JESSE VENTURA - THE US have started WORLD WAR 3
WW3 - Hillary Clinton Will Lead Us To World War 3 - Paul Craig Roberts Build up to WW3 - The Real Story Behind Oil Prices - Paul Craig Roberts Jesse Ventura America #39;s New War in the Middle...
By: collapse economy
See more here:
JESSE VENTURA - THE US have started WORLD WAR 3 - Video
John Podesta is ready for Hillary
John King, Julie Pace and Jonathan Martin discuss the latest person to join the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and what it means for her potential 2016 run.
By: CNN
Read more here:
John Podesta is ready for Hillary - Video
Hillary Rodham Clinton is building out the senior leadership team for her likely 2016 presidential campaign, enlisting Joel Benenson as her chief strategist and pollster and Jim Margolis as her media adviser, Democrats familiar with the moves said Tuesday.
Both Benenson and Margolis are veteran Democratic operatives who worked on President Obamas 2008 and 2012 campaigns.
On the likely Clinton campaign, they would work closely with two other aides that have been previously reported: John Podesta, who is expected to leave his White House post as counselor to Obama in February to serve as Clintons campaign chairman and enforcer, and Robby Mook, who would become campaign manager, these Democrats said.
Benenson, who is based in New York, served as the lead pollster on Obamas campaigns, but is poised to take on a broader portfolio for Clinton as her chief strategist, the role David Axelrod played for Obama.Politico reported last week that Benenson was advising Clinton as she makes a final decision about a presidential run.
His role in helping her to think this through is to provide both his specific expertise and counsel, said one person familiar with the effort.
People familiar with the Clinton operation said polling responsibilities would be divided among Benensons firm and other Democratic pollsters, including two others that worked on Obamas campaign: John Anzalone and David Binder.
Benenson helped guide then-candidate Barack Obamas primary campaign against Clinton in 2008 as well as the general election he won that year. Benenson also worked for Obama during his 2012 reelection. He previously worked for former president Bill Clinton.
His biography on his firms web site lists him as the only Democratic pollster in history to have played a leading role in three winning presidential campaigns.
Margolis is a longtime political adviser to Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and has worked on the campaigns of many Senate Democrats. His firm, GMMB, is a prominent Democratic media firm and one of the few with a production, creative and media-buying staff large enough to handle a campaign on the scale of the one Clinton is likely to build.
In 2008, Clinton relied on Mark Penn - a pollster and former adviser to husband Bill Clinton - as her chief strategist. Penn was widely blamed for being an architect of her failed strategy in that years Democratic primaries and many Clinton allies have encouraged her to turn elsewhere for counsel this time around.
Read the original here:
Hillary Clinton recruits chief strategist, media adviser ...
Story highlights A new Pacific Rim pact is giving liberal critics of 1990s free trade deals a new reason to target Hillary Clinton The debate could hamper Clinton with the Democratic base if she launches a 2016 presidential bid
Labor unions and liberal activists are preparing to highlight free trade an issue central to Bill and Hillary Clinton's political brand in the early 1990s if she opts to run for president in 2016.
Driving their anger: The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive new pact that that would usurp the Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement's place as the biggest-ever free trade agreement. President Barack Obama's administration has been negotiating the Chile-to-Japan deal for years, and it's increasingly drawing scrutiny from the Democratic base as the talks near completion.
The new deal has reminded labor halls across the country of the old one and that it was their biggest problem with the Clintons.
Compounding the problem is that free trade, particularly NAFTA, is an issue that Clinton has vacillated on since her husband's administration.
As first lady, Clinton backed NAFTA and spoke highly of it at stops for the administration. But once she was elected to the Senate and later ran for president, her support of free trade -- and her husband's landmark agreement -- began to wane. On the campaign trail, Clinton acknowledged that NAFTA has "hurt a lot of American workers" and advocated for broad reform of trade policy. President Barack Obama's campaign even used the flip-flop against Clinton during the 2008 primary.
But after Clinton lost the nomination and agreed to serve as the President's Secretary of State, she began to warm up to free trade, and particularly the TPP.
Hillary Clinton's stance on President Barack Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership will be closely watched if she runs for the White House in 2016.
In her memoir, which Clinton's spokesman said was her most updated statement on the TPP, Clinton wrote, "It's safe to say that the TPP won't be perfect. No deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be - but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers."
That history worries some labor leaders who are prepared to hold Clinton to a standard that includes her support of free trade agreements.
The rest is here:
Can Hillary Clinton step out of Bill's NAFTA shadow?
After I wrote this piece arguing that it made little sense for Mitt Romney to run for president a third time in 2016, I got lots and lots of tweets like this one:
Clinton has, after all, been around national politics longer than Romney. And she is just as much a throwback as he would be if he ran again. I get it. I just don't agree with it. (Cue: Well, that's because you are a Democrat and rooting for her to win. Um, no.) Here's why a second Clinton bid in 2016 makes more sense than a third Romney bid would.
1. It would be her second, not third, run for president. The more apt comparison for Clinton 2016 is Romney 2012. In both cases, they were seen as the runner-up to the eventual nominee in their party's most recent competitive primary. And there's a clear logic in coming in second and then running again to try and come in first. It's the logic that installed Romney as the favorite in 2012, a position he never relinquished. Making a return bid also allows a candidate Clinton in this case to make the "I did it once and learned what to do and what not to do" argument. Running for a third time in three straight elections, having lost twice before, makes it a lot harder to make that argument.
2. She's spent sixyears doing other things. Clinton went from her 2008 loss to serving for four years as the country's leading diplomat. That allows her to present herself as something different and new-ish to voters. She can draw rhetorically and from a policy perspective on what she's done since the last time she ran for president; "Representing the U.S. on the world stage, I learned that ... " is a sentence you can see Clinton using and using effectively as she re-pitches herself to voters. Romney, on the other hand, is just over two years removed from losing in 2012, and hasn't taken a job (or a position on a major issue) that would allow him to make the I'm-something-new-and-different argument easily. He's essentially the same person he was when he lost in 2012; his argument is, in a nutshell: "I came close last time and I was right about lots of things." Sure. But, neither of those things re-invent him in any way and his loss in 2012 suggests that some level of reinvention would be necessary if he wants to run and win in 2016.
3. She has no primary challenge. Clinton is running (or will be running) in as close to an empty primary field as any non-incumbent president could hope for in 2016. She is the de facto nominee before she has even said the words "I'm running." Romney, on the other hand, would face a crowded and talented field that is inarguably deeper and better than the one he bested in 2012. If Romney had a path even close to as (seemingly) easy as Clinton's, his third-time candidacy would make a whole lot more sense.
That word "sense" is the one that I and the Republicans I talk to not directly linked to Romney keep coming back to when talking about his potential 2016 candidacy. Typically in winning campaigns presidential or otherwise there's a logic behind the bid that not only makes sense to the candidate and his or inner circle but also to voters. Whether that's a rerun after coming in second (the preferred route to the nomination of most recent Republican nominees) or the need to have a complete break from the "old" ways of doing things in politics (Barack Obama's "hope" and "change" in 2008), there'susuallya sound logic to the candidacy.
Campaigns without an obvious logic to them Ted Kennedy's primary challenge to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 being the shining example tend not to work out so well. And the logic of Clinton's 2016 candidacy seems to be there. For Romney, not so much.
Chris Cillizza writes The Fix, a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.
Originally posted here:
The Fix: No, Hillary Clinton Mitt Romney when it comes to 2016