn to be wooed with some political favor in return for their willingness to support Maliki. Allawi thought it was enough to get on CNN to accuse Maliki of becoming the “new Saddam.” Allawi also thought that what became known as the government formation period was a good occasion to fly around the Middle East and dump on Maliki. According to a Kurdish leader with good connections to the Egyptian government, Allawi had gone to Cairo to complain to President Hosni Mubarak about Maliki, prompting the Egyptian strongman to respond: “Why are you telling me this? I don’t vote in Iraq. In fact, if the situation is as you describe, what are you even doing here?” In a perfect parliamentary world, the party or coalition that garners the most seats is given the opportunity to form the government. If Iraq were part of that world, Allawi should have been given the right to form the government, having come through the elections with two more seats than Maliki. But the reality of the situation was that with both main coalitions in a statistical dead heat, neither was going to step aside for the other. We knew it would be a long, hot summer. In addition to working harder on the ground for additional seats, Maliki also outpaced Allawi in aggressively challenging the vote count, a decision that opened him to the charge of being a sore loser, and a possible cheater. His recount demands also exposed him to the charge that he was ultimately not going to respect the results of the voting and might, as General Odierno suggested in a teleconference with Washington, try to stage a “rolling coup d’état.” Ray surprised everybody with that comment. It was nothing he had ever said to me in private, nor had he taken that tone in any conversation with Maliki. I always tried to make sure we spoke with one voice on the teleconferences with Washington, but I fell silent when he expressed that opinion, especially as he as he hadn’t warned me. The effect of his comment on Washington was to heighten concerns about Maliki’s intentions. Indeed, Maliki’s tough-minded behavior, his own bitter disappointment at not coming out ahead of Allawi and his increasing feistiness on every issue were making him a thoroughly unlikable and unlikely candidate to replace himself. The foreign press corps was completely against him. Most foreign diplomats were against him, including the U.S. Embassy’s own political section. Maliki was far from my ideal candidate, but I had real doubts whether someone else was going to be able to unseat him. “Can’t beat someone with no one,” I kept repeating to Gary, Yuri and other members of the political section, who always seemed to fall silent when I asked the question, “If not Maliki, then if you were king who do you suggest for prime minister?” as if it were our choice to make. As the crucial postelection weeks of April and May 2010 rolled by, Allawi spent more of his time traveling abroad, using a jet provided him by the Gulf states, instead of building his political support back home. I also noticed that regardless of Maliki’s volatile and at times ugly behavior, there seemed to be no swing from the other Shia blocs toward Allawi. The process suggested to me that much of what we were seeing from the other Shia was just bluster and an effort to give Maliki a well-deserved hard time, but that whenever Maliki was prepared to show some real respect and humility toward them, he could also gain their support. Maliki’s Shia detractors had plenty of kind words for Allawi, but I could not see that any of them were truly prepared to support Allawi’s Iraqiyya. In Erbil, many Kurds describe Iraqiyya as a crypto-Baathist party. I became skeptical that the Shia and Kurds would ever allow Iraqiyya to become the governing party. He seemed to have no chance of increasing the number of seats through coalition-building beyond the 91 he had won in the actual election. Allawi was a Shia himself, but he was secular. Those foreigners, and especially those foreigners who had not seen these political patterns in other countries, who believed that a Shia without Shia constituents could become prime minister in Iraq’s current circumstances didn’t understand the game being played. During the hard-fought campaign, Allawi never ventured into southern Iraq, where most of the Shia lived. He did not make the slightest effort to gain Shia votes. I concluded that the government formation period was not going to be even close, but I hedged my comments to Washington, not wanting to seem pro-Maliki or anti-Allawi. I concluded we needed to focus on making a better Maliki than he had been in his first four-year term, rather than engage in a quixotic effort to try to oust him. As the summer wore on, Maliki, who unlike Allawi rarely left the country or even, it seemed, his office, started making progress with the other Shia and some small Sunni parties. While no one was overtly committing to him, it was clear that he was building the momentum to expand well beyond the 89 seats he already controlled. Allawi, still stuck at 91 seats, at one point met with the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Damascus, a bizarre meeting evidently arranged for Allawi by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who probably had tired of Maliki and his public allegations against the Syrians for terrorist attacks in Iraq. Allawi’s meeting with Sadr didn’t lead to anything. In the meantime, Barzani, the Kurdish leader, began to say that Maliki might be an acceptable choice after all. Barzani had no interest in a Kurdish-Shia alliance that would isolate the Sunnis, but he had realized, just as I had, that there were no good alternatives to Maliki. In early August Barzani invited me to his hometown of Barzan, up in Kurdistan. We talked nonstop about the political deadlock and about Barzani’s welcome decision to invite Maliki to his palace in Sulahaddin, just north of the Kurdish capital of Erbil, the next day. By prearrangement, at 4 p.m. my cell phone rang and a voice, identified as “Joe,” was on the other end of the line. It was Vice President Biden. I gave the phone to Barzani, who sat down on a folding chair cupping his other ear to reduce the roar of the river. He and “Joe” had a good discussion about the importance of the next day. We knew that the upcoming meeting with Maliki would be crucial to forming a government. I said farewell to Barzani that evening outside the guesthouse. I knew it was my last visit to Kurdistan, and given that I was leaving Iraq a few days later, and my career in the Foreign Service a few days after that, I knew it was my last chance at diplomatic deal making. The odds are often stacked against these deals working out, and when they do they are sometimes short-lived, but the feeling that one has done everything possible is a very good one. And better yet was the appreciation for someone like Barzani, who, unlike a visiting diplomat, has to live with the consequences that any political deal would involve. We performed our awkward hugs and kisses before I headed to the helicopter for the trip back to Baghdad. I met Maliki in the morning and told him I thought the road was open to a rapprochement with Barzani, provided he was willing to address Kurdish concerns about their oil contracts and previous understandings about disputed territory with Arab Iraq. Much later that day, word came from Erbil that the meeting between Maliki and Barzani had gone well. They pledged to work together for “inclusive” government—i.e., there would be a Sunni component as well. *** Three days later, I climbed in my last Black Hawk helicopter, strapped myself into the seat next to the window, and rose up from the embassy landing pad. We crossed out over Baghdad, its bright city lights shining in the gathering dusk. In Washington a day later, Secretary Clinton asked to see me in between appointments. She was busy that day, and even though it was my last day in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer, I knew she had other things going. I quickly briefed her on the embassy operations, and said how pleased I was that a very good successor, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Jim Jeffrey, had been named to follow me. I told her about my next career as dean of the Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. She warmly said goodbye and thanked me for my 33 years of service. And then she asked me a question as I started walking through the outer door of her office. “Who could have ever thought Maliki should have a second term?” “Beats me,” I answered. *MSNBC: “The sleeper issue of the 2016 Democratic primary” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-sleeper-issue-the-2016-democratic-primary>* By Alex Seitz-Wald October 2, 2014, 4:46 p.m. EDT Fracking is quickly emerging as an under-the-radar issue likely to influence the Democratic presidential primary in 2016, inflaming passionate opposition among the party’s base. The use of hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas has created thousands of new jobs and drastically increased domestic energy production, but it has also raised major environmental and health concerns. Not unlike the issue of Common Core educational standards among conservatives, fracking touches a nerve with rank-and-file progressives, especially in rural areas, even as it gets less attention from cosmopolitan Democrats, who will likely never encounter a fracking well in their backyard. Anti-fracking activists on the left have been disappointed by the Obama White House’s acquiescence to the technique – it’s hard for any president to turn down jobs during a recession – and are pressuring those who might be the Democratic Party’s next presidential nominee to draw a harder line. Activists have already knocked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and are turning their sights on other potential candidates. New York and Maryland are the only two states with shale formations that haven’t yet allowed drilling. As it happens, both states have popular Democratic governors with major national ambitions. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said that anti-fracking activists are by far the visible pressure group in the state. “I literally see them everywhere I go,” he told Capital New York. “One of my daughters joked – we were pulling up to an event – she said, ‘We must be in the wrong place. There are no fracking protesters.’” Last year, anti-fracking activists ran a full-page ad in The Des Moines Register – far from Albany, but close to the Iowa Caucuses – warning Cuomo: “Not one well.” And the pressure is now on Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. In a letter sent to him Thursday, a coalition of more than 200 environmental, progressive and health groups fired a warning shot across the bow of the nascent O’Malley presidential effort. If he runs for president —and it’s looking increasingly like he will – the governor will want to be the consensus progressive alternative to Clinton. With progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren unlikely to enter the race, O’Malley has a good shot at carrying that mantle, though he may have to compete with others like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. O’Malley has been working hard to lay the groundwork for a campaign, and he has positioned himself to the left of Clinton on everything from immigration to campaign finance. Fracking would be another obvious place for him to draw a contrast with the former secretary of state, who has said she will announce her 2016 plans early next year. If O’Malley doesn’t do that, however, some activists are warning he could risk his position as a leading liberal alternative. “If Gov. O’Malley is serious about making a play for progressive ‘Warren-wing’ Democratic voters in the 2016 presidential primary, he should know better than to do Wall Street’s bidding and put the health of millions at risk by allowing fracking to come to Maryland on his watch,” said Jim Dean, the chair of Democracy for America, a national organization that grew out of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign. More than three years ago, O’Malley effectively imposed a moratorium on fracking in Maryland until the completion of a study he commissioned. With the study process wrapping up soon, the anti-fracking activists who sent the letter Thursdaywant O’Malley to take a stand against the practice, both for the remainder of his final term and to influence the next governor of his state. And they worry privately that if the more progressive O’Malley approves drilling in Maryland, it will give political license for Cuomo to do the same in New York. “In 2016, Democrats are looking to nominate a presidential candidate who will stand up and fight growing income inequality, not cave to the special interest forces on Wall Street who advocate for fracking at any cost,” added Dean, whose group has 20,000 members in Maryland. While the letter focused exclusively on the potential health and environmental risks fracking may pose to Maryland residents, some of the groups involved – like Dean’s – used the release as a means to remind O’Malley of the potential risk to his personal ambitions as well. Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, another member of the coalition, also hinted at 2016. “Gov. O’Malley is traveling extensively throughout the country to places like Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire in an effort to raise his national profile and tout his environmental record, but the national movement against fracking is watching what is happening in Maryland closely,” Hauter said. “Should Gov. O’Malley open the state to fracking, that is what people will remember about him.” Currently, fracking is regulated on the state level, but many environmentalists and progressives want federal regulation or even an outright ban on the practice. A majority of Democrats (59%) opposed fracking, according to a Pew poll from last September, and the opposition is even higher among liberals (64%). At the same time, there are many in the party who view fracking as a boon to the economy and U.S. energy independence. And natural gas is much cleaner than other fossil fuels, so many environmentalist view the fuel as an ideal “bridge” to a future when renewable energy is more practical. That’s the balance Democrats hoping to win their party’s nomination in 2016 will have to make. *The Week: “Can Bill Clinton save the Senate for Democrats?” <http://theweek.com/article/index/269161/can-bill-clinton-save-the-senate-for-democrats>* By Matt K. Lewis October 3, 2014, 6:35 a.m. EDT [Subtitle:] Liberals certainly hope so With barely a month to go until the midterm elections, and President Obama's coattails looking more and more like a lead weight, vulnerable Democrats across the country are turning to former President Bill Clinton to appeal to red-state voters. And some analysts are calling on him to do even more. Here's Brent Budowsky at The Hill: “My advice to the Democratic Party for the close of the midterm elections would be for Clinton to tape a series of 3- to 5-minute videos supporting top Democratic Senate candidates, in addition to personally campaigning for them. [...] “[T]he party should bring the appealing and optimistic Clinton message to the widest circle of voters in the largest number of states. It could be a decisive advantage for Democrats that the most believable political referee in the nation supports the plays of the home team in the closing minutes of a tie game. [The Hill]” This isn't the first time Democrats have looked to Bubba to bail them out. After all, it was the "explainer in chief" who seemed to make the argument for President Obama's re-election better than anyone — remember that stemwinder at the 2012 convention? — and if the Democrats are able to preserve their Senate majority in 2014, Bill Clinton will once again deserve much of the credit. Next week, Clinton will return to Arkansas to headline a series of rallies for several candidates, including Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor, who is attempting to fend off a tough challenge from GOP Rep. Tom Cotton. Mounting evidence indicates that Pryor is in deep trouble, with most polls showing Cotton narrowly ahead. But Clinton's potential appeal in Arkansas is even stronger than elsewhere: After all, he was governor for a dozen years, and the state is home to his presidential library. (And as Patricia Murphy notes, he has an additional incentive: "Winning in November would not only mean victory for his friends, but also for his own legacy, preserving the brand of Southern progressive politics he has championed and installing Clinton allies in important statewide slots ahead of a potential 2016 presidential bid for Hillary Clinton.") So an all-Bill, all-the-time strategy is a no-brainer for Dems and the Clintons, right? Well, not necessarily. First, Clinton can't necessarily just deliver Arkansas. He couldn't do it for Al Gore in 2000. And he campaigned hard for then-Sen. Blanche Lincoln in 2010 — even appearing in a hard-hitting campaign ad for her. She got crushed by 20 points. Look no one believes Pryor will lose by such a wide margin. But Lincoln's loss should put the Clinton visit in context. Still, as Todd Purdum at Politico Magazine recently noted, "There is more demand for Bill Clinton on the campaign trail than for any other single figure in either party — including President Obama." And the fact that President Clinton — once mired in scandal himself, once shunned by his own party — has emerged as the most sought after surrogate is quite noteworthy. Today, Mark Pryor might want to distance himself from Barack Obama, but a dozen years ago, he was distancing himself from Bill Clinton. During his 2002 race, Pryor was benefiting from running against an opponent (then-Sen. Tim Hutchinson) who was plagued by an adultery scandal. Pryor (who is now divorced) was trying to usurp the "family values" mantle. Thus, he sought to keep his distance from (you guessed it!) Bill Clinton. A 2002 news report noted that Pryor "studiously avoided appearing at any of the Democratic fundraising events that former President and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton has headlined in the state this year, including a get-out-the-vote rally earlier this week." One news report from the time shows Pryor begging off a Clinton appearance, opting instead to do "debate prep." Another notes that Pryor waited to accept a speaking invitation alongside Clinton until after the programs had been printed, so he wouldn't be listed as a speaker. As Jeff Zeleny noted at the time, "In Clinton's home state of Arkansas, a Democratic candidate for Senate declined to appear publicly with him late last month. Clinton's former chief of staff, running for Senate in North Carolina, has also made it clear that he wants his old boss nowhere near his race." So what's changed? Obviously, the passage of time has healed some wounds. You could also argue that the nation's changing views on social issues and cultural mores helps. And, of course, there's the fact that Bill Clinton is an incredibly gifted and likable politician. It's strategic, too. I recently interviewed Daniel Halper about his book Clinton, Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine. As the title suggests, the Clintons have assiduously plotted this comeback by taking proactive steps, including the building of a post-presidential philanthropic infrastructure, wooing former enemies, and, as Halper puts it, "seducing the Bushes." Whether or not Bill Clinton can pull Pryor or other red-state Democrats across the finish line remains to be seen. But the very fact that he's the one they now turn to — having shunned him a dozen years ago — is, itself, a big story. Guess we know why they call him the "comeback kid." *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · October 6 – Ottawa, Canada: Sec. Clinton speaks at Canada 2020 event (Ottawa Citizen <http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/hillary-clinton-speaking-in-ottawa-oct-6> ) · October 8 – Chicago, IL: Sec. Clinton stumps for Illinois Gov. Quinn (Chicago Sun-Times <http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/hillary-clinton-hitting-illinois-stump-gov-quinn/mon-09292014-1000am> ) · October 8 – Chicago, IL: Sec. Clinton keynotes AdvaMed 2014 conference ( AdvaMed <http://advamed2014.com/download/files/AVM14%20Wednesday%20Plenary%20Media%20Alert%20FINAL%209_30_14(1).pdf> ) · October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton and Sen. Reid fundraise for the Reid Nevada Fund (Ralston Reports <http://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/hillary-raise-money-state-democrats-reid-next-month> ) · October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation Annual Dinner (UNLV <http://www.unlv.edu/event/unlv-foundation-annual-dinner?delta=0>) · October 14 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes salesforce.com Dreamforce conference (salesforce.com <http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF14/highlights.jsp#tuesday>) · October 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton fundraises for House Democratic women candidates with Nancy Pelosi (Politico <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-nancy-pelosi-110387.html?hp=r7> ) · December 1 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton keynotes a League of Conservation Voters dinner (Politico <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-green-groups-las-vegas-111430.html?hp=l11> ) · December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)