H4a news Clips [May 1, 2015] Summary of Today’s news


Times Reporters Analyze Bernie Sanders’s Presidential Campaign Remarks [Amy Chozick, NYT, April 30, 2015]



Download 0.59 Mb.
Page6/11
Date19.10.2016
Size0.59 Mb.
#3936
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11
Times Reporters Analyze Bernie Sanders’s Presidential Campaign Remarks [Amy Chozick, NYT, April 30, 2015]
New York Times correspondents, Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman, analyzed Mr. Sanders’s remarks when announcing his run for President.
Announcing his candidacy for president on Thursday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont chose a grassy spot outside the Capitol to hold a 10-minute news conference about his priorities for the country and his challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination. Over instant messages at noon, two New York Times correspondents, Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman, analyzed Mr. Sanders’s remarks. Here, lightly edited, is their full chat.
Pat: Hi, Maggie! So two weeks ago, we had Hillary Rodham Clinton announcing her presidential candidacy in her snappy “everyday American” video, and now we have Senator Bernie Sanders announcing his candidacy in a swamp! (The U.S. Senate swamp, that is.)
And Bernie seems to be in a rush: Who starts off his campaign kickoff speech saying, “We don’t have an endless amount of time — we have to get back” to the Senate?
Maggie: Hi, Patrick! Back again!
So this is a very different type of setting than anything we’ve seen with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
This is an open-air press conference. Greenery in the background.
Maggie: “I voted against the war in Iraq.”
There it is.
Pat: Wow — Iraq is back!
Talk about reaching back in time for a club to whack Hillary with.
Sent at 12:14 PM on Thursday
Maggie: Well — that was brief!
This seemed like a lunchtime break in which declaring for president was an afterthought. It wasn’t even 15 minutes.
Pat: Very fast — and very loose. If Hillary Clinton is running a tightly scripted, highly disciplined campaign for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders is running without a filter. His first reference point in his remarks was “the Great Depression of the 1930s” — he just sort of spit out the comparison, which is more resonant for the 73-year-old Sanders and his generation than for many Americans.
But then things got sharper, as he zeroed in on income inequality. Is that what a Sanders-Clinton race will be about?
Maggie: Yes!
I noticed that too. Total clarity of message — not doing what the press wanted, which was sticking around endlessly and answering every question. So this is actually painting a different frame — he’s contrasting by showing he is going to do an actual press conference, but he is also letting his message stand.
I do wonder how Hillary is going to deal with the Iraq war on the debate stage. And that may be one of many reasons her folks have been mulling whether to agree to one.
Sent at 12:21 PM on Thursday
Pat: We’ll have to wait and see if Bernie continues to hit Hillary on Iraq. I couldn’t quite tell if he was drawing a contrast with Hillary or sending her team a message on Iraq — that he would actually be willing to hit her hard. Again, no-filter Bernie will be unpredictable.
Maggie: I wasn’t sure either. It almost seemed like a throwaway.
But to your other point, there was a very clear life contrast made there.
Pat: Very — he’s older! Score one for Hillary!
Kidding — your point is a good one. Several contrasts there.
The bulk of his remarks were on income inequality. He decried “longer hours for lower wages” and the rise in childhood poverty, and then hit this point: “The major issue is, how do we create an economy that works for all of our people, as opposed to a small number of billionaires?”
Continue reading the main story

Bernie returned to this by noting that billionaires don’t give to him — implicitly pointing out all those Wall Street friends of the Clintons.


And their foundation.
Maggie: Totally.
And also, I would argue that he had an important line: He described himself as a leader in the fight against the Iraq war.
I think that’s something people are going to use against her over and over.
Sent at 12:27 PM on Thursday
Pat: He also positioned himself as a leader on campaign finance reform. “We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates — let’s not kid ourselves,” he said. That point will resonate with Democratic (liberal) primary voters — but how strongly?
Maggie: Yes, that was notable. He is going to make campaign finance his strong calling card.
He also has a strong progressive following.
Pat: “I’m not going to get money from the Koch brothers, I’m not going to get my money from billionaires” — you said it, Bernie!
Maggie: And one thing that I think people are missing about him — his neighbor-state positioning with New Hampshire is going to give him a bit of a leg up.
Pat: Absolutely. It helped Mitt Romney and John Kerry, both from neighboring Massachusetts. But it didn’t help the last Vermont Democrat who ran for the presidency... remember him?
Maggie: Ha!
Speaking of that person [Howard Dean], he did endorse Clinton this time around... but I digress.
I think Sanders has been smart about tending to his New Hampshire politics.
I also think there’s a fundamental question right now for the Democratic Party, and it’s one that Clinton folks are going to have to grapple with: At a deeply polarized moment when independent voters are shrinking, which voters should these candidates be appealing to?
In other words, does it actually hurt Democrats to tack left?
Bernie Sanders is opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal — that deal has bipartisan opposition.
Pat: It’s easy to see Senator Sanders appealing to the left in natural ways, as Howard Dean and Barack Obama did in opposing the Iraq war.
And today, there is a great deal of progressive energy among Democratic primary voters who are looking for a leader. Many of them are glad Obama is president, but you can tell they are looking for a powerful and unfiltered voice on progressive issues.
Maggie: Absolutely.
I think the word “lead” was among the more significant of his.
Pat: I agree. He also used the M word toward the end — “movement.”
Progressives see so many causes to unite and march around. That energy is real.
Maggie: I think that’s exactly right.
There’s been a big question since 2013, when Bill Daley opted not to run for governor and Bill de Blasio won for mayor in N.Y.C., about whether there was a true progressive movement.
Or if these were isolated incidents.
And I think Bernie Sanders can really test that theory.
Sent at 12:39 PM on Thursday
Pat: He will certainly get a considerable amount of media attention for that theory, right? Because reporters are eager to cover a Democratic political contest/issue debate over the next year.
Continue reading the main story

Maggie: I think that’s right. And I think there’s a certain benefit toward being the first non-Clinton opponent to get in.


Especially for Sanders, who had been waffling in public remarks about whether he would do it.
Pat: Do you believe him when he said, at the end, “We’re in this race to win?”
Maggie: I do, actually!
I have yet to hear his folks articulate a clear path, but I think he has something to say and wants to go as far as he can.
Do you?
Pat: I do believe him. I think he sees a need for a historically consistent progressive voice in the 2016 race. He nodded to his own long history as a liberal and political outlier. I imagine he will run hard. Part of me wonders if Gov. Jerry Brown of California will look at Sanders and say, “If him, then why not me?”
Sent at 12:44 PM on Thursday
Maggie: YES.
I had the exact same thought. Who else is out there who is itching to get in?
Pat: Sherrod Brown of Ohio? Deval Patrick of Massachusetts? Time will tell.
Bernie Sanders Faces a Challenge with Iowa Independents, Clinton Campaign Says [Melinda Henneberger, Bloomberg, April 30, 3015]
The biggest challenge Vermont's independent senator will face in Iowa will be winning over those who also self-identify as distinct from the two major parties.
To hear Hillary Clinton's campaign tell it, Bernie Sanders will have his work cut out for him in Iowa.
Matt Paul, who is running Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the Hawkeye State, said Thursday that the biggest challenge Vermont's independent senator will face in Iowa will be winning over those who also self-identify as distinct from the two major parties.
"He has sort of staked out a very sort of key sector with Democrats,’’ Paul said over coffee. Paul grew up in Cedar Rapids, and his home state is almost equally divided between Republicans, Democrats and independents, with the state leaning slightly more Republican recently. “Remember, Iowa is a third, a third and a third,’’ he said, “so Senator Sanders' challenge will be getting independents to cross over."
“I don’t want to speak for Iowans, but what they’re focused on is who’s going to speak for them.”
Clinton Iowa campaign manager Matt Paul
“Martin O’Malley will do well here,'' he said of the former Maryland governor, who is also expected to run. Whether the competition will be good for Clinton, as many Democrats have argued, he wouldn’t say: “That’s for others to decide. We have to not take anything for granted.”
One of Clinton's biggest liabilities here, in Paul's view, is the shape Iowa’s Democratic Party is in. “You have a state with a Democratic Party that had a very tough 2014,’’ he said, losing Tom Harkin’s former U.S. Senate seat to Republican Joni Ernst.
The issues Clinton heard about most often from Iowans during her recent initial campaign trip here, he said, concerned student loan debt, recent cuts in mental health services in Iowa, and retirement security.
And did Iowans ask about any of the recent controversies over potential conflicts of interest and undisclosed foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation? Jiggling his leg under the table, Paul looks at me over the tops of his glasses and answers, “That is one question I did not hear once, and I was with her quite a bit. There are always going to be these Washington—this guy from Breitbart, agenda-driven” journalists, he said, referring to Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, who has worked for the conservative site Breitbart.com.
“I don’t want to speak for Iowans, but what they’re focused on is who’s going to speak for them.’’ What Hillary Clinton brings to that debate, he said, “will far outweigh the challenge of the day, or right-wing bloggers.”
He disputes reports that all or even most of those who met her on that first swing were pre-screened. But, he said, “It is important that we see folks who are going to caucus” on Feb. 1. "She wanted to sit around a table with them, like this,'' he said, and "she made it very clear she wanted time; she didn't want to be rushed," or have 15 people from Washington staffing her and standing around looking at their Blackberries.
Paul himself just moved back to Des Moines, where he owned a home until a year ago, from Washington, where he worked as communications director for Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack for the last four years. He was with Vilsack in Iowa for 12 years before that, so remembers how much Hillary Clinton helped him when he was 15 points down in his gubernatorial race in 1998.
He and other operatives here are still moving into their offices and are busy meeting with local officials—like that guy over there, he says, pointing at a young man at a table across the café who is having coffee with a leader of the Polk County Democrats.
When the candidate herself returns to the state—soon, he promises—the events she does are going to stay pretty small until at least early summer. "I know it will annoy reporters,’’ he said, “but we're here to talk to Iowans." Why would that annoy reporters? Because we’d prefer a big kick-off event, said Paul, who before he got into politics worked in broadcast journalism. Only 30 minutes after Clinton made a comment about wanting to get money out of politics, he complained, reporters were already pressing for specifics.
The caucuses are about relationships, he said, so from now until Feb. 1, he said, the Clinton team he's leading is going to be going "literally house to house" working on those.
The entourages of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, compared [Hunter Schwarz, WaPo, April 30, 2015]
The entourage trailing Bernie Sanders is noticeably smaller than that trailing Hillary Clinton.
The day he announced his candidacy for the president of the United States of America, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was spotted by Roll Call's Steven Dennis "walking around Washington with an entourage of 1," he tweeted.
It's noticeably smaller than the entourage trailing Hillary Clinton and her van in Iowa after she announced her candidacy.
Dems to Bernie: Fat chance [Jonathan Topaz and Ben Schreckinger, POLITICO, April 30, 2015]
While Democrats are generally excited about the entry of a new candidate into the primary, when asked if Sanders could actually win their state's caucus or primary, 93 percent of Democrats said no.
DEMS TO BERNIE: FAT CHANCE: We hate to spoil Bernie Sanders' presidential announcement day. But the POLITICO Caucus, our weekly bipartisan survey of the most important activists, operatives and elected officials in Iowa and New Hampshire, asked the insiders about the Vermont senator's prospects in 2016 and the results weren't very encouraging.
While Democrats are generally excited about the entry of a new candidate into the primary, when asked if Sanders could actually win their state's caucus or primary, 93 percent of Democrats said no. The numbers weren't much better for the general election: 88 percent of Democrats said Sanders could not carry their state against the Republican nominee.
Republicans were even more certain: 100 percent of Iowa and New Hampshire GOP insiders said the Vermont senator could not win their state in the general election. Full story to post tomorrow morning on POLITICO.
Bernie Sanders brings liberal zeal in challenge to Hillary Clinton [Jonathan Topaz, POLITICO, April 30, 2015]
For now, Bernie Sanders can command the liberal wing of the party and try to gain momentum to force Clinton onto his turf on three issues — income inequality, climate change and campaign finance reform.
After months of fretting about a Hillary Clinton coronation, progressives are hoping Bernie Sanders is threatening enough to the Democratic front-runner to force a real debate.

Sanders, the 73-year-old Vermont independent senator who on Thursday officially announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, is a long shot. But for now, he can command the liberal wing of the party and try to gain momentum to force Clinton onto his turf on three issues — income inequality, climate change and campaign finance reform.


“This country today, in my view, has more serious crises than anytime since the Great Depression,” Sanders said at an afternoon press conference outside the Senate. He railed against a billionaire class “literally able to buy elections and candidates,” while calling for a massive infrastructure plan, student debt relief and major action on climate change.

The announcement to the press outside the Capitol was signature Sanders. He kept the speech under five minutes, telling reporters he had to get back to the Senate. He spoke without prepared remarks or note cards, citing the income inequality statistics he trumpets in nearly every speech he gives — demonstrating his ability to hew closely to a message and his commitment to a campaign that offers far more specificity on the issues than of Clinton.


Sanders hedged twice when asked about the Democratic front-runner. After deflecting a question about the Clinton Foundation finances, he acknowledged that it’s a “fair question” to bring it up. While he declined to attack her, he noted his own role in leading efforts against the Iraq War — which Clinton voted for — the Keystone XL pipeline and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
Clinton on Thursday welcomed Sanders to the primary race, in a tweet. “I agree with Bernie. Focus must be on helping America’s middle class. GOP would hold them back,” she said.

Sanders tweeted back in a half-hour, thanking Clinton, and saying, “Looking forward to debating the big issues.”


Earlier on Thursday, Sanders reached out to supporters by email, calling for a “grassroots movement” to stand up to corporate interests and billionaires, hitting familiar targets of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which gave rise to super PACs. He also spoke about the need to address global warming, calling it “the central challenge of our time.”

Following Thursday’s low-key launch, he’ll be in New Hampshire on Saturday for two events — a Manchester house party and an address at the state AFL-CIO convention in North Conway. Sanders will hold a larger campaign kickoff in late May in Burlington, but will likely visit Iowa before then.


Between now and the Vermont launch, Sanders will focus on building his campaign team and raising money, and raising his profile by leading the fight against the TPP in the halls of Congress.
Tad Devine, a veteran Democratic operative and key player in Sanders’ 2016 decision-making, said Thursday that the senator isn’t anticipating having a super PAC and that he wouldn’t be running around the country trying to raise large sums of money.
Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, has repeatedly said he will “run to win” in an attempt to address doubts about the seriousness of his intentions. His decision to run as a Democrat was largely informed by his desire not to play a spoiler role. “The one thing he’s determined not to do is to be another Ralph Nader. And the only way to avoid doing that is to avoid being a third-party candidate from the left in the general election,” said Devine.

Sanders said in an interview that aired Thursday that Clinton can be beaten in the Democratic primary.


“I think we’re going to have a surprise for you,” Sanders told ABC’s Jon Karl on “Good Morning America.” “We’re going to win this thing.”
So far, Sanders has made few tangible moves that would signal a robust campaign. He has more than $4.6 million cash on hand in his Senate campaign committee, but he has not courted big donors and has alluded to small-dollar online contributions as his main form of fundraising. (Sanders often jokes that voters don’t need to worry about him accepting Wall Street and corporate donations because they would never give him any.)
To date, there have been no high-profile hires on his political team or in early states such as New Hampshire and Iowa. He trails Clinton by huge margins in early-state and national polls.
Still, Sanders is an experienced pol who has earned top Senate committee spots by aligning with the Democratic Party and is comfortable in retail political settings such as town-hall meetings. He recently told a group of Iowa activists that he plans to host more town halls and house meetings in Iowa than any other candidate in the field.
His speeches aren’t exactly soaring: they offer a gloomy vision of the country and feature little by way of the inspirational rhetoric that helped propel Barack Obama to the Democratic nomination in 2008; even so, he’s a fiery speaker who can rile up a crowd, as he did last weekend at the South Carolina Democratic convention.
He is attempting to established himself as a straight-talking alternative to Clinton, who is eyed warily by the liberal base for her Wall Street ties and more deliberate style. He pales in popularity next to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — the liberal champion and fundraiser extraordinaire whom many on the left would like to see run — but nearly all of the 20 early-state activists who spoke with POLITICO about his candidacy said they expected Sanders to put a jolt into a sleepy primary season and force the front-runner to sharpen her views.
“I feel that Sen. Sanders could bring a lot of excitement to the 2016 campaign. He has many good ideas and is recognized as a senator of the people,” said Cass County Democratic chairwoman Sherry Toelle, adding that she is happy to have a contested primary.
“I think there is a significant percent of the Democratic activist base that are very pleased to have him enter the race,” said Mo Baxley, former executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition. “Many want to see a primary for different reasons. Many prefer him to [Clinton] and believe he will move the debate and bring their issues to the forefront of the discussion.”
Iowa activists anticipate that Sanders will continue to focus his efforts in the more urban, progressive areas like Des Moines and Iowa City — one county chair said Sanders hadn’t yet visited the western, more conservative part of the state.
The senator has eschewed some of the more prominent, establishment Democratic operatives in Iowa and instead reached out to members of the liberal wing. Recently he held a conference call with progressive Waterloo City Councilman Pat Morrissey, Iowa AFL-CIO president Ken Sagar, Donna Red Wing, the leader of the state’s largest LGBT organization, as well as leaders from student organizations, LULAC and organized labor, to solicit advice about a strategy in the Hawkeye State.
Sanders aides think the senator will play well in New Hampshire, which borders Vermont, with the help of Mark Longabaugh, who ran former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley’s operation there in 2000. New Hampshire state Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, a Clinton supporter, said Sanders will likely find more success in the northern part of the state, in liberal havens such as Hanover and Lebanon.
Aside from his fundraising challenges, Sanders faces a steep uphill battle. While labor leaders are thrilled he’s in the race and view him as an ally — all five of Sanders’ top donors to his Senate committee since 2009 have been unions — one top labor strategist said Sanders doesn’t “have a shot” at winning union endorsements because of Clinton’s presence. “There’s got to be a little bit, show me you can raise money, show me you can have a campaign apparatus … before anybody would want to take that plunge,” the person said, adding that Sanders hasn’t cultivated the type of close relationships with unions as other senators such as Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
“Senator Sanders has a strong record of supporting working families in the Senate,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement to POLITICO, adding that “the field remains open.”
Several early-state activists noted that very few voters know who Sanders is — even those in neighboring New Hampshire, where the senator has helped campaign for politicians for decades. They also say he hasn’t done much to build a campaign infrastructure or reach out to top state Democratic leaders — a particularly important task for the longest-serving independent in congressional history.
And there’s still the nagging impression from some that Sanders isn’t a credible presidential candidate, at least not in the general election. People close to Clinton are much more likely to talk about former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley than Sanders when discussing the field — despite the fact that the Vermonter is polling ahead of the younger Democratic hopeful in most surveys.
“I don’t take his candidacy seriously. Face it, a socialist has no chance in a general election,” said Martin Peterson, an Iowa Democratic activist.
The campaign has not announced major staff decisions. Devine, who helped run the campaigns of John Kerry, Al Gore and Michael Dukakis, will likely play a central role. Earlier this month, Sanders and his wife spent a weekend in Vermont with Devine and Phil Fiermonte, the senator’s Vermont state director for more than a decade, to discuss a bid. People close to Sanders say Clinton comes up very little in private conversations about 2016, and Devine and Sanders have said repeatedly that he won’t run negative ads against Clinton.
Toward the end of his press conference, Sanders reflected on his unusual launch and his unlikely political career, which began when he ran for mayor of Burlington and received one percent of the vote. “You are looking at a guy undisputably who has the most unusual political history of anybody in the United States Congress,” he said.
Burlington mayor not backing Bernie Sanders [Annie Linskey, Boston Globe, April 30, 3015]
The former Burlington mayor is missing the support of one key local ally: The current Burlington mayor.
BURLINGTON, Vt. — US Senator Bernie Sanders jumped into the 2016 presidential race Thursday, but the former Burlington mayor is missing the support of one key local ally: The current Burlington mayor.
In a brief interview with the Globe, Mayor Miro Weinberger said Thursday afternoon he plans to back Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“Bernie was one of the most effective mayors that Burlington ever had,” Weinberger said. “I’m supporting Hillary because I think she’s the right person at the right time, and I think she’ll be a great president.”
Weinberger, the first Democrat elected mayor in the city for 31 years, declined to elaborate. Sanders has long been an Independent, but caucuses with Democrats in the Senate and is seeking the Democratic nomination for president.
It’s worth noting Clinton’s team has deep Vermont ties. Her campaign manger, Robby Mook, hails from the Green Mountain State and is a familiar face in Democratic politics. He worked on former Vermont governor Howard Dean’s bid for the presidency in 2004.
National Blogs
A New Leader of Clinton’s ‘Rapid Response’ Team [Jonathan Martin, NYT First Draft, May 1, 2015]
Christina Reynolds will lead Clinton’s “rapid response” operation.
In another sign that Mrs. Clinton is preparing for a deluge of attacks from both the left and the right as well as exacting news media scrutiny, her campaign has hired a veteran research and communications strategist.
Christina Reynolds will lead the “rapid response” operation — the team of aides in charge of dousing political fires — and serve as a communications adviser on broader matters of press strategy and planning, a campaign official said.
Ms. Reynolds held a similar post in Mr. Obama’s 2008 general election campaign, but she also has deep experience in Democratic presidential primaries, having overseen opposition research efforts in both of John Edwards‘s White House bids.
She worked in Mr. Obama’s White House during the first term, but she has more recently worked at the Glover Park Group, a public relations firm based in Washington. Ms. Reynolds, who is close to Mrs. Clinton’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, quietly helped with the campaign’s start and will return to New York to begin full-time this month.
On Baltimore, Hillary Clinton Is Half Right [Lawrence Downes, NYT Taking Note, April 30, 2015]
When Mrs. Clinton demanded “fresh thinking and bold action” to mend the justice system and repair shattered lives and communities of color, she was about half right .The country needs bold action, for sure. But fresh thinking? Not really.
Give Hillary Clinton credit for stepping up, in a speech at Columbia University on Wednesday, to the rioting in Baltimore and the confounding American problems of poverty and violence, racial injustice and criminal policing.
Give her credit for naming the black men whose violent deaths have underlain a national outpouring of frustration and rage: Walter Scott, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin and, now in Baltimore, Freddie Gray.
But let’s wait and see how she does, as the most prominent Democratic presidential candidate, in pushing these issues to the forefront of the campaign, and pushing the country closer to solutions.
When Mrs. Clinton demanded “fresh thinking and bold action” to mend the justice system and repair shattered lives and communities of color, she was about half right.
The country needs bold action, for sure. But fresh thinking? Not really.
That’s because while Mrs. Clinton spoke to these issues with bracing (for her) bluntness and energy on Wednesday, and seems to have evolved from the more conventionally tough-on-crime politician she was in the 1990s and in her 2008 presidential campaign, the solutions she was listing have been known for years. For decades.
Here is part of what she said. All of it is entirely correct. But none of it is new:
“We should work together to pursue alternative punishments for low-level offenders. They do have to be in some way registered in the criminal justice system, but we don’t want that to be a fast track to long-term criminal activity, we don’t want to create another ‘incarceration generation.’
“We also need probation and drug diversion programs to deal swiftly with violations, while allowing low-level offenders who stay clean and stay out of trouble to stay out of prison. I’ve seen the positive effects of specialized drug courts and juvenile programs work to the betterment of individuals and communities. And please, please, let us put mental health back at the top of our national agenda.”
It took decades, obviously, to create the “incarceration generation” Mrs. Clinton spoke so eloquently of ending. And innovations like drug courts and diversion programs have been around long enough to win the embrace of politicians of both parties, including Republicans like Senator Rand Paul (whom Mrs. Clinton singled out for praise) and former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.
As for raising the issues of racism and poverty, in neighborhoods starved of jobs and hope, don’t get us started.
What counts as fresh thinking in criminal justice is the promise (perhaps the overpromise) of technical fixes like body cameras, which theoretically will induce police officers who would otherwise brutalize people to watch themselves, lest they be watched. Making cops more cautious — and increasing accountability for rogues — is certainly a good thing. But it’s not a replacement for having better, smarter and more effective cops.
Nor does it have anything to do with prisons overstuffed with people who have mental illness and no place else to go, with minor offenders and other castoffs of the failed and unending war on drugs. It has nothing to do with failing schools and unaffordable rents.
“Let’s take on the broader inequities in our society,” Mrs. Clinton said. “You can’t separate out the unrest we see in the streets from the cycles of poverty and despair that hollow out those neighborhoods.”
“I’ll be talking about all of this in the months to come, offering new solutions to protect and strengthen our families and communities.”
Yes, good, she should do so. And when she proposes these solutions, let’s hope they are fresh and bold. But it’s past time for “national conversations.” Sympathy and speeches are not enough. Our elected officials at every level need to pass the right laws and spend enough money to truly address the underlying reality of endemic racism in our country 50 years after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
Hillary Clinton Vows to Address Problems She & Her Husband Helped Cause [Erin Gloria Ryan, Jezebel, April 30, 2015]
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton hopped aboard the anti-police state wave, announcing in a speech at Columbia University that police brutality and over-incarceration were cultural malignancies that Had To Stop.
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton hopped aboard the anti-police state wave, announcing in a speech at Columbia University that police brutality and over-incarceration were cultural malignancies that Had To Stop. The move, politically expedient given ongoing unrest in several cities over recent high-profile cases of deadly police brutality, is a little puzzling, considering that today’s problems are partially due to the sort of policy Clinton herself was championing in the 1990’s.
Clinton’s speech was resonant and powerful, if the only thing you know about Hillary Clinton is that she just drove across the country in a van to meet with “ordinary Iowans,” she doesn’t tip at Chipotle (nobody does!), or that one of her opponents, Rand Paul, has very similar views but cannot express anything without sounding like a fuckin’ dick. She condemned the militarization of police, excessive force by officers, legal exceptionalism when it comes to officers who break the law, and the jailing of nonviolent criminals. All of those are good things to condemn, because they are morally bad and inhumane and, to a lesser extent, pour billions of dollars into the pockets of the sort of person who owns prisons or companies that manufacture deadly weapons. We shouldn’t be giving those people money. They’ll just spend it on more evil.
Inspiring and zeitgeisty 2015 Hillary Clinton might be disturbed, then, by the following passage in a book called, It Takes A Village, written in 1996 by a woman named Hillary Clinton. In a paragraph dug up by journalist Zaid Jilani, 1996 Clinton hails the virtues of the “three strikes law” and a ballooning police force.
The Washington Post’s Philip Bump further points out that incarceration rates skyrocketed during the Bush, Clinton, and Dumber Younger Bush administrations.
We’ll note again that the increase in the prison population began prior to Bill Clinton. During the administration of George H. W. Bush, the number of prisoners sentenced to more than a year increased by 40 percent. Under Clinton — who served twice as long — it went up 46 percent. Under the first Bush, the black prison population grew 46.7 percent. Under Clinton, it grew over 50 percent.
Bump further notes that violent crime peaked shortly after Clinton took office and declined noticeably throughout the 90’s, while the prison population continued to grow.
It would be cynical to expect that humans are incapable of ideologically evolving, that viewpoints held at some arbitrary date should be gently ethered, pinned, and displayed above the mantle forever. Clinton’s certainly entitled to evolve; she’s been in the public eye for so long that she’s bound to abandon antique views in favor of better, shinier ones. But Clinton’s evolution has often seemed (and pardon the Clinton cliché here) calculated and self-enriching, and it’s hard to hear her saying the words she said yesterday without recalling other times the former Secretary of State has changed her mind when it no longer benefits her.
In Ryan Lizza’s should-read New Yorker story on Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s role in the 2016 Presidential campaign, Lizza notes that a similar evolution occurred in the late 1990’s, when Warren (then a law professor) spent years rallying liberals to oppose a bill that would reform bankruptcy in a way she saw as unfairly favorable to credit card companies. It nearly became law toward the tail end of Clinton’s second term. And then:
Warren targeted the one person in the White House who she believed could stop the legislation: the First Lady. They met alone for half an hour, and, according to Warren, Hillary stood up and declared, “Well, I’m convinced. It is our job to stop that awful bill. You help me and I’ll help you.” In the Administration’s closing weeks, Hillary persuaded Bill Clinton not to sign the legislation, effectively vetoing it.
But just a few months later, in 2001, Hillary was a senator from New York, the home of the financial industry, and she voted in favor of a version of the same bill. It passed, and George W. Bush signed it into law, ending Warren’s ten-year war with a crushing defeat.
Fifteen years later, Clinton’s back to decrying the fact that “the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.”
Lizza asked Warren if she thought Clinton’s recent Woman of the People turn was simply the former Secretary of State horning in on well-trod Warren territory in order to win progressive support heading into the primaries. Warren replied: “Eh.”
Eh, indeed.
Hillary Clinton isn’t stuck with Bill’s policies [Jennifer Rubin, WaPo Right Turn, April 30, 2015]
Clinton shouldn’t feel stuck to the policies of her husband.
The Post reports: “Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t just running against Republicans. She’s also running against parts of her husband’s legacy. On issues large and small, the Democratic presidential contender is increasingly distancing herself from — or even opposing — key policies pushed by Bill Clinton while he was in the White House, from her recent skepticism on free-trade pacts to her full embrace of gay rights.” Of Clinton’s many political sins, I don’t find this inherently problematic and Republicans should be cautious about mocking this, especially when it comes to crime. (“The starkest example yet came Wednesday, when Hillary Clinton delivered an impassioned address condemning the ‘era of incarceration’ ushered in during the 1990s in the wake of her husband’s 1994 crime bill — though she never mentioned him or the legislation by name.”)
To begin with, Republicans were with Clinton in the 1990s on crime. Twenty years later, there are legitimate questions as to whether reforms went too far, what the consequences are and what changes, if any, need to be made. The policies were very successful in tandem with innovations in policing to reduce crime. So nothing wrong with supporting tough crime measures then, and tweaking them now. Many Republicans are doing exactly the same thing.
Moreover, there is no requirement that Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, for that matter, adhere to their relatives’ positions. Isn’t that the point — that candidates need to define themselves?
What Republicans should care about — and watch with increasing interest now that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is in the race — is to note how far left the Democratic Party has shifted. The media like to mock Republicans for becoming more ideological and less pragmatic, but the exact same trend has happened on the left. Consider how relatively robust was Clinton’s foreign policy compared with President Obama’s or how violent is the reaction against free trade on the left.
Republicans should keep in mind several factors. First, if the Democrats go far left, the middle remains vacant. It would be a mistake to choose someone equally extreme on the right, one devoted to ideology at the expense of reality. If ever Republicans needed to cement their place as the center-right party, it is now. Second, Republicans should test to see just how far left she will need to go to make Sanders and other opponents non-factors, and more important, to energize her own base. Is she going to run for “a third Obama term, but worse”? Single payer, cap and trade, repeal of the Hyde Amendment (i.e. taxpayer funding for abortion for any reason at any time), appeasement of Iran — where will it stop? To the extent Clinton emphasizes entrenchment and even expansion of the welfare state, Republicans have an opening to challenge her on the cost, efficacy and intrusiveness of her behemoth welfare state. And finally, Republicans should not step on their own message that she is a candidate of the past. If she is now departing from the past, how can Republicans criticize her for keeping up with the times?
The biggest concern for Republicans should not be to pummel Clinton — they are doing a fine job along with the media in damaging her credibility. The much more important task is for candidates to provide themselves as the opposite of Hillary Clinton — honest, contemporary, realistic and competent. Once they accomplish that, the comparison will follow and they hope the choice will be clear and stark. For governors, that means reminding voters what they have done and the degree to which they led in bipartisan fashion in states not necessarily friendly to Republicans. For senators, that means trying to come up with some leadership and executive bona fides. They need to stop acting like senators (actually reverting to behavior of minority senators who are out to make points, not accomplish much) and start presenting an agenda. And for non-politicians like Carly Fiorina, it means showing her superior analytical and problem-solving skills.
Will Hillary Clinton's Mass Incarceration Speech Solve Some of Her Campaign's Problems? [Benjamin Wallace-Wells, NY Magazine Daily Intelligencer, April 30, 2015]
Clinton’s criminal justice speech could help her address some of her campaign’s challenges.
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton gave a well-timed keynote address at David Dinkins's forum at Columbia University calling for police body cameras and an end to the era of mass incarceration. "What we've seen in Baltimore should, indeed I think does, tear at our soul," Clinton said. It was, you know, a fine speech, definitely not the most stirring one you'll hear on the topic, but the stories of police killings contain such naked injustice and human suffering and pain, that Clinton, in retelling them, had a certain winning exasperation.
But it may have been the start of something, too. For policy reasons and moral reasons, but also for pure reptilian political ones, this is a really interesting issue for Clinton to take on, one that might help her solve some of the trickiest challenges of her presidential campaign:
First, elevating criminal-justice reform allows Clinton to move left in a way that is timely, on an issue on which she isn't likely to be outflanked by Elizabeth Warren and her supporters. On economic history, Clinton's beliefs, advisors, and record simply aren't left-wing; the party's moved to the left during her public life, and she's been caught behind it. But criminal-justice reform hasn't been one of Warren's major issues, and, more important, Clinton is more or less in line with what the left wants from a president on criminal-justice issues: Many fewer people in prison, an acknowledgement that our criminal justice is very badly biased against poor people and racial minorities and an aggressive effort by the White House to fix those injustices, and a symbolic end to the era of the war on drugs and mass incarceration. After her speech this week, it's hard to see how Clinton would disagree with any of that.
Second, although Clinton's coalition will not look exactly like Obama's coalition, she'd obviously prefer to keep African-American turnout rates closer to what they were in 2008 and 2016 than what they were in 2004. Talking about the problems of mass incarceration doesn't guarantee you more black votes, as Rand Paul's advisors can surely attest. But in Clinton's case it may be a good chance to explain to black voters that she is — in some very basic way — on their side. I wouldn't be surprised to see some very direct praise for Eric Holder soon. I would be surprised if, should she be elected, Clinton does not appoint an African-American as attorney general. Parenthetically, I'd be fascinated to know if she'd consider returning the president's gesture from 2008 and asking Obama himself to be her AG.
Third, as my colleague Jaime Fuller smartly pointed out yesterday, the issue gives Clinton a chance to explain the ways in which she is different from her husband. Yesterday the Republican consultant Stuart Stevens, who ran both John McCain and Mitt Romney's campaigns, tweeted: "As @HillaryClinton speaks on race & justice, would be interesting to ask if she believes [Bill] Clinton's execution of Ricky Ray Rector was just." Stevens is right — that would be interesting! (Over to you, Amy Chozick.) But I'm not sure Clinton should fear it. With appalling revelations about the Clinton Foundation continuing to break, it seems wise for Clinton to explain in a little more detail not simply that she isn't the same person as her husband but some of the tangible ways in which they are different. Here's a chance.
Fourth, polarization (as my colleague Jonathan Chait has convincingly argued) probably limits the likelihood that moderate voters will turn against Clinton simply because of the dynastic factor: That she was a senior advisor to the last president and the wife of the third-to-last president, and it might be time to give someone else a chance. Nevertheless, she's got to explain why some of the country's most important problems are so intractable that they need a continued, generational effort to fix. Her best case for herself may be arguing that the long post-'60s project of making the country more liberal and more decent and more prosperous is nearly, but not quite, complete. (My suggestion for a Clinton bumper sticker would be: "Finish what your mother started.") Here is an obvious, remaining injustice.
Fifth, and most important, she's just right. There are terrible imbalances in criminal justice; in many ways they are, or are related to, the biggest social problems in the country. And the way we prosecute crimes is for obvious reasons much easier for the state to change than, for instance, the balance of income distribution.
There's one other point to make, a little more cultural. Cities are now objects of aspiration for most Americans, not sources of fear. They are the places where rich, educated people get to live. Urban policy, at some gut rhetorical level, no longer needs to be about containing a place that we have fled but improving a place where we want our kids to live. It has been one of the signal demographic changes in the two decades since Clinton's husband was elected president. Politicians have not quite figured out how to talk about this in a way that seems resonant, or deep, or transformative, that elevates urban policy to the center of the American project. But soon some politician will. Maybe Bill de Blasio, maybe Julian Castro, maybe Kshwama Savant or Betsy Hodges. Maybe even Clinton herself.
We Are Capable of More [Gov. Martin O'Malley, Huffington Post, April 30, 2015]
Gov. O'Malley argues that, "the hard, truthful reality is this: growing numbers of our fellow citizens in American cities across the United States feel unheard, unseen, unrecognized -- their very lives un-needed, but we are still capable of acting like the compassionate, and generous, and caring people our grandparents expected us to become and that our children need for us to be."
All of us who love Baltimore have experienced a week of profound sadness and tears.
The images of these last days are now seared into our collective memory as a people -- a new senior citizen center engulfed in flames, a new drugstore burning. Small neighborhood grocery stores looted and burning. Police cars and neighbors' cars vandalized and burning.
Perhaps many of us, for the first time, felt a sense of the constant state of vulnerability that so many of our black neighbors must feel every day, and feel especially for their sons growing up in the United States of America today.
The burning anger in the heart of our city -- broadcast around the world -- reminded all of us of a hard truth. It is a truth we must face as a nation. Because it is a truth that threatens our children's future. It is the reality that eats away at the heart of America and the very survival of the American Dream we share.
The hard, truthful reality is this: growing numbers of our fellow citizens in American cities across the United States feel unheard, unseen, unrecognized -- their very lives un-needed.
This is not just about policing in America. This is about everything it is supposed to mean to be an American.
As Dr. Martin Luther King once said, "a riot is the language of the unheard." And, this week the people of our city and our entire country were forced to listen.
Listen to the anger of young American men who are growing into adulthood with grim prospects of survival and even lesser prospects of success.
Listen to the fears of young men with little hope of a finding a summer job, let alone, a job that might one day support a family.
Listen to the silent scream within the vacant hearts of young American boys who feel that America has forgotten them, that America doesn't care about them, that America wishes not to look at them, that America wishes they would go away or be locked away.
Surely this cannot be the enduring legacy of the birthplace of the Star Spangled Banner.
Surely this is not what has become of the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Surely we are capable of more as a nation.
Justice must be done in investigating the tragic death of Mr. Freddie Gray. His family deserves our deepest sympathy and respect for their loss, and our admiration for their courage in calling us, as a city, to act as our better selves. Our mayor, our police chief, and our states' attorney -- all of whom happen to be black -- are committed to the open and transparent pursuit of justice.
Mr. Gray's case was not the first police-involved death in our city, or our country. Sadly, we know his will not be the last. Every loss of life demands that we seek answers, justice, and a better understanding for the future.
We must continue to work constantly to improve policing and the way we police our police. Public trust is essential to public safety. Public trust is essential for officer safety. Enlightened police chiefs across our country understand this.
Let's talk about policing and public safety. Let's debate what works and what does not. We must abandon practices that do not work, and do more of the things that actually do work to save lives.
Let's expand drug treatment and find smarter ways to protect society from repeat violent offenders while incarcerating fewer of our citizens.
Let's do more of the things like body cameras, and the timely and standard reporting of police-involved shootings, excessive force, and discourtesy complaints so that we can improve public trust for public safety.
But make no mistake about it, the anger that we have seen in Ferguson, in Cleveland, in Staten Island, in North Charleston, and in the flames of Baltimore is not just about policing.
It is about the legacy of race that would have us devalue black lives -- whether their death is caused by a police officer or at the hand of another young black man.
It is about declining wages and the lack of opportunity in our country today.
It is about the brutality of an economic system that devalues human labor, human potential, and human lives.
It is about the lie that we make of the American Dream when we put the needs of the most powerful wealthy few ahead of the well-being of our nation's many.
Extreme poverty is extremely dangerous.
This is not just about policing. Not just about race.
It is about the country we are allowing ourselves to become and the affront it is to the country we are meant to be.
Our belief as a nation commits us to "liberty and justice for all." Now is the time -- for the sake of all of our children -- to reform our ways and start living up to that creed again.
This is not too much to expect of one another. This is not much to ask of one another. We are Americans and we are still capable of re-making our future. And this generation of Americans still has time to be called great.
But only our actions can save us.
Only our actions going forward can heal the wounded-ness we all must now feel.
We must believe in one another again.
If we believe together, we have the ability to listen to one another, and to hear each other, and to better understand one another and the powerful truths that unite us.
We are still capable of acting like the compassionate, and generous, and caring people our grandparents expected us to become and that our children need for us to be.
For, surely, there is no such thing as a spare American.
Sanders Will Keep Independent Status in Democratic Primary [Alan Rappeport, NYT First Draft, May 1, 2015]
Sanders will maintain his independent status in the Democracy primary.
It was the final question asked to Mr. Sanders at his news conference on Thursday declaring that he would seek the Democratic presidential nomination.
Is the man who boasts of being the longest-serving independent in congressional history now a Democrat?
The answer, somewhat curiously, was no.
That Mr. Sanders will continue as an independent raised some questions among ballot access experts and delegate selection gurus who struggled to think of other examples of independent candidates seeking the nomination of a major political party.
Ready for such concerns, the Democratic National Committee said that Mr. Sanders met the party’s criteria.
“Given his long record as a champion for creating jobs, fighting for hard-working, middle-class families, and living up to the Democratic goals of equality and opportunity, and given the fact that he caucuses with Senate Democrats in good faith, Senator Sanders clearly meets those requirements,” said Miryam Lipper, a Democratic National Committee spokeswoman.
Michael Briggs, a spokesman for Mr. Sanders, said that Vermont has no party registration, so the senator could not officially join the Democrats even if he wanted to.
Not Weakened With Bernie [John Dickerson, Slate, April 30, 2015]
Bernie Sanders running for president helps Hillary Clinton because he will be a foil.
When candidates are confronted by ideological opposition from within their own party, they face two options: They can fight it or embrace it. In 1952 Dwight Eisenhower and Robert Taft fought. In 1980 Jimmy Carter and Edward Kennedy fought. In 2014 Republican incumbents fearful of Tea Party challengers co-opted the grassroots movement’s message and with a suffocating embrace drained their opponents of a rallying cry.
In the first act of the Hillary Clinton v. Bernie Sanders competition, the candidates are following the latter route: It’s all snuggle. Sen. Sanders announced that he was running for president Thursday and trained his fire on Republicans. He needs attention and he could have gotten it by showing the clear differences between his views and Clinton’s—but he didn’t. He says he will fight for the middle class (which is also Clinton’s message), but he didn’t give voice to the liberals who believe that Clinton’s ties to Wall Street and big money will prevent her from ever genuinely fighting for the middle class. (He knows they believe this because voters tell him so on the stump.) She calls herself the “people’s champion.” Sanders could have pointed out that he has been the real tribune of working people, but he didn’t do that either. When pressed about donations to the Clinton foundation, Sanders said it concerned him before quickly changing the subject to the Koch brothers and how much worse their influence is in politics. That is what Clinton allies do.
If this continues to be the Vermont senator’s approach, Sanders will be more of a help to Clinton’s presidential chances than he will be to his own.
The first bonus that Sanders provides for Clinton, say her supporters, is that he becomes a foil. One of Clinton’s Democratic allies in Congress explained that with a country that prefers general election candidates closer to the middle, Sanders will always offer proof that Clinton is not really that far left. He does for Clinton what Howard Dean did for John Kerry in 2004.
Sanders does for Clinton what Howard Dean did for John Kerry in 2004.
Clinton can have it both ways though. If Sanders doesn’t press the case against Clinton, she can pick and choose which of his policies she can associate herself with in order to maintain support within her own party among liberals (who already overwhelmingly approve of her candidacy). So when Sanders announced his campaign, Clinton just hugged him, writing on Twitter: “I agree with Bernie. Focus must be on helping America’s middle class. GOP would hold them back. I welcome him to the race. –H.”
Clinton is able to so easily pick and choose that no one noticed that in her pitch as the “people’s champion” she is copying almost word for word language that Sanders used before her in his speeches.
Here’s a riff that Sanders has been using for months: “It is disgraceful that millionaire hedge fund managers are able to pay lower effective tax rates than truck drivers or nurses because they take advantage of a variety of loopholes that their lobbyists wrote.”
And here is what Clinton said in her opening remarks at her first campaign event in Iowa: “And there’s something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers that I saw on I-80 as I was driving here over the last two days.”
In 2012 Rep. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney had a symbiotic relationship in the Republican campaign. Paul elevated his own profile and gave his voters an outlet, but he never pointed out the yawning gaps between what he claimed to believe so deeply and the positions of the man who was on his way to being the party’s inevitable nominee. It’s way too early to see if Sanders will play the same role for Clinton, but it has started out that way.
Sanders is such a long shot that those who share his views might be OK with the consolation prize of imitation from Clinton. But if her move to the left is simply rhetorical, she can shed that rhetoric in the general election as candidates often do. This would be another reason for Sanders to press his case with more definition.
Sanders says he’s never run a negative ad and he has asked the campaign press not to cover gossip. Good and good. A campaign of ideas it shall be then. If that’s what he actually wants though, his competition isn’t the Republican Party. At least not yet. His competition is Hillary Clinton.
Right now the party whose nomination he wants thinks she is the safe, electable, competent candidate who believes a more reasonable version of some of the same things he does. It’s a very comfortable arrangement.


Download 0.59 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
full range
south side
presidential election
special committee
actual impact
former secretary