Correct The Record Tuesday September 16, 2014 Morning Roundup
Correct The Record Tuesday September 16, 2014 Morning Roundup:
Headlines:
Politico: “Pro-Clinton groups gear up for Benghazi hearings”
“In a plan shared with POLITICO, officials with the pro-Hillary Clinton group Correct the Record, working with the Democratic research super PAC American Bridge, said they will launch a new website, www.benghazicommittee.com.”
“Attkisson's claims have been denied by the State Department and are based solely on speculations from a disgruntled employee after he was disciplined for his ‘lack of leadership’ and engagement by the ARB.”
Politico: “Tom Harkin: ‘Myth’ Iowans dislike Hillary Clinton”
“Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, who hosted the Clintons at his 37th and final steak fry over the weekend, said on Monday that it’s a ‘myth’ that Democrats in his state don’t like Hillary Clinton.”
The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “New calls to let Hillary be Hillary”
“Hillary Clinton is carefully dipping her toes into the 2016 waters — too carefully, some of her supporters say.”
USA Today : “Capital Download: Bernie Sanders on challenging Hillary”
“Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the provocative political independent who argues both parties have lost touch with the frustration and anger many Americans feel about the country's course, says nobody should be nominated for president without being challenged. Including Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “What Bernie Sanders means for Hillary Clinton”
“… he [Sen. Sanders] holds the potential to raise the height of a hurdle Clinton must already clear -- with or without him in the mix. And for that reason, he shouldn't be taken lightly.”
“Not that such an outpouring of support would be enough to elevate Bernie Sanders, a candidate far from the center of U.S. politics, to the presidency. But it might be enough to make him the next Ralph Nader.”
The Daily Beast: “Bill Clinton's McConnell Attack May Be What We'll Remember From the Steak Fry”
“That’s because the most memorable moment of the steak fry wasn’t Hillary’s 2016 patter or the effort to boost Bruce Braley, the Democratic Senate candidate in Iowa. It was when Bill Clinton lit into Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is facing a tough reelection bid in Kentucky.”
Real Clear Politics: “Mulling 2016 Run, Huckabee Bones Up on Foreign Policy”
“When asked about the Democrat’s [Sec. Clinton’s] potential run for the White House, Huckabee said no Republican knows her better than he does, given their Arkansas connections. He described her as ‘smart’ and ‘tough,’ and cautioned that she should never be underestimated.”
Washington Post: “A long-shot bid in 2016 may suit Martin O’Malley”
“O’Malley touts himself as a can-do executive rather than a liberal crusader, despite a litany of progressive accomplishments in Annapolis that most analysts say could position him to run to Clinton’s left in the Democratic primaries.”
Articles:
Politico: “Pro-Clinton groups gear up for Benghazi hearings”
By Maggie Haberman
September 16, 2014, 5:04 a.m. EDT
As a select House committee probing the 2012 attacks in Benghazi convenes Wednesday, three Democratic outside groups are mobilizing to protect Hillary Clinton from any fallout.
In a plan shared with POLITICO, officials with the pro-Hillary Clinton group Correct the Record, working with the Democratic research super PAC American Bridge, said they will launch a new website, www.benghazicommittee.com. It’s a research hub that is designed like a news site and will issue detailed, rapid responses to charges against Clinton — mimicking the way a campaign would defend a candidate in real time during a presidential debate.
Also defending the former secretary of state against Benghazi criticism will be Media Matters, the watchdog founded by David Brock, a Clinton ally who also created both American Bridge and Correct the Record. In addition to using an army of researchers, Media Matters has been aggressively hitting Fox News, which has covered Benghazi extensively since the attacks two years ago.
Media Matters is releasing a new chapter of an e-book Brock co-authored last year, called “The Benghazi Hoax,” as well as a new website of its own, with 1,000 pieces of research aimed at debunking claims related to the Sept. 11 attack.
The issue of Benghazi has lingered for Clinton since early 2013, when she testified at the first round of congressional hearings. Pressed on why administration officials initially said the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans sprang from a protest — an explanation they later retracted — Clinton said, “What difference at this point does it make?”
Republicans have repeatedly invoked that remark to argue that Clinton was trying to shirk responsibility. She ripped that notion in her book “Hard Choices” and slammed Republicans for taking her out of context.
Still, the issue hasn’t gone away and threatens to be problematic for Clinton politically.
Clinton has no rapid-response organization of her own, let alone a campaign structure (she insists she hasn’t made up her mind about 2016). Brock’s Correct the Record has stepped in to fill the void.
Brock, who believes Republicans are using the issue in repeated sets of hearings to damage Clinton ahead of a potential campaign and to boost GOP turnout in the fall midterms, said the idea for Correct the Record came to him watching the hearings last year.
“One of the reasons that I created CTR last fall was that the Republicans seemed to have the field to themselves in the round of hearings around 2013,” Brock said. “Ability to respond to false accusations was limited … we’re not going to let that happen again.
“There is hope that the committee discharges their duty reasonably, but we’re ready if they don’t,” he said.
Brock added that the Correct the Record/Bridge site “prebuts” much of what he expects in the hearing: “All the questions have already been asked and answered.”
The focal point of the hearings is expected to be the Accountability Review Board, which examined the attacks and made more than two dozen recommendations. Critics of the board have argued it was never truly independent because members were appointed by Clinton and say it represented a whitewashing.
Brock insisted that by implementing the board’s recommendations, “Clinton has already done more to get to the bottom [of what occurred in Benghazi] than any of the Republicans who will be attacking her in the coming weeks.”
By Olivia Kittel
September 15, 2014
A new report from discredited investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson baselessly suggested State Department staff removed damaging documents on Benghazi instead of turning them over to the Accountability Review Board (ARB) for investigation. But Attkisson's claims have been denied by the State Department and are based solely on speculations from a disgruntled employee after he was disciplined for his "lack of leadership" and engagement by the ARB.
In a September 15 report for The Daily Signal, a publication of the conservative Heritage Foundation, Attkisson reported that a former State Department diplomat alleges that "Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to 'separate' damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya." The Daily Signal described this as a "Benghazi Bombshell."
Attkisson reported that the diplomat, Raymond Maxwell, a former deputy assistant secretary responsible for North Africa, says that in late 2012 he observed an "after-hours session" at which a State Department office director "close to Clinton's top advisers" directed staff to separate out Benghazi documents "that might put anybody in the Near Eastern Affairs front office or the seventh floor in a bad light" from "boxes and stacks of documents." Attkisson notes that "'seventh floor' was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisors." Maxwell told Attkisson that while he was present, Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan "appeared to check in on the operation and soon left."
Speculating that potentially missing, possibly damaging documents made it impossible for the ARB's investigation to be thorough, Attkisson reported that Maxwell said "he couldn't help but wonder if the ARB--perhaps unknowingly--had received from his bureau a scrubbed set of documents with the most damaging material missing."
Fox News' America's Newsroom quickly reported Attkisson's claims, calling them a "bombshell development" and a "smoking gun of a potential cover-up":
[VIDEO]
Fox subsequently reported that the interview indicated that Maxwell "claims Clinton allies scrubbed Benghazi documents."
But Attkisson's report has several flaws. It is based solely on conjecture from Maxwell, who does not claim and cannot prove that any documents were withheld from the ARB in its investigation, but rather only speculates about the fate of the documents that were reviewed.
The State Department has already denied Maxwell's speculation in a statement to Attkisson -- State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach called "the implication that documents were withheld 'totally without merit,'" emphasizing that the "range of sources that the ARB's investigation drew on would have made it impossible for anyone outside of the ARB to control its access to information." Other allegations that the ARB investigation was biased have been repeatedly disproven.
Maxwell himself is a dubious source. He was placed on administrative leave after the Accountability Review Board's investigation found a "lack of proactive leadership" and pointed specifically to Maxwell's department, saying some officials in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs "showed a lack of ownership of Benghazi's security issues." A House Oversight Committee report released findings from the classified version of the ARB report, which revealed that the ARB's board members "were troubled by the NEA DAS for Maghreb Affairs' lack of leadership and engagement on staffing and security issues in Benghazi."
Disgruntled over being "the only official in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which had responsibility for Libya, to lose his job," Maxwell spoke to The Daily Beast in May 2013 in an attempt to "restore" his "honor." Maxwell, who had filed official grievances regarding his treatment, expressed anger that Mills -- the same staff member Maxwell speculated was involved in hiding potentially damaging documents -- "reneged" on a deal to eventually bring Maxwell back to the NEA after his leave.
While Maxwell has previously been interviewed by the ARB, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House Oversight Committee, the Daily Beast, and Examiner.com, this is curiously the first time this allegation has been made public. FoxNews.com reported that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) had confirmed "that Maxwell told him and other lawmakers the same story when they privately interviewed him last year." The claim is absent from the House Oversight Committee's Benghazi Attacks: Investigative Update Report on the Accountability Review Board, which was based in part on Maxwell's 2013 testimony.
Attkisson, too, has been roundly discredited and is well known for her shoddy reporting, both during her time at CBS News and after leaving the network. Attkisson supported CBS' disastrous Benghazi reporting, for which the network ultimately had to apologize and retract. And CBS executives reportedly saw her as "wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue."
Fox's adoption of this story as a major new development is not surprising given the network's history of relying on discredited Benghazi hoaxsters and using "bombshell" to describe everything but new developments in the story.
Politico: “Tom Harkin: ‘Myth’ Iowans dislike Hillary Clinton”
By Jonathan Topaz
September 15, 2014, 1:15 p.m. EDT
Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, who hosted the Clintons at his 37th and final steak fry over the weekend, said on Monday that it’s a “myth” that Democrats in his state don’t like Hillary Clinton.
“There’s a myth that somehow Iowans didn’t like Hillary,” the outgoing Democratic senator said during an interview on MSNBC. “That’s just not true. Iowans love her.”
Former President Bill Clinton and the former secretary of State were main headliners at Harkin’s annual steak fry in Indianola, an event that has often doubled as a platform for potential presidential candidates. During her speech on Sunday, Clinton again told the crowd — some of whom were supporters of the Ready for Hillary SuperPAC urging her to run — that she is “thinking about” a 2016 bid.
But Clinton had not been back to the Hawkeye State — the site of the first presidential nominating contest — since her disappointing third-place finish at the Iowa Caucuses in 2008. The then-senator was a prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination in that election cycle, but fell short in Iowa and, ultimately, the primary, to Barack Obama.
On Monday, Harkin, who is retiring at the end of his term, said that the 2008 results were not an indictment of Clinton but a testament to Obama. “What happened back in 2008 is that we had a phenomenon by the name of Barack Obama, who came out here early, got the organization, got all these young people out, and that was sort of the end of it,” he said. “But I don’t think it meant any lack of support or affection for Hillary Clinton.”
The senator said he thought Clinton did a great job in energizing the crowd for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections. “I just thought that the crowd loved Hillary, loved Bill,” Harkin said. “I think she set the right tone exactly for the day, and her basic reason for being here was to help fire up Democrats for the 2014 election, and she sure did that.”
Harkin declined to endorse any Democratic candidate during the 2008 primary until Obama mathematically defeated Clinton. On Monday, he said he wouldn’t make any announcements at least until Clinton decides whether she will run. “But I just say that if she decides to run for president, I can tell you she’s going to have a lot of support here in Iowa,” he said.
The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “New calls to let Hillary be Hillary”
By Amie Parnes
September 16, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EDT
Hillary Clinton is carefully dipping her toes into the 2016 waters — too carefully, some of her supporters say.
Clinton’s allies say she’s been too cautious and scripted with some of her actions this year, such as when she was slow to put out a response to the August shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo.
They argue that if the former secretary of State learned one thing during the 2008 primaries, it was this: Voters like to see Hillary Clinton uncut and unvarnished, not deliberative and cautious.
They prefer the Hillary Clinton who speaks off the cuff, cracks jokes and shows emotion.
They like the woman who dodged the shoe in Las Vegas and responded with a funny retort. Or the woman who made a spontaneous appearance on “The Daily Show” and quipped about wanting an office “with fewer corners.”
When she cried in New Hampshire ahead of the state’s primary in 2008, voters saw a rare glimpse of a relatable Clinton, and days later she pulled off a remarkable victory.
Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist who worked closely with Clinton when he served as the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy’s press secretary and an aide on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said he’s witnessed a different Clinton behind the curtain.
“In years past, when I used to see her, I was often struck by how much more open she was behind the scenes than she was in her public persona,” Manley said, adding that there’s a “cautiousness based in part on the fact that everything she does is so heavily scrutinized.”
Asked if the cautiousness is something Team Clinton recognizes as a problem should she run in 2016, Manley continued, “If they’re looking for lessons from 2008, I sure as hell hope so.”
Clinton was the favorite in 2008, too, and ran a notably cautious campaign in trying to fend off then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Unlike the Obama campaign, for instance, she failed to highlight the historic nature of her campaign until her concession speech. And she was criticized for acting standoffish with the press.
She ended up placing second to Obama in the Democratic primary.
This year, her caution has been partially rooted in a desire to stay out of the news, particularly while she’s not a candidate and is out of public office.
Her first comments on the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson came on Aug. 28, weeks after the shooting had become headline news across the country. Clinton had been on vacation, but her absence from the public debate was notable and drew calls for her to weigh in from MSNBC host Al Sharpton.
Clinton has also sought to avoid gaffes, such as when she spoke about how she and former President Bill Clinton were “dead broke” at the end of his presidency.
The remarks during a promotional appearance for her book Hard Choices, which may have been intended to make Clinton seem relatable, led to criticism that the former first lady was out of touch. It amounted to a major misstep that drowned out part of the message of the book tour.
“It did seem surprisingly tone-deaf,” said Katherine Jellison, a professor of history at Ohio University, adding that Clinton “overplayed her hand.”
“I think it showed her that she has to be more careful with her comments than when she was secretary of State,” said Jellison. “I think gaffes like that are what her advisers are helping her avoid.”
Clinton, who is not yet a formal candidate for the White House, is transitioning from her four years as secretary of State. She was followed at Foggy Bottom by a wonky and substantive State Department press corps — not a political press scrutinizing her every word.
During her time at State, Clinton seemed to relish the unscripted moment. She danced in South Africa, drank beer in Colombia and was in on the joke when two savvy public relations types came up with the now famous meme “Texts from Hillary.”
Over the weekend, when the Democratic front-runner in the presidential race visited Iowa, she held up her arms and quipped, “I’m ba-ack!” The crowd, looking for any sign that the former secretary of State would once again be running for president, reveled in the moment.
“I sensed she was being a bit more open in her body language,” said Jellison. “She had a more folksy persona than she does sometimes. She did seem loosened up a bit compared to some of her other appearances.”
Some in the Clinton orbit acknowledge Clinton is cautious — more so than her husband, who relishes retail politics.
But they argue those are “net positives.”
“ ‘Careful and cautious’ are different from ‘orchestrated and scripted,’ primarily in that the latter adjectives imply the candidate is being told what to do, which is not the case with her,” said a former Clinton aide who still maintains contact with the former secretary.
Calls for Clinton to completely let her hair down in public are going to be in vain, the aide said.
In the end, Team Clinton doesn’t think that would suit her.
“Anyone expecting her to go Bulworth is dreaming and a Bulworth would never win, no matter how appealing to the media,” the aide said, referencing the eponymous 1998 film.
USA Today : “Capital Download: Bernie Sanders on challenging Hillary”
By Susan Page
September 15, 2014, 7:46 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the provocative political independent who argues both parties have lost touch with the frustration and anger many Americans feel about the country's course, says nobody should be nominated for president without being challenged. Including Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"There is almost unanimous agreement that we don't anoint people in the United States — not Republican candidates, not Democratic candidates," Sanders told Capital Download, USA TODAY's weekly video newsmaker series, on Monday. "What's good for America is a serious debate about the very, very serious issues that America faces."
Sanders is weighing a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination or an independent candidacy that would focus on liberal causes such as reducing income inequality, curbing corporate influence and addressing climate change. If no one else emerges to press those issues, he says, he would feel more impelled to join the race.
"I mean, these are issues that absolutely have got to be raised," he says.
Though it's hard to devise a political scenario in which the 73-year-old Democratic socialist actually wins the White House in 2016, his candidacy could affect the political debate and complicate Clinton's campaign. He presumably would tap unease by some liberals about Clinton and perhaps force her to move to the left during a battle for the nomination. He could appeal to the same progressive forces as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who articulates a similar message but says she's not planning to run in 2016.
In three town-hall-style meetings in Iowa over the weekend, Sanders says, he was "blown away" by the number of people who attended — including a capacity crowd of 450 in a church basement in Des Moines Sunday — and their enthusiasm. "The establishment is underestimating the anger and the frustration of the American people," he says.That's true on both ends of the political spectrum, including members of the Tea Party movement on the right.
Clinton also was in Iowa Sunday, the first time since her disastrous defeat in the 2008 caucuses.
"I read about that," he says dryly.
Sanders says he is aware of concerns by some that his candidacy could weaken the Democratic nominee, especially if he decided to run as an independent. He has a model for what his campaign won't be.
"Well, I think people remember the Ralph Nader experience, and I have told people I will not play that role," he says. Many analysts say Nader's third-party candidacy cost Democrat Al Gore Florida's electorate votes and with them the presidency. "If I were to run as an independent, if that campaign did not kick in and it looked like as we got close to Election Day, the votes that I would get could help elect the Republican, I would not let that happen." He would withdraw, he says.
Is there a model for what his candidacy would be?
"Not too many," he replies, unable to come up with even one. "Not too many."
Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “What Bernie Sanders means for Hillary Clinton”
By Sean Sullivan
September 16, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EDT
In an interview on NBC's "Meet The Press" this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) said something very interesting about his presidential ambitions:
"The issue is not Hillary. I’ve known Hillary Clinton for many years. I have a lot of respect for Hillary Clinton. The question is: At a time when so many people have seen a decline in their standard of living, when the wealthiest people and largest corporations are doing phenomenally well, the American people want change. They want Congress, they want candidates, to stand up to the big money interests. So, let Hillary speak for herself. I know where I’m coming from."
It's interesting because it reflects three important things about the race for the Democratic nomination for president:
1. There is no massive anti-Hillary Clinton movement right now. If Clinton runs for president -- and everything she has done in recent months suggests she wants to -- and encounters credible or even semi-credible opposition in the primary, it won't be because she isn't well-liked. It's not like there is some burgeoning anti-Clinton army of Democratic dissenters traveling the the country trying to discourage her from running. She remains extremely popular in the Democratic Party and boasts the resume, fundraising base and name-recognition that strategists dream about. As Sanders put it, "The issue is not Hillary."
2. There is a growing populist movement in the Democratic Party. The quick rise of liberal stars like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) is a testament to a growing populist wave in the Democratic Party centered around the issues of income inequality, Wall Street bank regulation and consumer protection. Sanders, a self-described "socialist" who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate, is signaling that he would focus a campaign for president around fighting the growing divide between rich and poor. He has a loyal base of support that would follow him into the thick of a presidential run. But that base is small. There is, however, a far broader audience of Democrats who would at least listen to what Sanders would have to say, because of how important some of his pet issues have become in today's Democratic Party.
3. That movement may or may not fully embrace Clinton. It's why Clinton has been trying to emphasize the issue of income inequality in her own remarks. (It's also why questions about Clinton's wealth, which she has kept alive, are the last thing she needs right now.) Can Clinton win the Democratic nomination with lingering questions about her commitment to closing the gap between rich and poor among some liberals? Absolutely. Would that be ideal? Absolutely not. Republicans will be ready to pounce on any of her perceived weaknesses among Democrats or the larger electorate. All of which brings us back to Sanders. If he runs for president -- his travels to Iowa and his open mulling of a run in interviews with national media appear to be signs he is seriously considering it -- it will become more difficult for Clinton to appeal to Democrats on this front simply because she will have competition from someone who has long been making the same pitch.
No, Sanders is not a serious threat to defeat Clinton. Nor is he a sign of some widespread anti-Clinton anxiety that is about upend the Democratic primary. But he holds the potential to raise the height of a hurdle Clinton must already clear -- with or without him in the mix. And for that reason, he shouldn't be taken lightly.
By Jon Healey
September 15, 2014, 1:51 p.m. PDT
On the same day that Hillary Clinton returned to Iowa as a potential presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told a national television audience that he might run for president too -- as a Democrat or as an independent, he hasn't decided which.
The prospect of an independent candidate siphoning off liberal voters has some Democrats already worrying about a spoiler who hands the White House to the GOP. But judging from recent presidential campaigns, there's only a slim chance of that happening. If the Republicans win the White House, Democrats probably won't have Sanders to blame.
The path to the White House was already challenging enough for Clinton, despite her glitzy resume (which includes stints as secretary of State, senator and first lady) and policy chops. She's likely to be challenged by a more liberal Democrat, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. Then there's Vice President Joe Biden, who's something of a centrist like Clinton. Biden has made no secret of his desire to move up the federal organizational chart.
And even if Clinton wins the nomination, she is certain to face an accomplished and well-funded Republican nominee -- possibly even one who, like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, appeals to more than just white male voters. Said Republican is likely to start off with a bit of a tailwind, give the public's evident fatigue with President Obama and the painfully slow recovery from the last recession.
Sanders told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that he was considering a run for the presidency to respond to voters' demand for a break from the dysfunctional politics of Washington. If that sounds like a message recycled from 2008, well, it worked for the last guy.
Still, the idea of a third-party candidate brings back painful memories for some Democrats of the 2000 election, and for some Republicans of the race in 1992. In 2000, independent Ralph Nader attracted almost 100,000 votes in Florida, a pivotal state that Democrat Al Gore lost to George W. Bush by less than 600 ballots. And in 1992, independent Ross Perot garnered 19% of the vote; had two-thirds of those voters supported President George H.W. Bush instead, Bush would have won a second term.
Sanders himself acknowledges the fear of the spoiler candidate in an interview with the Nation in March.
"[T]he dilemma is that, if you run outside of the Democratic Party, then what you’re doing — and you have to think hard about this — you’re not just running a race for president, you’re really running to build an entire political movement. In doing that, you would be taking votes away from the Democratic candidate and making it easier for some right-wing Republican to get elected — the Nader dilemma."
But Nader's responsibility for Gore losing Florida -- and consequently the election -- is not so clear.
Exit polls show that Nader's support was evenly split between Republican voters and Democrats, with a larger percentage of his votes coming from independents. Had Nader not been in the race, a CNN exit poll found, Bush would have prevailed in Florida by a larger margin. The Daily Kos argued that Gore's problem was that he lost too many Democratic voters not to Nader but to George W. Bush, whose message of compassionate conservatism was calibrated to appeal to those on both sides of the ideological spectrum.
A 2006 academic study of the Florida balloting came to a different conclusion, finding that 60% of Nader voters would have supported Gore otherwise. The authors nevertheless maintained that Nader was a spoiler only because the vote in Florida was phenomenally close.
This is all speculation, of course. No one knows whether the people who voted for Nader would have even gone to the polls had he not been on the ballot. As with most independent candidates, Nader was essentially attracting a protest vote, and we can only guess what those voters were protesting.
There's less mystery when an independent is on the ballot with an incumbent, as was the case in 1992. The vote for Perot was, in effect, another vote against President George H.W. Bush. Perot didn't spoil Bush's re-election, he just reduced Bill Clinton's margin of victory.
Which brings us back to the 2016 race and Hillary Clinton. Although Obama will not be on the ballot, Clinton's candidacy would be a referendum on her fellow Democrat and former boss' eight years in office. (That would be even more true for Biden should he win the nomination.) That's not a welcome prospect for any Democrat, considering Obama's rock-bottom approval rating. They should all be hoping fervently for economic growth to surge magically over the coming two years.
Then again, a lot can happen between now and November 2016. One thing that's likely to occur is that Republicans gain control of the Senate, setting up a two-year clash with Obama over healthcare, defense spending, entitlements and environmental regulations, among other issues. With the public already disgusted with the dysfunction in Washington, two years of even more fighting and less problem-solving could lead voters of both parties to embrace independent candidates.
Not that such an outpouring of support would be enough to elevate Bernie Sanders, a candidate far from the center of U.S. politics, to the presidency. But it might be enough to make him the next Ralph Nader.
The Daily Beast: “Bill Clinton's McConnell Attack May Be What We'll Remember From the Steak Fry”
By Ben Jacobs
September 15, 2014
[Subtitle:] Hillary’s 2016 was what we all expected. The boosting of local Democratic candidates was boilerplate. But Bill’s blasting of the Senate GOP leader’s worst moment may prove effective.
Hillary and Bill Clinton’s visit to Iowa this weekend for the Harkin Steak Fry generated plenty of headlines, but its political impact may end up being bigger in Kentucky than in the Hawkeye State.
That’s because the most memorable moment of the steak fry wasn’t Hillary’s 2016 patter or the effort to boost Bruce Braley, the Democratic Senate candidate in Iowa. It was when Bill Clinton lit into Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is facing a tough reelection bid in Kentucky.
Clinton trotted out a new attack line, slamming McConnell for saying the worst day of his political career was when President George W. Bush signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation. “I was profoundly sad,” Clinton said of McConnell’s remarks. “When I look back on my life in politics, after all those decades and fights and all those campaigns, if the worst thing that ever happened to me was an attempt to limit black bag contributions?” Why not 9/11, the farm crisis, the loss of manufacturing jobs in the ’80s, or the loss of coal mining jobs in Kentucky? Clinton suggested. That McConnell could say “the worst thing that happened to you [in politics] was not being able to black bag unlimited amounts of money” was outrageous, the former president said.
By contrast, most of the support for Braley and other Iowa candidates was relatively standard Democratic boilerplate, and Hillary Clinton’s strategic ambiguity about a presidential campaign was precisely what everyone expected. (After all, what politician blurts out a major life decision while working a rope line?)
But Bill Clinton’s message could prove effective in the Kentucky race. The former president has actively campaigned for McConnell’s Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes. In fact, Clinton’s attack jibes well with a newly released commercial in which Grimes shoots skeet while proclaiming to the camera: “I’m not Barack Obama.”
That message needs to sink in soon with Kentuckians for Grimes to triumph, however. McConnell has been maintaining a steady lead of about four to five points in the conservative Bluegrass State with Election Day less than two months away.
Real Clear Politics: “Mulling 2016 Run, Huckabee Bones Up on Foreign Policy”
By Caitlin Huey-Burns
September 15, 2014
As Mike Huckabee weighs another run for president, he focused these days on foreign policy -- an issue seeping into this year’s midterm contests and putting a special spotlight on the Republican Party ahead of a wide-open presidential primary in 2016.
At a roundtable Monday with a group of reporters, the former Arkansas governor and pastor began the conversation by recalling a recent trip he took to Israel -- his third this year.
“I’m again reminded it’s really the only real and true friend and ally we have in the Middle East,” he said, before launching into criticism of President Obama’s handling and perceived understanding of the situation in Gaza and the increasing threats in Iraq and Syria.
The conversation starter was a notable one for Huckabee, who is best known in presidential politics as a conservative Christian. He now splits his time between New York City, where he is on contract with Fox News, and Florida, where he and his wife now live. Huckabee said he would make a decision about whether to run for the Republican nomination by the second quarter of next year. In the meantime, he is boning up on foreign policy, getting regular advice from a “host of people” including current and former military and intelligence personnel.
Huckabee was critical of the administration ruling out sending U.S. ground troops to the Middle East. “Never publically announce what you’re not going to do. I think you’ve got to consider everything,” he said.
Huckabee’s credential-polishing comes as foreign policy makes a comeback on the national debate stage, following two elections cycles in which the economy held sway. The growing terrorist threats to the United States by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, sometimes called ISIS) have put the issue front and center in Congress just weeks before the midterms, with growing interest and concern among the public.
Combating the crisis is a task that will outlast this presidency and this Congress and thus figures to spill into the next presidential contest. Intervention abroad continues to divide Democrats, but Republicans are also having an internal debate, with a growing libertarian streak present in Congress and among voters, especially young ones.
“I don’t think we’ve done an adequate job of explaining to younger people that what is happening in the Middle East is not limited to the Middle East,” he said. “Everything [ISIL] is doing there is the warm-up act to what they plan to do here.”
When asked who in the Republican Party right now can lead effectively on foreign policy, Huckabee declined to name a roster.
"I don't believe a person in the chief executive's role is necessarily an encyclopedia for naming all the names of the foreign leaders and being able to point to the capitals on the map, as much as it is to process information: Is he willing to take the analyses of the people who've spent their entire lives becoming absolute experts and analyzing, then having good judgment?" he said.
Could Huckabee be that person? Yes, he said, citing his decade of executive experience as governor of Arkansas. “I think it comes down to: Do you have an understanding of the world and the dangers we face? Do you have the capacity as an executive to look at the whole battlefield and see all the issues in place and how they integrate with each other?”
Huckabee’s conservative-Christian bona fides have helped make him a favorite in Iowa, where he continues to lead in several polls. But he is beginning to feel frustrated by constantly being cast and covered as a Baptist pastor. “I don’t know any other person that’s run for office and all the questions relate to what he did 25 years earlier, and none to what he’s been doing for the last 25,” he said. “That’s something that’s inexplicable to me. But I served in elected office longer than I served in the church.”
Huckabee says the environment for him now is very different than it was in 2008 (when he ran) and 2012 (when he thought doing so). He said he has stronger name identification and donors. He recently launched a political action committee. He insisted that he would do a good job showing what the party is for, not what it is against -- a criticism of and a challenge for the GOP.
Among the other credentials he listed for himself is his familiarity with Hillary Clinton.
When asked about the Democrat’s potential run for the White House, Huckabee said no Republican knows her better than he does, given their Arkansas connections. He described her as “smart” and “tough,” and cautioned that she should never be underestimated.
“She’s a policy genius,” he said. “But I don't know if she has that same affable charm that her husband does. But then, who does?"
Washington Post: “A long-shot bid in 2016 may suit Martin O’Malley”
By John Wagner
September 15, 2014, 5:43 p.m. EDT
Martin O’Malley’s pollster had sobering news. Despite extensive time in the public eye and strong statements on controversial issues, the would-be candidate barely registered in a new survey.
The year was 1999, and O’Malley (D), a brash white city councilman in majority-black Baltimore, was contemplating a long-shot bid for mayor.
“To a lot of friends, even my closest friends, it seemed like a pretty outlandish idea initially,” he said. He won that election, and the next, and two terms as Maryland governor after that.
Now he is contemplating an odyssey with even steeper odds. By late January, when his time in Annapolis ends, O’Malley says he “probably” will have decided whether to run for president in 2016, a bid that would be likely to pit him against Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state.
The massive groundswell of support for Clinton — who visited the key early-nominating state of Iowa this weekend for the first time in almost seven years — leaves O’Malley an obvious underdog. But the governor knows firsthand how quickly political fortunes can change. Those close to him say he feels he has little to lose with a White House bid — and no other obvious political options at this point in his career.
O’Malley touts himself as a can-do executive rather than a liberal crusader, despite a litany of progressive accomplishments in Annapolis that most analysts say could position him to run to Clinton’s left in the Democratic primaries. As he travels the country, he speaks of restoring a bygone sense of possibility and repairing the country’s broken political system.
“As Americans, there’s a deep longing to be able to get things done again as a people,” O’Malley said in an interview at the State House. Everywhere he goes, he said, he hears profound frustration with Washington and “great anxiety” among parents who feel they can no longer provide their children with a better life than they’ve had.
A CNN-ORC poll of 309 registered Iowa Democratic voters released Friday found that Clinton had support from 53 percent and O’Malley just 2 percent, with Vice President Biden at 15 percent and other potential presidential candidates also in single digits. Some parts of O’Malley’s gubernatorial record, such as the highly publicized failure last year of Maryland’s online health insurance exchange, could pose additional hurdles for him.
But O’Malley is stumping for fellow Democrats in battleground states and boning up on foreign policy at a time when no other Democrats are talking as openly about a White House bid.
He said he will be “putting this office in cardboard boxes” and moving his family from the governor’s mansion back to Baltimore after the Nov. 4 midterm elections. At some point after that, probably during the holidays, “there will hopefully be some time to catch a breather and decide about next steps.”
‘Momentum for him is now’
O’Malley, 51, is young enough to wait for a future presidential race, without the possibility of a Clinton on the ballot. But there is no obvious way station for him in politics right now. Both of Maryland’s Senate seats are filled by Democrats who show no sign of retiring when their terms end in 2017 and 2019.
“The momentum for him is now,” said one former aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss O’Malley’s future more freely. “He’s a candidate of youth and energy. . . . You never know what’s going to happen in six or 10 years.”
His governorship is loaded with accomplishments that could make Democratic primary voters swoon in 2016: legalizing same-sex marriage, abolishing the death penalty, raising the minimum wage, embracing clean energy sources and expanding immigrants’ rights.
Those legislative victories — and his recent criticism of the White House over its handling of a wave of child immigrants — give him credibility as a liberal alternative to Clinton, many analysts say. But some who have worked for O’Malley say he would not be comfortable as a left-wing poster boy. He did not embrace several of the progressive causes he has championed until well after he arrived in office. And his tough-on-crime credentials as mayor and staunch opposition to legalizing marijuana put him at odds with many liberals.
“If voters are looking for a cookie-cutter candidate to champion every progressive issue, they won’t find that with him,” said Shaun Adamec, a former press secretary. “He’s certainly comfortable being himself.”
If Clinton runs, firing up the liberal base might be O’Malley’s best hope to raise the kind of money he would need for a credible bid, some advisers suggest. But O’Malley, who spent two years as chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, could cultivate his ties to major party donors if Clinton falters or decides to stay out of the contest.
In government circles, O’Malley earned recognition as Baltimore mayor for pioneering CitiStat, a statistics-driven management tool that he replicated at the state level to measure his administration’s performance.
He cites those efforts when talking about why he would be a good president “for these times especially.” In an interview earlier this year, O’Malley spoke of “a way of leadership that’s much more collaborative, that’s much more open, that is performance-measured, that is much more interactive.”
“It is the new way of leadership in the information age,” he said. “I believe in my bones that this is the future.”
It’s not entirely clear how that would translate to a campaign pitch. O’Malley has said little about what he would do as president — hardly a surprise, advisers say, since he is not yet a candidate. He talks in broad strokes about empowering the middle class, investing in infrastructure and building an economy “with a human purpose.”
“I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough of the cynicism,” he said in one recent address. “I’ve had enough of the apathy. I’ve had enough of us giving in to self-pity, small solutions and low expectations of one another. Let’s remember who we are.”
‘He’d be very competitive’
O’Malley’s best path, some observers say, might be to replicate the 2004 presidential bid of Vermont’s Howard Dean (D), a governor from a small state who was endorsed by O’Malley and who appealed to his party’s left wing with strong opposition to the Iraq war and a call for universal health care.
Joe Trippi, a longtime Democratic operative who ran Dean’s campaign, said a better comparison might be the 1984 primary contest between former vice president Walter Mondale and Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.). Trippi managed Mondale’s campaign in Iowa, while O’Malley worked for Hart there. Mondale, the establishment choice, won easily, but Hart came in second and emerged as Mondale’s chief rival.
“I think right now O’Malley is running to become the other guy, with the hope that the field will quickly narrow to two candidates,” Trippi said. While Clinton would be the heavy favorite in a duel with O’Malley, “of all the people out there, he’s the one I would be most worried about.”
The Maryland governor, Trippi said, should draw a contrast “between past and future, between old and new.”
O’Malley’s frequent political travel has connected him with party activists who could be helpful in the 2016 election cycle. The governor’s decision to dispatch more than two dozen campaign staffers to help with races in other states this fall was particularly welcome in Iowa, said Tom Henderson, the longtime chairman of the Polk County Democrats. He said O’Malley, who has been to Iowa three times since June, is also starting to make an impression in other ways.
“If he runs, I think he’d be very competitive here,” said Henderson, who said he’s been impressed with O’Malley’s ability to relate to voters in small settings. “Hillary has some very devoted supporters, but there’s a big opening for another candidate.”
In the next two months, O’Malley is slated to again visit Iowa, as well as New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. All four states will hold early nominating contests in 2016.
The governor says he has no timeline for “any formal announcement” of a presidential bid. In an interview last week, he was more eager to reminisce about old campaigns than to talk about a possible new one. He brought up the only political race he has ever lost: a 1990 primary bid against a sitting state senator, who beat him by 44 votes.
When he arrived at an election night party, he said, his supporters surprised him by “cheering ecstatically.” O’Malley asked a close friend what was going on and said he was told: “They’re shocked as hell that you even came this close.”
Calendar:
Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.
· September 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines a 9/11 Health Watch fundraiser (NY Daily News)
· September 18 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton participates in a CAP roundtable (Politico)
· September 19 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DNC with Pres. Obama (CNN)
· September 21 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton attends CGI kickoff (The Hollywood Reporter)
· September 22 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton at CGI (CGI)
· September 23 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton at CGI (CGI)
· September 23 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women CGI Dinner (Twitter)
· September 29 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines fundraiser for DCCC for NY and NJ candidates (Politico)
· September 29 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines another fundraiser for DCCC (Politico)
· October 2 – Miami Beach, FL: Sec. Clinton keynotes the CREW Network Convention & Marketplace (CREW Network)
· October 6 – Ottawa, Canada: Sec. Clinton speaks at Canada 2020 event (Ottawa Citizen)
· October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation Annual Dinner (UNLV)
· October 14 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes salesforce.com Dreamforce conference (salesforce.com)
· October 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton fundraises for House Democratic women candidates with Nancy Pelosi (Politico)
· December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts Conference for Women (MCFW)