podesta_email_01075.txt

podesta-emails 6,705 words email

P17 D6 V11 P22 P20

-----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 24, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:* *Tweets:* *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: Gates: @HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/> “made a singular contribution to strengthening this country’s relationships with allies.” content.time.com/time/specials/… <http://t.co/GdhAqhAbKm> [10/24/14, 12:36 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/525687182787223552>] *Correct The Record*‏@CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> has "dedicated her life to empowering women around the world through politics and philanthropy." http://time.com/70904/hillary-clinton-2014-time-100/ … <http://t.co/4lodndITCb> [10/24/14, 11:56 a.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/525677101987282944>] *Correct The Record*‏@CorrectRecord: Malala: "A world with more women leaders will be a better world, and Hillary Clinton is helping make that possible." via @TIME <https://twitter.com/TIME> [10/24/14, 11:49 a.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/525675337003180033>] *Headlines:* *Texas Tribune: UT/TT Poll: Cruz, Perry Lead GOP Presidential Pack <http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/24/uttt-poll-cruz-perry-lead-gop-presidential-pack/>* “Democrats, on the other hand, have a straight-up front-runner in Hillary Clinton, who has the support of 60 percent of likely Democratic voters in Texas, according to the poll. She’s followed by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, at 13 percent, and Vice President Joe Biden, at 10 percent.” *CBS News: Rand Paul calls for restraint in U.S. military engagement <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-calls-for-restraint-in-u-s-military-engagement/>* “[Rand Paul] called Libya an example of ‘the wrong way to do things,’ criticizing President Obama and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for engaging in war without "[anticipating] the consequences.’” *CNN: Rand Paul plants feet between both sides of foreign policy debate <http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/23/politics/rand-paul-foreign-policy/index.html?hpt=po_t1>* "'For months, Rand Paul has been twisting in the wind, trying to explain his foreign policy vision,' [Michael Czin, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee] said. 'The fact is, a speech defending the indefensible won't make Paul's worldview any more palatable to the American people.'" *The Courier-Journal: Rand Paul: In foreign policy "America cannot disengage" <http://www.courier-journal.com/story/politics-blog/2014/10/24/kentucky-sen-rand-paul-in-foreign-policy-america-cannot-disengage-from-the-world/17832547/>* A potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, Paul has sought to offer more detailed thoughts on his world view, clearly a deliberate effort to counter his image in some circles as merely an isolationist in different clothing. *Vox: Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades <http://www.vox.com/2014/10/24/7053561/rand-paul-foreign-policy-speech>* “Sen. Rand Paul just gave one of the most important speeches on foreign policy since George W. Bush declared war on Iraq. But instead of declaring war on another country, Paul declared war on his own party. Or, at least, its entire approach to foreign policy.” *The Atlantic: Rand Paul Sketches an Alternative to Hawks Like Bush and Clinton <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/rand-paul-offers-an-alternative-to-hawks-like-bush-and-clinton/381851/>* “On the off-chance that Paul and Hillary Clinton face one another in a presidential election, Thursday's speech offers a portent of Paul attack-ads to come.” *Associated Press, via Wall Street Journal: Poll Shows Martha Coakley Slipping as Hillary Clinton Visits <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/24/poll-shows-martha-coakley-slipping-as-hillary-clinton-visits/>* Hillary Clinton is campaigning with Martha Coakley in Boston, amid a new poll showing the Democratic gubernatorial candidate trailing in the race. *New York Times: Toxic Partisanship? Bill Clinton Says He Had It Worse Than Obama <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/us/politics/toxic-partisanship-bill-clinton-says-he-had-it-worse-than-obama.html>* “Whatever Mr. Clinton’s motivations, his comments, which he has repeated regularly when the topic comes up, do not permit Mr. Obama to excuse his legislative setbacks by simply citing hyper-partisanship. As one former White House aide to Mr. Clinton put it: ‘They impeached our guy.’” *Articles:* *Texas Tribune: UT/TT Poll: Cruz, Perry Lead GOP Presidential Pack <http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/24/uttt-poll-cruz-perry-lead-gop-presidential-pack/>* By Ross Ramsey October 24, 2014 U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz remains the top presidential choice of Texas Republican voters, but Gov. Rick Perry is starting to close the gap between the two, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll. It might not seem that way at first glance. While 27 percent of likely Republican voters say Cruz would be their choice in a hypothetical primary for the 2016 presidential nomination, only 14 percent choose Perry. Author and former surgeon Ben Carson is looming in the governor’s rearview mirror, with 10 percent, followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, each at 7 percent. But in the June UT/TT Poll, Perry was running fourth, with 7 percent, while Cruz was way out in front with 33 percent of the respondents at his side. A year ago, Cruz had a 3-to-1 lead over the governor. “Rick Perry’s political instincts about how to respond to law and order at the border are still pretty good,” said Jim Henson, co-director of the poll and director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. “Everyone else is milling around in the middle of the pack.” Other Republicans included in the survey — U.S. Sens. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Marco Rubio of Florida, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and Ohio Gov. John Kasich — each come in with 4 percent or less. Eleven percent of the likely Republican voters say they haven’t thought enough about the race to have a favorite. Texas voters have favorable impressions of the two Republicans currently at the top of the GOP pileup, with 44 percent saying they have a very or somewhat favorable opinion of Cruz and 45 percent saying the same about Perry. More than a third of the voters — 36 percent — have an unfavorable opinion of Cruz; 40 percent have an unfavorable impression of Perry. “This race on the Republican side shows that there is no heir to the throne,” said Daron Shaw, co-director of the poll and a professor of government at UT-Austin. He said the GOP tends to nominate candidates for president who finished in second place four years prior. “There’s no runner-up looking for the title this time.” Shaw said the numbers are still volatile and the changes in the standings are relatively small. But he added that Perry’s profile is rising some. “You guys in the media love second acts, and Perry is a great second act,” he said. Democrats, on the other hand, have a straight-up front-runner in Hillary Clinton, who has the support of 60 percent of likely Democratic voters in Texas, according to the poll. She’s followed by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, at 13 percent, and Vice President Joe Biden, at 10 percent. Other potential Democratic candidates — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley — each get support from 2 percent or less of voters, and 13 percent of the Democratic likely voters said they have no favorite. “The not-Hillary vote is sort of befuddled right now,” Shaw said. According to the poll, Perry gets better job reviews than either the president or Congress, with 46 percent of Texas voters saying they approve of his performance and 38 percent saying they don’t. Among those who feel strongly about it, 22 percent approve and 27 percent disapprove of the governor’s work in office. President Obama gets good reviews from 36 percent of Texans and bad reviews from 57 percent. And most of the voters who disapprove — 48 percent — say they strongly disapprove. Only 14 percent strongly approve of his performance. Texas voters have hard views of Congress, with 14 percent saying they approve of its job performance and 71 percent saying they disapprove. Among those who feel strongly, 2 percent approve and 41 percent disapprove. “The president remains deeply unpopular, and I think we’re seeing that expressed in races from governor to dog-catcher,” Henson said. “Anyone wondering why the president has been turning up in so many ads on TV can find their answer right here.” The University of Texas/Texas Tribune internet survey of 1,200 registered voters was conducted from Oct. 10 to Oct. 19 and has an overall margin of error of +/- 2.83 percentage points. Among 866 likely voters in the head-to-head general election races, the margin of error is +/- 3.33 percent. Among 560 likely Republican primary voters, the margin of error is +/- 4.14 percent, and among 429 likely Democratic primary voters, the margin of error is +/- 4.73 percent. Numbers in the charts might not add up to 100 percent because of rounding. *CBS News: Rand Paul calls for restraint in U.S. military engagement <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-calls-for-restraint-in-u-s-military-engagement/>* By Hannah Fraser-Chanpong October 24, 2014 1:41 a.m. EDT NEW YORK -- Echoing previous warnings against intervention abroad, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is urging the United States to be cautious about using military force and pressed instead for diplomatic settlements. "Americans want strength and leadership, but it doesn't mean that we see war as the only solution," Paul said Thursday during a dinner hosted by the Center for the National Interest in New York City. The comments are widely considered to be the potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate's first comprehensive outline of his foreign policy views. "Yes, we need a hammer ready, but not every civil war is a nail," Paul said. "There is a time to eliminate our enemies but there is also a time to cultivate allies." Paul described the use of force as "an indispensible part of defending our country" but insisted it should be a last resort and only initiated through Congress. He called Libya an example of "the wrong way to do things," criticizing President Obama and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for engaging in war without "[anticipating] the consequences." "Today, Libya is a jihadist wonderland, a sanctuary and a safe haven for terror groups across North Africa," Paul said. On the U.S. strategy to combat ISIS, Paul voiced his support for airstrikes against the terrorist group but rejected supplying Syrian rebel groups with weapons, which he says wind up in enemy hands. "The ultimate sad irony is that we're forced to fight against the very weapons we send the Syrian rebels," he said. "ISIS is stronger because of our weapons." Paul also used his speech to push back against critics within his own party who have called his views "isolationist." "The war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world," Paul said. He called his approach to foreign policy "common sense conservative realism," and a "return to traditional Republican values." Paul is considering a bid for the presidency, but recent reports, including one Thursday based on an interview aboard his flight to New York for the event, say he will not make a decision until next spring. *CNN: Rand Paul plants feet between both sides of foreign policy debate <http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/23/politics/rand-paul-foreign-policy/index.html?hpt=po_t1>* By Ashley Killough October 24, 2014 (CNN) -- For the first time since facing an onslaught of criticism this year over his foreign policy views, Sen. Rand Paul spelled out his national security principles Thursday in a comprehensive speech. The Kentucky Republican, who's aggressively laying groundwork for a potential presidential campaign, sought to paint himself as a champion of "conservative realism," a doctrine that skates between the hawkish and dovish ends of the foreign policy spectrum. "Yes, we need a hammer ready, but not every civil war is a nail," he said in New York at the Center for the National Interest, a think-tank founded by former President Richard Nixon. "We need a foreign policy that recognized our limits, preserves our might and a common sense conservative realism of strength and action," he added. Paul attempted to address critics that characterize his views as isolationist and was aiming to approach his speech Thursday from the perspective of a major, would-be U.S. leader, rather than a lawmaker, a spokesman told CNN before the speech. He sketched out how and when he would advocate for the use of force, saying he would only do so if he felt the United States or its interests were threatened. He said he supported the response to al Qaeda after 9/11, for example, but disagrees with the continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan. "It's hard to understand our current objective. Stalemate and perpetual policing seems to be our mission now in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria," he said. " A precondition for the use of force must be a clear end and a goal." He went on to underscore his widely known position that a president should seek authorization from Congress before taking military action. Paul recycled his own criticism that President Barack Obama, "urged on by (former Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton," took action in Libya without approval, yet now the country is a "sanctuary for terror groups across North Africa." "America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate." "America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate. America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory. America shouldn't fight wars that aren't authorized by the American people," he said. "America should and will fight wars when the consequences -- intended and unintended -- are worth the sacrifice," he continued. "The war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world." He also talked at length about maintaining diplomatic relationships abroad and expressed support for using sanctions to underwrite diplomacy against countries such as Russia and Iran. And he reiterated a stance he has consistently taken: that the country's debt is one of its biggest national security threats. His speech comes as he attempts to further distance himself from the more libertarian views trumpeted by his father, three-time presidential candidate and former congressman Ron Paul. With an eye on the presidency, Rand Paul has sought to broaden his appeal to establishment Republicans and even Democrats. The attention has attracted close scrutiny of his views and past statements on foreign policy, as Paul has been known to frequently break with his own party and lean toward staying out of foreign entanglements. (Last month he slammed hawkish lawmakers for being "barnacled enablers" that have "never met a war they didn't like.") He was widely panned this year when he evolved in his opinion about the crisis in Ukraine, as well as the threat of ISIS in the Middle East, as both situations continued to worsen. On ISIS, for example, he penned an opinion piece earlier this summer openly questioning the value of launching airstrikes against militants in Iraq. But not long after the beheading of American James Foley, Paul became supportive of a U.S.-led air campaign against the terrorist organization -- a change that critics made sure to highlight as a massive flip-flop but what Paul reluctantly admitted as a change in views based on the situation at hand, the "realist" side of his worldview. Thursday night, he stressed his support for airstrikes as a way to "rebalance" the region but reiterated his opposition to another key part of Obama's strategy: arming Syrian rebels to fight ISIS militants. He expressed doubt that ISIS will be dismantled in the future, saying in the end it will be up to the countries in the region to take care of the situation. Michael Czin, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee, argued that Paul won't be able to overcome confusion about Paul's foreign policy with just one speech. "For months, Rand Paul has been twisting in the wind, trying to explain his foreign policy vision," he said. "The fact is, a speech defending the indefensible won't make Paul's worldview any more palatable to the American people." *The Courier-Journal: Rand Paul: In foreign policy "America cannot disengage" <http://www.courier-journal.com/story/politics-blog/2014/10/24/kentucky-sen-rand-paul-in-foreign-policy-america-cannot-disengage-from-the-world/17832547/>* By James R. Carroll October 24, 2014 12:46 p.m. EDT WASHINGTON - In what was billed as a major foreign policy speech, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul Thursday told a New York foreign policy think tank that "America cannot disengage from the world," but its actions should recognize limits and be governed by "conservative realism." A potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, Paul has sought to offer more detailed thoughts on his world view, clearly a deliberate effort to counter his image in some circles as merely an isolationist in different clothing. Paul addressed the Center for the National Interest Thursday evening, offering a perspective on international affairs that ranged widely and drew from multiple sources, including historian Francis Fukuyama, President Ronald Reagan, foreign policy theorist-historian George F. Kennan, young Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai and others. We are going to reprint the text of the speech here, but first wanted to note that the Democratic National Committee already has dismissed his remarks as another example of the senator's political and philosophical inconsistency. The DNC said that the Kentuckian previously had characterized himself as a "constitutional conservative," "libertarian conservative," "originalist," "realist," "libertarian-ish," "moderate on the foreign-policy spectrum" and "non-interventionist." "For months, Rand Paul has been twisting in the wind, trying to explain his foreign policy vision," DNC Press Secretary Michael Czin said in a statement. "The fact is, a speech defending the indefensible won't make Paul's worldview any more palatable to the American people." "Paul's been clear about his goal: he wants to see America retreat from our responsibilities around the world," Czin said. "That includes support for a fringe proposal to end our membership in the United Nations, ending all aid to our allies like Israel and slashing programs that help developing nations combat major public health crises." But anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist was reported on Twitter as saying after Paul's remarks, "I think I just heard Ronald Reagan speaking." That prompted Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, to tweet: "No, that was George McGovern." That's a reference to the late senator from South Dakota (and decorated World War II bomber pilot) who was the 1972 Democratic Party presidential nominee who campaigned against the Vietnam War. So you can see Paul did not settle the debate over the brand of his foreign policy, even among conservatives. *Vox: Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades <http://www.vox.com/2014/10/24/7053561/rand-paul-foreign-policy-speech>* By Zack Beauchamp October 24, 2014 11:10 a.m. EDT Sen. Rand Paul just gave one of the most important speeches on foreign policy since George W. Bush declared war on Iraq. But instead of declaring war on another country, Paul declared war on his own party. Or, at least, its entire approach to foreign policy. In his address last night at the Center for the National Interest — a think tank founded by Richard Nixon — Paul gave, for the first time, a comprehensive picture of how he thinks about foreign policy. His moderate non-interventionism is a far cry from his father's absolutist desire for America to exit the world stage. But Paul's stance is light years away from the hyper-hawk neoconservatism that's dominated Republican foreign policy thinking for decades. Paul is signaling that, when he runs for president in 2016, he isn't going to move toward the Republican foreign policy consensus; he's going to run at it, with a battering ram. If he wins, he could remake the Republican Party as we know it. But if he loses, this speech may well be the reason. Paul tacks to Obama's right — but not the way you think In the speech, Paul outlined four basic principles for conducting foreign policy. First, "war is necessary when America is attacked or threatened, when vital American interests are attacked and threatened, and when we have exhausted all other measures short of war." But not otherwise. Second, "Congress, the people's representative, must authorize the decision to intervene." No more war without express authorization. Third, "peace and security require a commitment to diplomacy and leadership." That means expanding trade ties and diplomatic links around the world. Fourth, "we are only as strong as our economy." For Paul, the national debt and slow growth are national security crises. In the abstract, this doesn't tell you a whole lot about what Paul believes. But when he gives specific examples of where he agrees and disagrees with Obama's policy, the core idea becomes clearer: Paul wants to scale down American commitments to foreign wars. Paul endorses the original decision to invade Afghanistan, but criticizes Obama's decision to escalate it. He savaged the Libya intervention, calling Libya today "a jihadist wonderland." He supports bombing ISIS, but blasted Obama's decision to arm the Syrian rebels: "the weapons are either indiscriminately given to 'less than moderate rebels' or simply taken from moderates by ISIS." But Paul also, much more quietly, agrees with major parts of the Obama agenda. In a move that's bound to infuriate Republican hardliners, he's calling for negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. He tacitly endorsed Obama's sanction-and-negotiate approach to the Ukraine crisis. And he called for a peaceful, cooperative relationship with China. In Paul's ideal world, America only very rarely engages in war. Most of its relations with foreign powers are conducted via diplomacy and trade with other states. This is hardly a detailed theory of how to conduct American foreign policy, but it is absolutely a conservative vision for ramping down America's role in the world. The Obama-bashing reveals Paul's real target: the GOP Paul's agenda has a lot more in common with Barack Obama's view of the world than it does with, say, John McCain's. But his speech very cleverly played up the criticisms of Obama, and minimized the points of agreement. That's because the basic goal of the speech was to teach conservatives that they can oppose foreign wars and Democrats at the same time. The real target of Paul's speech were the neoconservatives: the wing of the GOP that believes that American foreign policy should be about the aggressive use of American force and influence, be it against terrorist groups or Russia. Paul's unsubtle argument is that this view, dominant in the GOP, is a departure from what a conservative foreign policy ought to be. His tactic for selling this argument is innovative. He's reframed arguments with neoconservatives as arguments with Obama, banking on the idea that he can get everyday Republicans to abandon hawkishness altogether if they see Obama as a hawk. "After the tragedies of Iraq and Libya, Americans are right to expect more from their country when we go to war," Paul said, clearly linking his critique of Obama to an attack on the Bush legacy. Until this speech, Paul's 2016 foreign policy positions hadn't been clear. Now it is. Rand "clearly wants a more restrained US foreign policy," says Dan McCarthy, the editor of The American Conservative magazine. According to McCarthy, who's talked about these issues with Paul's staff, Paul has been engaged in a "trial and error" experiment. The idea is to figure out how to make a less aggressive foreign policy politically viable in the Republican Party. After this speech, the testing phase appears to be over. According to his advisors, this speech represents the final, overarching framework for Paul's worldview. Rand has developed a strategy for wrenching conservatives away from the Bush legacy, and it's now a question of implementing it. The stakes in the Paul-GOP fight are tectonic Paul is setting the terms of the 2016 election. So far, every plausible Republican nominee who's spoken about foreign policy has taken a more hawkish tack. Paul has picked a fight on foreign policy, and now he's going to get one. The Republican primary, then, will be at least partly a referendum on the future of Republican foreign policy. If Paul wins the primary — let alone the presidency — then the GOP and its elected officials will have to line up behind him. That will mean defending his foreign policy against Democrats, who will likely blast Paul from an interventionist point of view. "Paul's been clear about his goal," DNC Press Secretary Michael Czin told reporters before the speech. "He wants to see America retreat from our responsibilities around the world." A Paul primary win would force Republicans around the country to line up behind Paul's non-interventionism against these attacks. It might also lead the Democratic Party to become more hawkish as it unites against Paul's philosophies — and that's particularly true if Hillary Clinton, who is already on the more hawkish side of the Democratic spectrum, is the nominee. "Rand is the first guy," McCarthy says, "to have a chance to come in and do something different than what our foreign policy has been doing in 70 or more years." He's not wrong. *The Atlantic: Rand Paul Sketches an Alternative to Hawks Like Bush and Clinton <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/rand-paul-offers-an-alternative-to-hawks-like-bush-and-clinton/381851/>* By Conor Friedersdorf October 23, 2014 8:00 p.m. EDT [Subtitle:] In a speech touting "conservative realism," the Kentucky Republican probed the failures of post-9/11 foreign policy, including too much war. "Americans yearn for leadership and for strength," Senator Rand Paul planned to declare in a foreign policy speech Thursday evening, "but they don't yearn for war." His remarks (quoted as prepared for delivery at New York City gathering of the Center for the National Interest), were seemingly pitched to Republican voters: the Kentucky Republican dubbed his approach "conservative realism," criticized President Obama and Hillary Clinton, and invoked Presidents Reagan and Eisenhower. But the substance of his speech seems likely to appeal to anyone who believes that U.S. foreign policy has gone astray since 9/11, due largely to imprudent interventions urged by George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Big parts of his message should appeal to constituencies as diverse as Code Pink and my Orange County-conservative grandparents. "After the tragedies of Iraq and Libya, Americans are right to expect more from their country when we go to war," Paul stated. "America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate. America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory." He condemned wars waged without the consent of Congress or the people. adding: "Until we develop the ability to distinguish, as George Kennan put it, between vital interests and more peripheral interests, we will continue to drift from crisis to crisis." But he also took care to preempt the charge that he's an "isolationist." In passages that may alienate some of his father's supporters, Paul expressed his support for the invasion of Afghanistan (if not the decade-plus occupation that followed), declared that "the war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world," and reiterated his support for airstrikes to weaken ISIS. He opposes funneling arms to rebels in Syria, arguing that they often end up in enemy hands. But even his support for airstrikes is arguably at odds with the principles he laid out elsewhere. "Although I support the call for defeating and destroying ISIS," the speech said, "I doubt that a decisive victory is possible in the short term, even with the participation of the Kurds, the Iraqi government, and other moderate Arab states." What happened to, "America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate. America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory"? The uncharitable interpretation of this tension is that, slowly but surely, Paul is going the way of Obama and succumbing to Beltway interventionism, whether as a response to D.C. culture or a gambit to win a GOP primary. The more charitable interpretation: He isn't ideologically committed to either interventionism or noninterventionism, but is simply less hawkish than Bush, Obama, or Clinton. Either way, his rhetoric laid out an approach to foreign policy that is less bad than anything on offer from any other plausible party leader in Washington, D.C. It retains some of the idealism that candidate Barack Obama won with in 2012. "To contain and ultimately defeat radical Islam," Paul argued, "America must have confidence in our constitutional republic, our leadership, and our values." In another passage, Paul tried to make a point sensitive and complicated enough that few American politicians even attempt it: that Americans should be wary of a foreign policy that produces blowback; that it cannot always be avoided; that anger at actions like needlessly killing innocents in drone strikes creates anti-American terrorists; and that there are other, more complicated causes of terrorism too: We must understand that a hatred of our values exists, and acknowledge that interventions in foreign countries may well exacerbate this hatred," he says, "but that ultimately, we must be willing and able to defend our country and our interests. As Reagan said: “When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act.” Will they hate us less if we are less present? Perhaps …. but hatred for those outside the circle of "accepted" Islam, be it the Shia or Sunni or other religions, such as Christianity, exists above and beyond our history of intervention overseas. The world does not have an Islam problem. The world has a dignity problem, with millions of men and women across the Middle East being treated as chattel by their own governments. Many of these same governments have been chronic recipients of our aid. When the anger boils over as it did in Cairo, the anger is directed not only against Mubarak but also against the United States because of our support for Mubarak. Some anger is blowback, but some anger originates in an aberrant and intolerant distortion of religion that wages war against all infidels. We can’t be sentimental about neutralizing that threat, but we also can’t be blind to the fact that drone strikes that inadvertently kill civilians may create more jihadists than we eliminate. On the off-chance that Paul and Hillary Clinton face one another in a presidential election, Thursday's speech offers a portent of Paul attack-ads to come: The war in Libya was not in our national interest. It had no clear goal and it led to less stability. Today, Libya is a jihadist wonderland, a sanctuary and safe haven for terror groups across North Africa. Our Ambassador was assassinated and our Embassy forced to flee over land to Tunisia. Jihadists today swim in our Embassy swimming pool. The Obama administration, urged on by Hillary Clinton, wanted to go to war but didn't anticipate the consequences of war. Libya is now more chaotic and America is less safe. If Democrats were earnest in their critiques of George W. Bush's foreign policy, they ought to prefer Paul's vision on foreign policy to Hillary Clinton's platform and record. If Republicans were earnest in their embrace of a humble foreign policy in 2000, they ought to prefer Paul's positions to what's on offer from his GOP rivals. But the partisan mind has led many Republicans to retroactively embrace Bush's radical foreign policy and many Democrats to forgive Iraq War support and embrace Obama's drone strikes and wars of choice. Paul is questioning the hawkish, post-9/11 consensus that exists in both parties, but not as radically as Code Pink or supporters of his father would hope. Are moderates open to the change he is urging? If so, he will be a contender in 2016, if only by virtue of offering a position that appeals to many in America but is embraced by few in Washington. *Associated Press, via Wall Street Journal: Poll Shows Martha Coakley Slipping as Hillary Clinton Visits <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/24/poll-shows-martha-coakley-slipping-as-hillary-clinton-visits/>* Hillary Clinton is campaigning with Martha Coakley in Boston, amid a new poll showing the Democratic gubernatorial candidate trailing in the race. The former secretary of state, senator, first lady and likely 2016 presidential candidate will join Ms. Coakley on Friday at the Park Plaza hotel. Mrs. Clinton’s visit comes after her husband, former President Bill Clinton, campaigned for Ms. Coakley in Worcester last week. Mrs. Clinton then heads to Providence, Rhode Island, to campaign for Democratic gubernatorial candidate and state treasurer Gina Raimondo. Ms. Coakley, the state’s attorney general, is looking to regain momentum in her race with Republican candidate Charlie Baker that has drawn national attention — and star power. First Lady Michelle Obama also campaigned for Ms. Coakley in Boston’s Dorchester neighborhood earlier this month, and Vice President Joe Biden will headline a fundraiser on Oct. 29. Mr. Baker, a former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, meanwhile, has had former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, head of the Republican Governors Association and a possible 2016 presidential candidate, stump for him this year. Recent polls suggest Mr. Baker’s campaign has gained momentum as the Nov. 4 election approaches. A poll released by the Boston Globe on Thursday showed Mr. Baker with the support of 45% of those polled compared to 36% for Ms. Coakley, a 9 percentage point advantage in a survey that carried a margin of error of 4 percentage points. The live telephone survey of 500 likely Massachusetts voters was conducted between Oct. 19 and Oct. 22, according to the Globe. Ms. Coakley’s campaign released a statement calling the Globe poll an “outlier” and said other public surveys, as well as the campaign’s own internal polling suggested, suggested a much closer race. Democrats are looking to gain ground in state houses across the country this year. The party currently holds 21 governor’s offices to Republicans’ 29. There are 36 gubernatorial elections this November. Ms. Coakley also is looking to erase the memory of her surprise 2010 defeat to then-state Sen. Scott Brown in the special election to succeed the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy in Congress. Three independent candidates are also on the Massachusetts ballot. *New York Times: Toxic Partisanship? Bill Clinton Says He Had It Worse Than Obama <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/us/politics/toxic-partisanship-bill-clinton-says-he-had-it-worse-than-obama.html>* By Amy Chozick October 24, 2014 President Obama heads into midterm elections in which he may face crushing losses. He has been spurned by his own party, whose candidates do not even want to be seen with him. The president’s supporters say the toxic atmosphere in Washington has made it impossible for Mr. Obama to succeed. But there is a counter view being offered by a former Democratic president that as far as personal attacks go, he, Bill Clinton, had it worse. “Nobody’s accused him of murder yet, as far as I know. I mean, it was pretty rough back then,” Mr. Clinton said last month in an interview aired by PBS, when asked about the partisan climate facing Mr. Obama. Whatever Mr. Clinton’s motivations, his comments, which he has repeated regularly when the topic comes up, do not permit Mr. Obama to excuse his legislative setbacks by simply citing hyper-partisanship. As one former White House aide to Mr. Clinton put it: “They impeached our guy.” The tumult of the Clinton years — including conspiracy theories about the death of Vincent W. Foster Jr., a deputy White House counsel and friend of the Clintons’ from Arkansas who committed suicide in 1993, the investigation into Whitewater, the Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment — has come back as Hillary Rodham Clinton inches toward a run for president in 2016. When asked last month what the single biggest misconception about his presidency was, Mr. Clinton told Charlie Rose on PBS, “I think that most people underappreciate the level of extreme partisanship that took hold in ’94.” Twenty years later, Mr. Clinton has devoted much of his energy to campaigning for Democrats who do not want to be associated with Mr. Obama. He spent the weekend in Arkansas campaigning for Senator Mark Pryor, the incumbent Democrat who is locked in a tight race against Representative Tom Cotton, a Republican. “Everyone looks at Clinton in this hazy glow of, ‘He’s so wonderful,’ ” said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist. “But when he was president, boy, were there a lot of people who went after him in a very personal, some would say dirty, way.” Even Mr. Clinton’s old rival, Newt Gingrich, a former Republican speaker of the House, said people had a gauzy view of the Clinton years. “Everyone is doing the, ‘Gee, Newt and Bill got things done, why can’t Obama get anything done?’ routine,” Mr. Gingrich said. “Maybe it’s driving Bill nuts.” The underlying implication is that Mr. Obama does not have it so rough. Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Clinton criticize the current president for being less able or willing than his Democratic predecessor to woo congressional Republicans. Trent Lott, the Mississippi Republican who served as Senate majority leader from 1996 to 2001, said Mr. Clinton was “affable” and “approachable,” even toward his political opponents. “You could talk to him,” Mr. Lott said. “He was also willing to make a deal for the good of the country.” In contrast, he argued, Mr. Obama “has just walked away” — so if Mr. Clinton even tried to give the current president a pass, it “just won’t sell.” Congressional Republicans, of course, have also refused to reach across the aisle and work with Mr. Obama the way they did in Mr. Lott’s era. The current Congress is on track to become one of the least legislatively productive in recent history. That is partly because Mr. Obama faces a far more polarized electorate than Mr. Clinton did. Over the past 20 years, the number of Americans who hold extreme conservative or liberal views has doubled from 10 percent in 1994 to 21 percent in 2014, according to the Pew Research Center. And the middle ground has shrunk, with 39 percent of Americans taking a roughly equal number of liberal and conservative positions, compared with 49 percent in 1994. Mr. Clinton often talks about this polarization and says that while the partisan gridlock is worse today, and the American electorate is less willing to hear arguments they disagree with, the attacks he faced were more personal than those Mr. Obama has experienced. In a 2012 interview with The New York Times, Mr. Clinton mentioned the “murder” conspiracy theory in the 1990s, and said of Mr. Obama’s tenure: “Nobody has tried to bankrupt him with bogus investigations, so it’s not quite as bad. But the political impasse has gone on longer.” “I will certainly not contradict the president I worked for when he argues that it was even more personal then,” said William A. Galston, a former policy adviser to Mr. Clinton. “But the polarization of our official political institutions and our political parties has become even more acute than in the Clinton days,” he added. That argument absolves Mr. Clinton of his own part in the scandals of the 1990s, several historians said. “They’re different situations because there were criminal allegations” against Mr. Clinton, said Ken Gormley, the author of “The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr,” about the investigation led by Kenneth W. Starr. “President Obama has attracted a lot of attacks when it’s hard to point to something exactly he has done that warranted them,” Mr. Gormley added. Some of the venom directed at Mr. Obama has a racial component that Mr. Clinton, a relatable white Southerner, never had to deal with, said Douglas G. Brinkley, a presidential historian and professor at Rice University. “The Clintons created huge problems of their own making,” Mr. Brinkley added, while “Obama’s problem is that he bullheadedly pushed Obamacare, and he happens to be African-American.” “You can’t get more personal than questioning a person’s veracity for where he was born,” said Mr. Galston, the former Clinton aide, referring to the “birther” conspiracy theories about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate. Mr. Clinton’s reminders about how bitter things were in Washington when he was in the White House might not be the best message as Mrs. Clinton eyes an attempt at getting back there, as president herself this time. Senator Rand Paul, a potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, has already seized on the Lewinsky scandal as a way to remind voters that the Clinton years were not just “peace and prosperity,” as Mrs. Clinton often characterized her husband’s presidency during her 2008 presidential campaign. Mr. Clinton is not the only president who weathered harsh attacks. Harry Reid, the Senator majority leader, called former President George W. Bush a “liar” and a “loser,” and protesters depicted him as Hitler. “Every president probably thinks he had it worse than all his predecessors,” said Kenneth L. Khachigian, a Republican strategist who served as a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. “But,” he added, “those of us in the Nixon years would have gladly traded places with Bill Clinton’s White House.”