April 17, 2015 Volume 7 • Number 16 We ekly - usnews.com · She’s on the cusp of shattering the ultimate glass ceiling, but still feels like a throwback ... QUIZ OF THE WEEK 11

1 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | APRIL 17, 2015 NEXT PAGE »PRINT

eklyWeApril 17, 2015 Volume 7 • Number 16

ETHAN MILLER – GETTY IMAGES; RICHARD DREW – AP; RICHARD ELLIS – GETTY IMAGES

This Week in Washington WASHINGTON WHISPERS 2Jeb Bush’s biggest liability?; Bill Clinton’s new job; Obamacare breaking records

THE SENATE PROVING GROUND 4Running for president as a sitting senator used to be a recipe for losing, but times are changing

MAKING A NAME FOR HIMSELF 6Sen. Tom Cotton is building a reputation both at home and abroad with his bold moves

THE HILLARY CLINTON PARADOX 8She’s on the cusp of shattering the ultimate glass ceiling, but still feels like a throwback

SPECIAL REPORT | THE NEW INCUBATORS FOR INNOVATION 12Do you have a great startup idea? Business schools want to make it happen

Commentary and Features THE PRESIDENCY | KENNETH T. WALSH 10Hillary Clinton is showcasing her softer side in her newly announced run for president

QUIZ OF THE WEEK 11Presidential hits and misses

TWO TAKES 15Is the recently announced Iran nuclear deal a good one?

COMMENTARY | FREDERICK M. HESS 17In the education wars, teachers and reformers both have a solid case

BLOG BUZZ 19Ready for baggage; a kinder, gentler Hillary Clinton; she can’t hide from her record; Marco Rubio recycles the neocons

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 20

MORTIMER B. ZUCKERMAN | EDITORIAL 21Obama’s unforgivable betrayal of Israel

THE BIG PICTURE 24

Rand Paul Marco Rubio

Ted Cruz

RUNNING FROM THE SENATE

2 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | APRIL 17, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT

WashingtonWhispers By Kenneth T. Walsh

Former President George W. Bush admits he is a big

liability for his brother Jeb’s emerging campaign

for the White House in 2016.

George phrases it simply, flatly conceding that

one of Jeb’s problems is “me.”

“It’s an easy line to say, ‘Haven’t we had enough

Bushes?’” George told a group of health care technology

specialists in Chicago. “After all, even my mother said,

‘Yes.’ That’s why you won’t see me out there, and he

doesn’t need to defend me, and he’s totally different

from me. The role of family is not to be a political adviser

or a policy adviser – there are plenty of those around –

the role is to say, ‘Hey man, I love you.’...” So I said to

Jeb, ‘Hang in there; you can do the job. Will you win? I

hope so but I don’t know.’ But if he does he’d be a damn

good president, I’ll tell you that.”

Bush added: “It’s going to be a hard test for everyone,

but it should be. You want to see these candidates under

pressure, see them fail and succeed so you have a better

idea how they’ll handle the pressures of the job. Jeb has

actually run something, called a state. That’s a skill that

comes in handy where you’re in charge of a very complex

multifaceted organization.”

These were some of George W. Bush’s most extensive

public comments yet on how much of a liability he is

for his brother, and how he doesn’t plan to play much

Jeb’s Biggest Liability? DAN WASSERMAN – TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY

Wallet Hub looked at 22 metrics to compare the quality and efficiency of government services in each state to determine the best states for taxpayer return on investment:

1. Alaska

2. Wyoming

3. Montana

4. Delaware

5. Idaho

6. Colorado

7. Utah

8. New Hampshire

9. South Dakota

10. Nevada

The List: Best States for Taxpayer Return on Investment

Keep up with thelatest Washington

buzz at www.usnews.com/whispers

http://www.usnews.com/whispers


WASHINGTON WHISPERS

of a role in the 2016 campaign. George

remains an unpopular figure, partly

because he launched unpopular wars

in Afghanistan and Iraq, and partly

because the economy nearly collapsed

on his watch.

His reference to his mother Barbara

goes back to comments she made in

2013 that “we’ve had enough Bushes”

in the White House. She also expressed

the hope that her son Jeb would not

run for president even though he was

“by far the best-qualified man.” Barbara

Bush has recently said she changed her

mind and wants Jeb to run for and win

the presidency.

George added: “The president

needs people around him who are

there to say they want to help. Imagine

if instead Laura [his wife] had been

saying to me, ‘What the hell did you

get us into this for?’ You’re living

in a museum. It’s cold. It’s not your

furniture. It’s [Thomas] Jefferson’s

furniture.”

Dubya’s comments Wednesday,

which were first reported by Politico,

also provided an insight into his

immediate family’s doubts about his

2000 presidential campaign. “My two

girls had no desire to see me run for

office,” he said. “Their response was,

‘You’re not as good as you think you

are; you’re going to lose.’ And when

that didn’t work, ‘You’re going to

ruin our life.’” Jeb Bush is expected

to formally announce his presidential

candidacy later this year.

Bill Clinton’s New JobWhat about Bill? It’s a common ques-

tion being asked in political circles be-

cause, if Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the

White House next year, her husband

Bill would be at her side. He would be

the first male and the first ex-president

to be a presidential spouse, and this

could have a major impact on a Clinton

Restoration.

No one knows exactly how this

dynamic would work. It’s not even

clear what title Bill Clinton would have.

One possibility is “first gentleman,”

following the pattern of “first lady.”

Another is “Mr. President,” the title

that former chief executives retain

when they leave office. “Saturday Night

Live” has offered another possibility

that reflects the casual and fun-loving

part of Bill’s nature. In a skit last

weekend, comedian Darrell Hammond,

impersonating Bill, said, “Hillary would

make a great president. And I would

make an even greater ‘first dude.’”

Bill addressed the issue jokingly in a

2007 interview with Oprah Winfrey. “My

Scottish friends say I should be called

‘first laddie,’ because it’s the closest

thing to ‘first lady,’” he said. “I’m not so

worried about what I’m called as what

I’m called upon to do.”

If his wife wins, Clinton would

surely serve as informal adviser to her,

as she was to him during his eight-

year presidency. He might become a

special U.S. envoy sent on peacemaking

or trouble-shooting missions around

the world. He also is likely to be active

in philanthropy through his family’s

private foundation.

But in the short term, by all

indications, he will keep his visibility

low as his wife ramps up her 2016

campaign. People who know the couple

say the former president will be careful

to stay out of the spotlight, at least

during the initial phase of her bid, to

make it clear that Hillary is calling the

shots. He will, however, offer lots of

advice, and he remains an excellent

political strategist and student of

popular culture.

Record-Breaking CareShortly after the administration cel-

ebrated the Affordable Care Act’s fifth

birthday, it is still breaking records.

Americans’ spending on medicine last

year increased at its highest rate in 13

years, though Obamacare accounted for

only a small portion of overall spending

growth, according to a report released

this week by the IMS Institute for

Healthcare Informatics.

And new numbers from Gallup show

the law’s larger impact: The uninsured

rate is the lowest since Gallup began

tracking it in 2008, having dropped

another percentage point between the

fourth quarter of 2014 and the first

quarter of 2015. l

With Lindsey Cook

MOUTHING OFF

Will any Democrats run against Hillary

Clinton for the party’s 2016 presidential

nomination?Everyone has an opinion. Send yours to

[email protected].

mailto:[email protected]


This Week In WashingtonF

or nearly a half century in American politics, it

was the kiss of death. Being a sitting U.S. senator

should, on paper, give a presidential hopeful the

perfect perch from which to launch a campaign.

There’s the platform for big ideas, the opportunity to

show leadership on an issue or one’s ability to negotiate

deals. And there’s the free media coverage that comes

with having a very public job in the public sector. But

after a young Massachusetts senator named John F. Ken-

nedy won the White House in 1960, the Senate for many

years served as a breeding ground for unsuccessful presi-

dential hopefuls. Some – like Kansas Republican Bob

Dole, Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry and Arizona

Republican John McCain – secured their parties’ nomi-

nations, but lost in the general election. Not until 2008

did another young, first-term senator, Barack Obama of

Illinois, break the Senate curse, where no sitting senator

won the White House.

There are now three (with possibly more to come) law-

makers who are hoping that Obama’s electoral success will

be a trendsetter. After announcements by Texas Sen. Ted

Cruz and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul that they would run for

the Republican nomination, a third first-term GOPer, Flor-

ida Sen. Marco Rubio, entered the race this week. Republi-

can South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and independent

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are also mulling bids.

But will Obama’s history-shifting ascension become

the new template? Or will these senators find them-

selves in the same moored boat as so many of their

predecessors? “I think it depends on the kind of cam-

paign you run,” says McCain, the 2008 GOP nominee.

“There’s the Kennedy example,” wherein the public is

drawn to a young, fresh face, McCain adds, but “there’s

the reverse side of that, the flip side of that, the lack of

experience. Given the situation in the world today, and

all the challenges, I think experience really matters,”

he says, taking a not-so-subtle jab at the man who de-

feated him in 2008, and perhaps a few of his Senate

colleagues. (McCain has joked that Graham, who is in

» Making a Name for Himself » The Hillary Clinton Paradox

» Finding the Softer Side

The Senate Proving Ground Running for president as a sitting senator used to be a recipe for losing

By Susan Milligan

Sen. Marco Rubio announced his candidacy for president this week in Florida.

JOE RAEDLE – GETTY IMAGES


his third term and who has worked with

McCain on foreign policy matters, is his

“illegitimate son.”)

Rubio, meanwhile, is emulating the

Obama model, though not his politics.

At his announcement rally in Florida,

Rubio talked about his personal history

as the son of a housekeeper and bartend-

er, someone whose parents emigrated

from Cuba to make a better life for their

children – similar to Obama’s story of an

international background and a challeng-

ing childhood, being raised by a single

mother. While Paul and Cruz threw ul-

tra-red meat at the GOP base, blasting

the Affordable Care Act, Common Core

education standards, Obama and the

IRS, Rubio appealed to the crowd much

in the same way Obama did in 2008,

casting himself as the candidate of the

future. The 43-year-old Floridian made

only a passing reference to the Affordable

Care Act and didn’t mention Obama by

name at all (though he referred to Hillary

Rodham Clinton, who announced the day

before Rubio did, as a leader of “yester-

day”). Rubio also dismissed suggestions

that he wait his “turn,” also reminiscent

of Obama’s early candidacy.

Sitting senators are often bedeviled

by the very thing that ought to make

them appealing candidates: a record as

a legislator. The problem with taking so

many votes is that it gives both political

opponents and the media material that

could turn a certain constituency against

the lawmaker. In 2003, for example, the

Senate had a cloture vote on an energy

bill that helped Iowa by doubling the na-

tional use of ethanol, a gasoline additive

made from corn. But the bill also includ-

ed a provision that protected producers

of MTBE, another gasoline additive, from

legal liability. The language upset leaders

in New Hampshire, where groundwater

had been tainted from the substance.

Faced with choosing between two early

presidential nominating states – Iowa

and New Hampshire – both Democratic

Sens. Kerry and John Edwards of North

Carolina skipped the vote.

“You’re suggesting that because some-

one is running for president, it might

change their behavior, right?” quips Sen.

James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma.

That’s not necessarily peculiar to presi-

dential candidates, notes Sen. Richard

Shelby, Republican of Alabama, pointing

out that Democratic Senate Leader Harry

Reid sought to spare his vulnerable mem-

bers from tough votes when they were up

for re-election.

But this Senate, which has been able

to accomplish so little in recent years

because of bitter partisan divides, also

offers little opportunity for presidential

candidates to point to ways in which they

helped make policy, let alone law. Rubio

entered office committed to doing immi-

gration overhaul, but was quickly slapped

back by the conservative wing of his

party. Paul has worked on civil liberties

and anti-spying legislation with Demo-

cratic colleagues, but the bills haven’t be-

come law. Cruz is perhaps best known

for his lengthy filibuster of an omnibus

spending bill, a tactic that preceded the

shutdown of the federal government.

The Senate only recently flexed its

collective muscle as an institution, with

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

passing with a bipartisan vote a measure

that gives the chamber some say in the ap-

proval of the nuclear deal the administra-

tion is negotiating with Iran. The White

House this week said the president would

sign the bill as it had been re-negotiated, a

rare victory for a Senate that had been an-

grily watching while the president made

policy alone, through executive order. But

as a platform for presidential candidates,

the Senate in recent years has served as a

soapbox, not a workbench.

Veteran senators say they’re used to

having a bunch of distracted colleagues

seeking better-paying offices. “That’s a

normal, everyday occurrence for us in

the U.S. Senate. We’re used to it, and

we’re waiting for a few more to get in” the

race, says Sen. Ben Cardin, Democrat of

Maryland. Adds McCain: “If you’re a U.S.

senator, unless you are under indictment

or detoxification, you automatically con-

sider yourself a candidate for president of

the United States.” And maybe it could be

a plus, adds Sen. Tom Carper, Democrat

of Delaware. Having a few GOP lawmak-

ers away campaigning might force Re-

publicans to deal more with Democrats

to get a majority vote, Carper says, so

“there might be a silver lining.”

More likely, longtime senators say,

there will probably be even less done as

the campaign season heats up and every-

one – whether or not they’re running for

the Oval Office – looks to make political

points. “If it doesn’t get done before Labor

Day this year, it won’t get done until we

have a new president,” says Sen. Charles

Grassley, Republican of Iowa. That presi-

dent, in what has become a rarity, just

might be a Senate colleague. l

THIS WEEK IN WASHINGTON

Senators are often bedeviled by the very thing that ought

to make them appealing: a record as a legislator.



pabilities in a way that was – depending

on whom you ask – bold and ambitious,

brash and immature, or downright trea-

sonous and illegal.

And the backlash was immediate.

President Barack Obama, Vice Presi-

dent Joe Biden and Secretary of State

John Kerry led a chorus of Democrats de-

nouncing Cotton and his colleagues, ac-

cusing them of naiveté and foolhardiness.

Cotton fielded criticism from within his

own party, too, including from some of

the GOP senators who signed the letter.

It “probably would have been better

just to have it be an open letter addressed

to no one,” Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wiscon-

sin Republican, suggested to The Associ-

ated Press. It “could have been addressed

to other folks and gotten the message

out,” added Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas

Republican.

If nothing else, says William Galston,

a former adviser to President Bill Clin-

ton, Cotton violated the unwritten rule

that brand-new senators, like in the old

adage about children, should be seen and

not heard. But his method, while seen as

madness to some, also fell in line with the

new breed of Republican rock star.

“Mr. Cotton is marching down the

road that Ted Cruz and others have

blazed,” says Galston, now chairman

of the Governance Studies Program at

the Brookings Institution. “I think it’s a

bad path, but this is what happens when

someone without any institutional ex-

perience acts in very partisan times in a

way that people who are older and more

experienced – and I would have thought

wiser – would have talked him out of.”

Cotton ran for the House in 2012 and

for the Senate two years later on the back

of his military bona fides, having served in

the Army on active duty from 2005-2009

and in the Reserve from 2010-2013. His

biography and unimpeachable commit-

ment to the core values of small-govern-

ment conservatism have had pundits re-

cently calling him a “superstar” and the

“perfect Republican.”

Now, with support coming from the

various and often opposing corners of the

party – including the business commu-

nity, evangelicals, tea partyers and estab-

lishment Republicans – Cotton has been

mentioned as a future presidential candi-

date, a potential vice presidential pick for

2016 or even a dark horse contender for

the GOP nomination next year. Late last

month, the Arkansas legislature passed

a bill changing state law to allow candi-

dates to run for re-election while pursu-

ing another office, a measure so blatantly

aimed at allowing Cotton to stump for his

About a month ago, a freshman U.S. senator posted

these words to his official website:

“We will consider any agreement regarding your

nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by

the Congress as nothing more than an executive agree-

ment between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.

The next president could revoke such an executive agree-

ment with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could

modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

In an instant, Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republi-

can, catapulted himself into the upper echelons of the con-

versation on foreign policy, insisting that he, a 37-year-old

lawmaker with exactly 796 days of experience in the fed-

eral government, should be heard alongside the eminent

diplomats of the nation. His letter, addressed to Iran’s

leaders and signed by 46 of his GOP Senate colleagues,

thrust him into the debate over halting Iran’s nuclear ca-

Making a Name for Himself Sen. Tom Cotton wasted no time after coming into office

By Gabrielle Levy

Sen. Cotton’s letter to Iran caused a stir in Washington.

MARK WILSON – GETTY IMAGES



Senate seat while also campaigning for

president in 2020 that it became known

as the “Tom Cotton bill.”

Cotton’s sudden rise in Arkansas

capped a Republican takeover in a South-

ern state that hasn’t shied away from elect-

ing Democrats. Since Obama entered the

White House, however, Republicans have

won 13 of 14 House and Senate elections,

including Sen. John Boozman’s crushing

defeat of two-term Democrat Blanche

Lincoln in 2010. The GOP successfully

flipped both Senate seats and the three

of the state’s four House seats it did not

already control. “It’s hard to describe how

massively our politics have been altered

by Barack Obama,” says Janine Parry, a

professor of political science at the Uni-

versity of Arkansas and the director of

the Arkansas Poll.

For his part, Cotton has bucked the

priorities most of the state’s politicians

typically have hewed closely to, including

voting as a congressman against the farm

bill, which most strongly benefits poor and

rural states like Arkansas. “On the one

hand, [Cotton’s] star is rising in national

Republican circles, but it’s a risky electoral

strategy if he intends to stay in Arkansas,”

Parry says. “He’s taken positions that are

deeply unpopular here. Voting against

the farm bill didn’t cost him anything in

[2014], but in another year? It might.”

The Iran letter, in both substance

and the controversy it engendered, was

right in line with pre-Senate Cotton. The

course of his career has been hallmarked

by the same fervor and self-confidence

seen in the missive, even when he’s es-

poused unpopular ideas or those others

wouldn’t admit to backing. His record as

a legislator shows him willing to slash do-

mestic spending – he’s even voted against

disaster relief bills – while supporting the

most muscular military and intelligence

apparatus possible.

While serving as an Army lieutenant in

Iraq in 2006, Cotton penned an unpub-

lished letter to The New York Times, cop-

ied to the conservative Power Line blog,

excoriating the paper for an article con-

taining details on a Bush administration

program that monitored terrorists’ financ-

es. “You may think you have done a public

service, but you have gravely endangered

the lives of my soldiers and all other sol-

diers and innocent Iraqis here,” he wrote,

suggesting several Times staffers should

be prosecuted for violation of espionage

laws. “Next time I hear that familiar explo-

sion – or next time I feel it – I will wonder

whether we could have stopped that bomb

had you not instructed terrorists how to

evade our financial surveillance.”

After sending the letter, Cotton report-

edly feared for his military career, but was

told to keep his superiors in the loop next

time and received praise from fellow sol-

diers. And now with his positions on the

Senate Intelligence and Armed Services

committees – along with his chairmanship

of Armed Services’ Airland subcommit-

tee – there’s speculation he could model

his career on that of another veteran who

rose through his party’s ranks: Sen. John

McCain. “I’m glad to see him heavily en-

gaged,” the Arizona Republican, one of

the signatories on Cotton’s letter, says

of his colleague’s carving out a role for

himself as an outspoken voice on foreign

policy. “He’s got a good background on

the military and national security, and

I’m very happy to see it.”

For the most part, Americans agree

with Cotton on one point from the March

9 missive – that Congress should have

their say on the Iran nuclear deal, which

they apparently will after a compromise

measure giving lawmakers a vote on the

final accord cleared a key hurdle this

week. According to a Pew Research Cen-

ter poll released March 30, 62 percent

of those surveyed said Congress should

have final approval authority over any

agreement between Iran and the so-

called P5+1 nations negotiating the for-

mer’s nuclear policy. (Another poll found

42 percent of Americans thought sending

the letter was inappropriate, compared

with 28 percent who thought it was OK

and 31 percent who weren’t sure.)

But by a nearly 2-1 margin, Ameri-

cans support in principle a diplomatic

agreement that roughly lines up with the

framework laid out by Obama and Kerry

this month, according to an ABC/Wash-

ington Post poll. That puts Cotton and

some other Republican lawmakers firmly

at odds with popular opinion – even 47

percent of Republicans surveyed sup-

ported such a deal.

Still, Cotton is standing behind his

position. While supporters in favor of a

negotiated settlement with Iran typically

say the only other viable option to pre-

vent the country from obtaining a nuclear

weapon is open warfare, critics – includ-

ing Cotton and Israeli Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu – say a better op-

tion is to strengthen sanctions in order to

force Iran to capitulate further. l

-With Paul D. Shinkman

Cotton’s sudden rise in Arkansas capped a

Republican takeover in the Southern state.


dential candidate Michael Dukakis and

author of the 2006 book, “The Case For

Hillary Clinton.” And yet, there’s a stale,

exhausting feeling that accompanies the

notion that she wants to try again.

The Clinton name has been part of the

country’s political zeitgeist for more than

two decades. It’s been a roller coaster

relationship filled with pride, sympathy,

suspicion and unending intrigue.

It was January of 1992 when Hillary

Clinton was first thrust into America’s

living rooms on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” sit-

ting next to her husband and clenching

his hand as he endured questions about

his long-rumored infidelity.

She left her mark on the joint inter-

view by exhibiting what would come to

be known as her trademark defiance. “I’m

not sitting here some little woman stand-

ing by my man like Tammy Wynette,” she

said, pumping her fist.

That moment could encapsulate how

she remains perceived today by much of

the country: Doggedly dodging scandal

and setback in the perpetual pursuit of

She’s the most admired woman in the world.

Brainy and ambitious, Hillary Rodham Clinton

was the steely first lady – in Arkansas and then

in the nation’s capital – before she became the

main attraction herself. But her late-blooming political

career was just a nod to her stamina and resilience. There

would’ve still been big things even without Bill, and per-

haps much sooner and with much less drama.

Her resume reads like someone on the march: Class

president and commencement speaker at Wellesley Col-

lege. Honors at Yale Law School. Staffer for the Watergate

presidential impeachment inquiry. The most influential

presidential spouse in modern history. Elected U.S. sen-

ator in a state where she barely had lived. And now, of

course, presidential candidate, with an official announce-

ment made Sunday. All the while, Clinton has been an

icon for women around the globe – for her strength, her

suffering and her savvy. And just when many thought the

sun was about to set on what still would have capped a

remarkable career, she became secretary of state.

That selection for another political act by President

Barack Obama – her old nemesis, the inopportune and

unforeseen barrier to her own preconceived destiny –

ironically provided her with the political lifeline neces-

sary for today’s moment: A second shot at her goal of

shattering the ultimate glass ceiling and becoming the

first female president of the United States.

That she’s again on the pathway toward being her

party’s standard-bearer for the most consequential of-

fice in the world is no small thing. “Ten years and four of

them as a secretary of state make it a much easier case,”

says Susan Estrich, the campaign manager for 1988 presi-

The Hillary Clinton ParadoxShe’s on the cusp of shattering the ultimate glass ceiling, but still feels like a throwback

By David Catanese

Hillary Clinton at a roundtable discussion with students and educators in Iowa

MICHAEL B. THOMAS – AFP / GETTY IMAGES



political ascendancy.

Six years later came the infamous

“Today” show appearance in which she

blamed a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for

the allegations of her husband’s infidelity

with White House intern Monica Lewin-

sky, who is now old enough to ignite her

own reinvention. There was the unexpect-

ed welling of tears in New Hampshire after

the debilitating defeat in the 2008 Iowa

presidential caucuses. (Were they authen-

tic or a ploy?) And in 2013 came the “What

difference – at this point – does it make?”

retort in front of a Senate Foreign Rela-

tions Committee probing the attacks in

Benghazi, Libya. It’s these moments, too,

that define Clinton and remind the coun-

try of the weathered, timeworn political

figure she is. And so, this is the paradox

of Hillary Clinton: A candidate who holds

the promise of historic change but at the

same time feels like a rusty throwback to

an era fading from memory.

Former Iowa state Sen. Al Sturgeon

may have put it best, writing what no ca-

reer-driven Democrat could in the Sioux

City Journal. “Her endurance as a public

figure is courageous,” Sturgeon wrote, re-

ferring to the ongoing legal and political

assault the Clintons have sustained over

decades. “But just the same, I’m not sure

I want to hear about the same old things

over and over again.”

Almost on cue, there’s a new book

dishing on the Clintons’ tumultuous time

in the White House. Former staffers re-

call Hillary thwacking Bill bloody with

a book during the Lewinsky mess. They

also believe she “knew about Lewinsky

long before it came out.”

The more enduring scandals of this

Clinton iteration appear to be centered

around her private email server and her

role in responding to the September

2012 attacks on the American diplomatic

compound and CIA facility in Benghazi.

There’s no telling what else could be un-

earthed before voters head to the polls

in 2016. Nineteen months is a long time.

So is being the first female president

enough? Is being a Clinton enough? Is

being next in line enough? Perhaps, but

not likely.

That’s why the forging of Clinton’s ratio-

nale for running another campaign will be

so critical early on – the “why” driving it all.

The clues thus far have been only slight and

mundane. She’s spoken of a “warm purple

space” where she’ll be able to foster the

long-sought bipartisanship and compro-

mise ever-elusive in this town. She’s also

fond of citing evidence-based decision-

making, and her die-hard supporters often

laud her as being the most qualified person

on the planet to hold the office – yet anoth-

er reference to her longevity in public life.

Such justifications are as stirring as they

are revolutionary – meaning hardly at all.

Instead of why she will run, the reasoning

looks more like, “Why not?”

Yet on paper, Clinton still appears to be

the most likely next president. She hasn’t

trailed in a national general election poll this

year, and she has held average leads over

former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand

Paul and Gov. Scott Walker of 7, 7 and 8

percentage points, respectively. “I have

made my contribution. I’m very grateful I

have had the chance to serve, but I think it’s

time for others to step up.” That was Clinton

in October 2011, back on the “Today” show

and explaining why she wouldn’t run for the

White House again. She certainly has the

right to change her mind.

Now comes the obligation to explain

why she changed it. l


Bill and Hillary Clinton on “60 Minutes” in 1992

AP


The Presidency

Hillary Clinton’s Softer Side

By Kenneth T. Walsh

occasions for a political purpose – to improve her media

coverage. But to me, she seemed genuinely interesting and

pleasant, at least when the situation wasn’t adversarial.

The problem was, and still is, that she doesn’t let many

people inside what she once called her “zone of privacy,”

and consequently, very few people ever see her more ap-

pealing side. As a result, her public image is one of a brittle,

harsh and ambitious politician who has a difficult time pro-

jecting likeability. Even on her much-ballyhooed van trip

from New York to Iowa this week, she apparently didn’t

make an effort to greet anyone at a Chipotle restaurant

in Maumee, Ohio, where she ordered a chicken burrito

bowl for lunch. So much for outreach. But she seemed to

There’s one aspect of Hillary Clinton’s

newly announced presidential bid that

isn’t getting the attention it deserves: the

chip she has on her shoulder, caused by so

many battles with her political adversaries.

She has deep resentments against the

Republicans, having once said she was the victim of a

“vast right-wing conspiracy” to tear her down and ruin the

presidency of her husband Bill. She also is cynical about

the news media. Clinton feels she and her husband have

been victimized by journalists who distort what the Clin-

tons do, portray them as conniving and untrustworthy,

and practice a sensational brand of “gotcha journalism”

that’s designed to embarrass them.

A diary kept by Diane Blair, a close Clinton friend

from Arkansas, showed the depth of Clinton’s animosi-

ties while she was first lady. She told Blair Washington,

D.C. was “superficial” and complained of having to spend

time “bonding with creeps.” She angrily called members

of the press “hypocrites” with “big egos and no brains.”

There is little evidence that she has changed her mind.

Clinton’s friends say she is actually warm, consider-

ate and engaging in person, at least with people she gets

along with. And there is something to this claim. I cov-

ered her for eight years as part of the White House beat,

and I covered her again as an unsuccessful presidential

candidate in 2008. And when I got to spend time with

her, I learned that she could be fascinating and fun; she

has a sense of humor and enjoys having a good time.

Other reporters didn’t think her public displays of charm

came naturally and concluded that she made nice on these

Supporters greet Clinton at a coffee shop in Iowa.

MELINA MARA - THE WASHINGTON POST / GETTY IMAGES


think she was out of the range of the press

corps. No one appeared to recognize her

and she simply ordered her food at the

counter and left. This incident was cap-

tured on video and released to the media.

This distance came through again in

the latest “Saturday Night Live” sketch

poking fun at Clinton. Comedian Kate

McKinnon, impersonating Clinton, of-

fered a clever and amusing parody of

the new candidate that couldn’t have

pleased those in Hillaryland because it

made Clinton seem phony.

As her 2016 campaign opens, she is

trying to improve her personal public

relations. This week, she was relatively

patient in dealing with a horde of re-

porters covering her visit to Iowa, the

first state in the Democratic nominat-

ing process. She met with small groups

of voters, which caused grumbling by

reporters that she wasn’t granting the

press corps enough access. This will

be a problem for her because the press

corps is never satisfied with the access

it gets. It always wants more.

She will be trying to exhibit her softer,

more empathetic side now that she is of-

ficially a presidential candidate, her ad-

visers say. It’s anyone’s guess how long

this particular charm offensive will last.

Over the years, Clinton has taken

other steps to improve her image, but

has always fallen back into secrecy and

efforts to control her message with an

iron grip. She remains secretive now,

with strong self-protective impulses.

All this has been on display during the

past few weeks in revelations of how she

used a private email system while she

was secretary of state, which appeared to

violate administration policy and helped

her elude scrutiny by members of Con-

gress.

Clinton has borrowed one of her fa-

vorite theories about politics and gov-

ernment from former first lady Elea-

nor Roosevelt, whom Clinton greatly

admires. It’s the dictum that women

in public life should “grow skin like a

rhinoceros” – in Clinton’s case, by not

taking things so personally, not feeling

sorry for herself, and not allowing criti-

cism to wound or debilitate her. Clinton

said she has taken this to heart.

Her success in reaching the Oval Of-

fice may depend on how well she follows

her own advice. l

THE PRESIDENCY

Presidential Hits and Misses QUIZ OF THE WEEK

1. In what year was the first presidential

debate broadcast on live TV?

A. 1960

B. 1964

C. 1968

D. 1972

2. During the Vietnam War, which

president won 97 percent of the

electoral vote after releasing the

“McGovern Defense” campaign ad?

A. John Kennedy

B. Lyndon Johnson

C. Richard Nixon

D. Gerald Ford

3. Leading up to the 2012 election,

which presidential hopeful forgot the

name of the third government agency he

would have eliminated if elected?

A. Herman Cain

B. Rick Perry

C. Michele Bachmann

D. Ron Paul

4. What song did President Barack

Obama sing in a viral video of a

fundraising event at Harlem’s Apollo

Theater?

A. “Let’s Stay Together” by Al Green

B. “My Girl” by The Temptations

C. “What’s Going On” by Marvin

Gaye

D. “A Change Is Gonna Come” by

Sam Cooke

5. During a presidential debate, Mitt

Romney talked about receiving “binders

full of women” in response to a question

about what topic?

A. Reproductive rights

B. Workplace inequality

C. The glass ceiling

D. Paid maternity leave

6. Which word did former Vice President

Dan Quayle have trouble spelling during

the 1992 campaign?

A. Tomato

B. Potato

C. Banana

D. Potatoes

7. Al Gore was famous for what types

of body language during presidential

debates?

A. Laughing and yawning

B. Sighing and rolling his eyes

C. Crossing his arms

D. Shaking his head

By Maura Hohman

Clinton has taken other steps to improve her image,

but has always fallen back into secrecy.

ANSWERS ON PAGE 18 »


SPECIAL REPORT

The New Incubators for InnovationDo you have a great startup idea? B-schools want to make it happen

By Ariene Weintraub

When Kevin Gallagher decided

to get an MBA with a con-

centration in innovation at

Carnegie Mellon University in

Pittsburgh, it wasn’t because he wanted

to start a company. Gallagher had a bach-

elor’s in biochemistry with a minor in

economics from Boston College and had

already worked in medical device devel-

opment at Massachusetts General Hospi-

ROSS MANTLE FOR USN&WR

At Carnegie Mellon’s innovation institute, students work on ways to improve a delivery service.


SPECIAL REPORT

tal. What he wanted was the expertise he

would need to help companies improve

their processes and more quickly get

new products to the patent stage.

Gallagher, 28, spent much of the two-

year program in typical MBA courses

like marketing, while also adding tech-

nical skills such as product design and

engineering. For his capstone project,

he teamed up with other master’s stu-

dents, and worked with an international

oil and gas services company to devel-

op a new customer-management sys-

tem. “The program gave me the ability

to work with people who are different

from me, and it showed me who needs

to be in the room to have an educated

and informed discussion” about innova-

tion, Gallagher says. After he graduated

in May 2014, he parlayed the experience

into a job at pharmaceutical giant Bris-

tol-Myers Squibb, where he focuses on

improving research and development

processes.

Carnegie Mellon is one of several

universities stepping up their busi-

ness-school offerings in innovation. To

a large degree, these colleges are re-

sponding to demand from students who

want to start their own companies: 45

percent of people who graduated from

B-school between 2010 and 2013 pur-

sued startups, versus just 7 percent who

graduated before 1990, according to

the Graduate Management Admission

Council. But as Gallagher’s experience

shows, inventing new products and ser-

vices is key to established companies’

success as well.

Carnegie Mellon’s Integrated In-

novation Institute, launched in 2014,

brings together faculty from the engi-

neering, design and business schools,

and offers the MBA innovation track

as well as several master’s degrees for

students in other fields, like design.

Students work in teams to develop new

products and services, which so far have

included a car that cleans itself with a

built-in robot (a project sponsored by

Nissan) and a “smart bin” system to

automate the distribution of drugs in

hospitals. That invention is now being

patented by Aesynt, a company focusing

on pharmacy automation solutions.

Design a degree. Many of the schools

with master’s and MBA degrees in in-

novation permit students to design a

program that will most benefit their

projected career path. The University

of Chicago’s Booth School of Business

Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship and

Innovation, for example, offers courses

in a wide range of industries, from real

estate to the Internet to global finance.

Booth students can also pick from a va-

riety of experiential learning opportuni-

ties, such as a new venture lab for those

The University of Chicago Booth School of Business

PETER HOFFMAN FOR USN&WR

Forty-five percent of people who graduated from B-school between 2010 and 2013 pursued startups, versus just 7 percent who graduated before 1990.


SPECIAL REPORT

who want to develop their startup ideas

and a management lab in new product

and strategy development, where stu-

dents team up with companies and

other organizations to complete real-

world assignments. One group worked

at the university’s medical center, where

they recommended new processes to re-

duce emergency room wait times and

improve patient discharge.

For Aparna Misra, 26, the two years

she spent at Polsky were invaluable for

developing her web and mobile app,

HighStride, which offers personalized

training plans for runners. “I was pretty

strong operationally, but I didn’t have

the selling skills I needed,” says Misra,

who will graduate from Booth in 2015.

So each quarter, she selected at least

one class that would give her market-

ing experience, using her own company

as a case study. She reached well over

100,000 downloads in just her first year

in the program.

Several schools have designed in-

novation programs around local in-

dustries, including Booth, which in

2010 added the Energy & Cleantech

Lab, where students work with energy

companies in the Midwest to develop

new technologies. The University of

California–Berkeley’s Cleantech to

Market program teams scientists and

engineers from the school and the Law-

rence Berkeley National Laboratory

with business students to commercial-

ize ideas for reducing waste and devel-

oping renewable energy sources. The

class of 2014 worked on technologies

ranging from magnets to make motors

more efficient to a mathematical sys-

tem for improving the management of

electrical grids.

At the University of California–Davis

Child Family Institute for Innovation

and Entrepreneurship, the curriculum

focuses on commercializing advances in

science and engineering for social ben-

efit. MBA students follow the whole de-

velopment process, from evaluating and

selecting the most promising product

ideas to pitching the winning concept

to venture capitalists. More than 500

industry partners include Kraft, Chev-

ron and Pepsi. During the 2013-2014

school year, 14 commercial startups

emerged, including one that is develop-

ing an irrigation-monitoring device and

a biotech company working on fertility

treatments.

Added flex. Universities are also in-

creasingly offering their degree pro-

grams in more flexible formats. Indiana

University’s Johnson Center for Entre-

preneurship and Innovation offers both

full-time on-campus and part-time on-

line MBA programs. And the univer-

sity recently added an online master’s

of science program in entrepreneurship

and innovation, which allows students

to stay in their jobs while gaining grad-

uate-level experience in new venture

development. “If you look back to the

1990s, leadership was the big call from

companies,” says Donald F. Kuratko,

chair of entrepreneurship at IU’s Kelley

School of Business. “Today innovation

is the big call.”

For students who want to pursue

their own ideas, the University of Texas–

Dallas has become a startup booster of

sorts, matching budding entrepreneurs

with any of 90 mentors, some of whom

are angel investors. In 2013, the school

introduced the Startup Launch Track,

in which participating students are

given the opportunity to create their

businesses while completing their de-

grees. The program offers office space

and seed funding of up to $25,000, no

strings attached.

Corey Egan and Swapnil Bora are

prime examples of how fruitful these

sorts of environments can be. Just four

years ago, Egan and Bora came out on

top in UT–Dallas’ annual Business Idea

Competition with their company, ilumi,

which makes smart phone-controlled

LED light bulbs. In 2014, Egan and Bora

appeared on the reality TV program

“Shark Tank,” catching the attention of

co-host and billionaire investor Mark

Cuban. He poured $350,000 into ilumi

for a 25 percent stake in the company. l

During the 2013-2014 school year, 14 commercial startups emerged, including one that is developing

an irrigation-monitoring device.

This story is excerpted from the latest U.S. News special edition “Best Graduate Schools” Buy your copy today at www.usnews.com/gradguide.

www.usnews.com/gradguide


The preliminary Iran deal is another step to-

ward making the world a safer place. This is

a very good deal for those who want to keep

Iran from the bomb and keep the U.S. out of another

war. Our diplomats have taken us off a path of confron-

tation, and onto a path of dialogue and possibilities that

seemed unimaginable in the last three decades of U.S.-

Iran hostility.

The historic agreement reached in Switzerland

provides a blueprint to ensure that Iran’s nuclear pro-

gram is under lock, key and camera. If a comprehensive

agreement is constructed according to this blueprint,

another nuclear-armed nation and another war will be

averted.

Iran has agreed to the most robust inspections regime

ever negotiated. This includes dramatically expanded

access for the International Atomic Energy Agency to

Iran’s nuclear facilities. Instead of more combat boots

on the ground, U.N. inspectors will be serving as the eyes

of the international community on every one of Iran’s

centrifuges.

However, this agreement is about so much more than

Iran’s nuclear program. This breakthrough is premised

on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,

Recently, the Obama administration an-

nounced a “good deal” with the Islamic Re-

public of Iran on the parameters of its nu-

clear program. Unfortunately, in the president’s haste to

meet a political deadline, what we have ended up with

is not just a bad deal, but a dangerous one.

Much of the conversation has centered on a false di-

chotomy: Either a deal is agreed upon by our negotiators

and Iran right now, or we move toward war with Iran.

However, an important point is missing: the sanctions we

had in place were having their intended effect. The U.S.

and the international community have kept their collec-

tive foot on the neck of Iran to bring a definitive end to

Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and it was that pressure that

brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place.

The administration has made extraordinary conces-

sions to Iran in this agreement in exchange for a slow-

down or pause, but not a termination, of its nuclear

programs. Removing sanctions in exchange for taking

some but not all centrifuges offline isn’t a deal we should

accept. Giving economic relief to Iran in exchange for

essentially pausing, but not eliminating, its nuclear pro-

gram is not consistent with even the administration’s

previous demands of this rogue nation.

TWO TAKESIs the Iran Nuclear Deal a Good One?

YES NO

A U.S.-led group of world powers reached a framework agreement with Iran to sharply curb its nuclear program. A final agreement, which will further address the technicalities of the deal, is due by June 30. Some say the deal is a good start, others say it is a “dangerous concession” to Iran.

By Diane Randall Executive secretary for the Friends Committee on National Legislation

By Reid Ribble Republican representative from Wisconsin

COURTESY OF THE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION

COURTESY OF THE U.S. CONGRESS

CHIP SOMODEVILLA – GETTY IMAGES

READ MORE » READ MORE »


Iran must not have a nuclear

weapon in 10 years, 15 years

or ever – and this agreement will not pre-

vent a nuclear Iran.

The agreement does not get rid of

Iran’s facility at Fordow, an underground

uranium enrichment plant that was hid-

den from the International Atomic En-

ergy Agency until well after construction

had begun. It only calls for enrichment to

be halted at the facility for 15 years. Nor

would Iran have to even stop enriching

uranium. It would be allowed to contin-

ue enrichment at its Natanz facility, just

at lower levels than it currently operates.

Given Iran’s past behavior how can, and

why would, we allow this to occur?

Iran’s past dealings with the IAEA

call into question the agreement’s ability

to force Iran’s compliance with transpar-

ency and inspection requirements. The

deal calls for the agency to have regular

access and surveillance of all of Iran’s

nuclear facilities, but Iran has previously

agreed to address the agency’s concerns

regarding the “possible military dimen-

sions” of its nuclear program only to drag

its feet in complying. To date, Iran has

only responded to a small number of the

agency’s concerns.

Furthermore, under the terms of the

deal, Iran has agreed to reduce its cur-

rent stockpile of 10,000 kilograms of

low-enriched uranium to 300 kilograms

– again, for only 15 years. What the deal

does not say is where and how this re-

duction will take place. Should Iran be

allowed to manage the reduction itself,

I am concerned that we will be unable to

ensure its compliance.

What we need to do is ask ourselves,

will the world be safer with a nuclear-

armed Iran or will it be less safe? Given

Iran’s outrageous rhetoric and spon-

sorship of terrorism, the answer is self-

evident. Therefore, we should continue

the sanctions and global economic pres-

sure until or unless Iran is willing to fully

cease its nuclear programs and end its

ambitions of obtaining a nuclear weap-

on. Allowing thousands of centrifuges to

continue enriching uranium; permitting

Iran’s nuclear facilities to remain opera-

tional; and allowing fissile material to

remain in a nation that continues to sup-

port terrorism are too high of a price to

pay in the name of “getting a deal.” We

should reject it and continue the sanc-

tions. l

which is the cornerstone of

the global non-proliferation

regime. Just as the U.S.-Russian pro-

posal to peacefully disarm Syria of its

chemical weapons commanded world

attention on the Chemical Weapons

Convention, so too does the Iran nu-

clear deal have the potential to focus

international action on upholding the

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The

deal is a victory for efforts to rid the

world of nuclear weapons, and seek a

world free of war.

The overwhelming majority of Amer-

icans support a negotiated settlement

with Iran, as recent polls have shown.

They stand with national security lead-

ers from across the political spectrum

speaking out in support of an agreement

shaped by the contours of the deal re-

alized between the so-called P5+1 and

Iranian negotiators.

An agreement of this magnitude war-

rants not only full-throated support from

the American people and the national

security establishment, but also from

Congress.

That is why for more than two years,

we’ve been working with other faith

leaders, local elected officials and con-

cerned citizens to urge their members

of Congress to support this diplomatic

effort to its conclusion. Our diplomats

deserve for this support to continue as

they work to finalize an agreement by

June 30, 2015.

Some in Congress supported legisla-

tion that could undermine the frame-

work agreement by either threatening

new sanctions or creating uncertainty

about whether the U.S. will uphold its

promises.

Some in Congress have also called for

new sanctions on Iran, risking derailing

the talks and putting the U.S. and Iran

back on a path toward war. For nearly

two years, a groundswell of grassroots

advocacy has shelved sanctions bills

from passage into law. Now is the time

for anybody who wants to prevent a war

and another nuclear-armed nation to

weigh in with their elected representa-

tives.

Diplomats have put our countries

on a path toward a peaceful resolution

of the impasse over Iran’s nuclear pro-

gram. We can help ensure its success by

urging our lawmakers to let diplomacy

work. l

FROM PAGE 15

TWO TAKES

YESFROM PAGE 15

NO

« BACK TO PAGE 15

What Do You Think? Does the framework nuclear deal do enough to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Email your thoughts to [email protected].

« BACK TO PAGE 15



can be fairly asked to do than with the measurable re-

sults. If they have to break a few eggs along the way, so

be it. The most vocal reformers hurl blame and aren’t

worried about whether their language or policies are fair

to individual educators.

Educators, on the other hand, spend their days in

schools. They take pride in their work. Most think they’re

doing their best, and that their best is pretty good. They

have a sense of what they believe schools can and can’t

Casual observers can be forgiven for won-

dering why the push to improve America’s

schools looks like a World War I battle-

field. Reform advocates blast schools as

failing and call for a raft of remedies, from

teacher evaluation to charter schooling.

Teachers react defensively, condemning these proposals

as an attack on schooling and their profession.

Who’s right? Why do advocates and educators seem

so deeply divided? Can anything be done to get us on a

more fruitful path?

First off, it’s vital to recognize that both sides are right,

but are looking at things from different vantage points. If

you’re focusing on educational outcomes, the results can

be disheartening. In 2013, only 42 percent of the nation’s

fourth graders were deemed proficient in math on the

National Assessment of Educational Progress, and just

35 percent were proficient in reading. Eighth graders

fare worse. And low-income, black, and Latino children

do worse than that.

Yet, these figures are incomplete. Reading and math

scores have been steadily improving in the U.S. for two

decades. Parents have mostly good things to say about

their own schools, with about 70 percent consistently

saying they’d give their oldest child’s school an “A” or

“B.” And teachers can be responsible professionals and

still struggle to overcome the forces of poverty, family

fragmentation and neighborhood dysfunction.

Reformers see schools as a means towards a larger

agenda of social betterment. They’re less concerned with

the social fabric of schools or what educators think they

COMMENTARY

End the Education WarsTeachers and reformers both have a solid case

By Frederick M. Hess Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

GETTY IMAGES


do, and are sensitive to the problems pro-

posed by reformers, who they think are

seeking to scapegoat them for society’s

failings. The most vocal teachers lash out,

accuse reformers of mounting a “war” on

public education. This then reaffirms re-

formers’ conviction that teachers are part

of the problem.

So what can be done about all this?

For starters, reformers and educators

need to realize that they will continue to

see things differently – and that’s okay.

They’re supposed to see things different-

ly. Educators are looking from the inside-

out, and reformers from the outside-in.

Educators experience how schools work,

while reformers concentrate on the re-

sults. This should be a healthy tension,

and requires the two camps to listen to

and learn from each other.

There are at least four steps that can

help get us to that place.

First, most educators and reform-

ers are more reasonable than you might

imagine from the public debate. The

problem is that the loudest voices are the

most extreme, while the more measured

voices remain silent or get drowned out.

Both educators and reformers need to do

a better job of challenging, calling out, or

reining in those who revel in accusations

of malice.

Second, the two sides need to under-

stand that their fates are linked. Edu-

cators know where the rubber hits the

road, but that’s because they spend their

days in schools that do things a certain

way. The flip side of that is they have less

time to craft policies or build relation-

ships with policymakers. It’s reformers

who have the time and expertise to work

with officials to craft new policies, but

how those policies play out depends on

teachers.

Third, public school teachers need to

keep in mind that they’re public employ-

ees. When outspoken teachers impute

evil motives to reformers or discount the

importance of test results, it can appear

that educators are blind to the problems

and unwilling to step up. This is doubly

true when those same voices belittle ac-

countability systems or defend tenure

even for colleagues guilty of egregious

misbehavior. If teachers want to influ-

ence policy, they need to show they’re re-

sponsive to the concerns of policymakers.

Finally, reformers need to remember

that they’re not the ones who do the work.

After all, policymakers can make people

do things, but they can’t make them do

them well. Unfortunately, when it comes

to schooling, how reforms are adopted

matters infinitely more than whether

they are. This means that educators are

not just a “human capital” problem to be

solved; they’re the ones who are actually

educating children. How to help teachers

do that better should be the organizing

principle of reform.

There’s a temptation to pick a side

in the school reform wars – to side with

the reformers fighting for vulnerable kids

or the teachers battling to safeguard our

schools. But both sides have got it only

part right. This means “winning” (at least

for the kids) is less a question of picking

sides than devising some rules in what

has been an anything-goes clash. Muster-

ing the discipline and mutual respect to

do this should be an eminently manage-

able task. After all, as we frequently re-

mind one another, these are our schools

and our nation’s children. l

C0MMENTARY

What would get education reform on the right track? Weigh in at [email protected].

1. A. 1960

2. C. Richard Nixon

3. B. Rick Perry

4. A. “Let’s Stay Together” by Al Green

5. B. Workplace inequality

6. B. Potato

7. B. Sighing and rolling his eyes

Answers to Quiz

« BACK TO PAGE 11

LOG IN TO YOUR ACCOUNTwww.usnews.com/usnewsweekly

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR E-mail: [email protected]

SPECIAL EDITIONS Best Colleges and more

www.usnews.com/store

REPRINTS AND PERMISSIONS Custom reprints:

[email protected] All other permissions:

[email protected]

ADVERTISING AND CORPORATE http://mediakit.usnews.com

Copyright @ 2015 by U.S.News & World Report Inc. All rights reserved. U.S.News Weekly is currently published weekly by U.S.News

& World Report Inc., 4 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004. Double issues, when published, count as two issues.

Policymakers can make people do things, but they can’t make them

do them well.



Recent chatter from the Thomas Jefferson Street bloggers, who weigh in on current events at usnews.com

On Monday, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio kicked off his presiden-

tial campaign with a firm denunciation of the politicians stuck in the “ideas

of the past.” Referring to Hillary Clinton as a candidate “promising to take

us back to yesterday,” he declared that “yesterday is over, and we are never

going back.” But in calling for “a new American Century” – the slogan of his campaign

– Rubio is embracing a foreign policy that is both backward-looking and stubbornly re-

sistant to historical insight. In 1997, for example, a group of conservatives that includ-

ed Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, launched a new or-

ganization: the Project for the New American Century. Its statement of principles laid

out three pillars – exactly the principles Rubio laid out in his speech on Monday. And

that’s a problem, because the authors of the Project for the New American Century’s

statement of principles were also the architects of America’s disastrous war in Iraq.

What is Hillary Clinton’s legacy as secretary of state? As she left the State

Department, her “reset button” moment with Russia had turned into an

embarrassment. Clinton’s departure also saw a Middle East meltdown that

subsequently chased American diplomats and advisers out of Yemen and

Libya. Al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula, the group most likely to attack U.S. targets,

now has a base of operations in Yemen. The Islamic State group continues to terrorize

Syria and Iraq. Traditional alliances are fracturing, as well. Secretary of State Clinton

floated the idea of bringing Saudi Arabia under the U.S. nuclear umbrella to protect it

from Iran. Saudi Arabia ignored her and may be preparing to buy atom bombs from

Pakistan. Egypt, frustrated by the administration’s admonishments and restrictions,

is now shopping for arms from Russia. And, of course, U.S. relations with the only de-

mocracy in the region – Israel – now has all the rancor of an especially nasty divorce.

It’s all about you, not me. That was the message laced between the lines

of the latest Hillary Clinton campaign for president. The candidate is

regal no more. Softened, she will work to earn your vote. She knows

how hard it is out there. The journey starts now. Here’s the deal: Clin-

ton is a Brooklyn woman of the people now. In a widely anticipated campaign

video, she announced her entry into the Democratic presidential primary. One

sign was promising. The glorious April afternoon cast a lovely light after a long

Washington winter. When she declared her entry into the 2008 race, she spoke

from her formal living room on a midwinter day. The kickoff message bordered

on icy: I’m in it to win it.

Hillary Clinton’s biggest challenges will continue to shadow her throughout

this campaign. First, she cannot run away from her scandals and secrets.

Clinton has suffered a blow because of the email scandal. The latest Quin-

nipiac polling shows that her numbers have declined in key battleground

states like Iowa, Pennsylvania and Florida. Second, she appears aloof from voters and

carries years of baggage. She does not come across as a warm and down-to-earth per-

son on the campaign trail. Third, she is strongly linked to President Barack Obama.

Clinton will need to determine where she is in line with Obama, especially in the area

of foreign policy. Finally, she struggles in larger crowds. Although Clinton has given

thousands of speeches, she is generally uninspiring. Can she be relatable and charis-

matic? President Bill Clinton possessed these qualities, which Hillary Clinton lacks.

BLOG BUZZ NICOLE HEMMER

Rubio Recycles the Neocons

MARK W. DAVIS

She Can Run But She Can’t Hide From Her Record

JAMIE STIEHM

A Kinder, Gentler Clinton

MERCEDES SCHLAPP

Ready for Baggage

More wit and insight from Thomas Jefferson Street are at www.usnews.com/opinion.


Not a Diplomatic Victory No, the tentative agreement with Iran

is not strong enough to stop its nucle-

ar weapons development program [“A

Game Obama Cannot Lose,” April 10].

If every part of the agreement works

perfectly, Iran will still have thousands

of centrifuges and stockpiles of fuel.

Once sanctions are lifted, it will be im-

possible to impose them again quickly

(i.e. the ‘snap back’ provision) because

multinational corporations will be

making profits from Iranian business

deals and will not pull out immedi-

ately. No one is sure if Iran will allow

inspectors to go everywhere at any time

without prior approval. Even Secretary

[of State John] Kerry stated that this

agreement is not legally binding. I see

no reason for any American to feel this

preliminary agreement is a victory for

U.S. diplomacy.

Beth G. Johnson

Maggie Valley, North Carolina

Helping the Needy Yes, they should [adopt welfare rules

nationally]. The whole premise of Rob-

ert Schlesinger’s argument is wrong

and he proves it in one sentence [“Am-

plifying the Indignity of Joblessness,”

April 10]: “Apparently they believe

that in this case, government is dumb

but welfare recipients are dumber; or

that government is dumb except when

conservatives run it, in which case it’s

smart enough to tell the indigent how

to live.” Conservatives are not about

telling people how to live. The liber-

als have that well in hand. As is delin-

eated in this article, conservatives are

just trying to limit what we are forced

to pay for.

Neil Philcrantz

Hudson, New Hampshire

Learning From the PastDoes President Barack Obama have

similarities to Franklin Delano Roos-

evelt? President Obama and FDR both

used executive orders to bypass con-

gress [“The Making of a Superpower,”

April 10]. FDR saw the danger of the

Axis powers during a time when Amer-

ica was lethargic thinking we were pro-

tected from the war by two oceans. He

used executive orders to support our

allies fighting the war we were reluc-

tant to engage in until Pearl Harbor.

Obama’s use of executive orders was to

implement social programs most peo-

ple didn’t even want. FDR was a leader

who united our country to fight evil.

Obama is a community organizer who

has divided our country and defends

evil. There are some minor similarities

between the two so the answer to the

question must be yes.

Alan Wood Honolulu

Have something to say about the stories

or topics in this week’s issue? Join the

discussion by sending your thoughts to

[email protected].

[email protected]

Secretary of State John Kerry arriving back in the U.S. after the Iran nuclear talks

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI – POOL / GETTY IMAGES



Never! Never would Iran be al-

lowed to have a nuclear weapon.

That was the pledge of the Clin-

ton and Bush administrations.

Not only that. “Never” was the purpose

of 191 nations in agreeing to the Nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty. It came into

force in 1970 to save the planet from de-

stroying itself and all human life. Hence

the near universal agreement, a unique

adherence for an arms control measure.

But the story since then is madden-

ing and ominous. One of the parties to

the treaty was Iran and Iran has been in

almost continuous noncompliance with

the treaty it agreed to.

Flash forward to the Obama admin-

istration. Now the president is no longer

trying to stop Iran from going nuclear.

“Never” has been slimmed down to 13

years – at best! The Iranians have se-

cured enough nuclear fuel to make the

first generation bomb small enough to be

dropped from a transport plane. The for-

mer International Atomic Energy Agency

inspector, Olli Heinonen, reckons the

proposed agreement from the Lausanne

talks leaves Iran “a threshold breakout

nuclear state for the next 10 years.” But

we may have only the mirage of an agree-

ment since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and

his associates are producing tons of am-

biguity about what was agreed – and on

our side, where unity is essential in deal-

ing with a very slippy adversary, there

are troubling discrepancies between the

French and U.S. understandings.

Just look at the wriggles and evasions

since Lausanne. President Barack Obama

said the sanctions would be lifted only

after Iran has delivered on its commit-

ments. Supreme Leader Khamenei and

President Hassan Rouhani draw new red

lines. They insist on the immediate re-

moval of sanctions on agreement; they

reject monitoring of Iran’s military sites

and have the nerve to say its subversion

– assistance to “resistance” groups – will

continue.

Yet the sanctions that took years to

put in place are being removed almost

immediately, unlinked to a change in

Iran’s behavior. The symmetry is grim:

The Iranians walk away from long-stand-

ing commitments and the Americans

compromise on long-standing demands.

Obama had previously stated that “the

deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they

end their nuclear program” and abide

by the U.N. resolutions that have been

in place. Yet more enrichment will con-

tinue with 5,000 centrifuges per decade

and all restraints will end in 15 years.

That is the key. By making a break-

out time the central measure by which

to judge the effectiveness, the adminis-

tration has made verification the most

important part of the agreement. We

must be in a position to show that we

can detect what the Iranians are doing

and when they are doing it. The IAEA

inspectors must have access to declared

and undeclared sites. The artificial dead-

line the administration imposed has had

the perverse effect of pressuring Obama

and Secretary of State John Kerry, and

not the Iranian government, to make

concessions. On almost every key issue,

the Iranians won the day as the Obama

administration folded. The entire infra-

structure of the Iranian nuclear weapons

program remains intact.

There is no way to reconcile Obama’s

acceptance of Iran as a threshold nuclear

state with a safe fate for Israel. Thus the

view overwhelmingly shared by Israelis

that he is risking the Jewish state’s fu-

Obama’s Unforgivable Betrayal of Israel

EDITORIAL By Mortimer B. Zuckerman

There is no way to reconcile Obama’s acceptance of Iran

as a threshold nuclear power with a safe fate for Israel.


ture. A deal based on this framework

after all would threaten the survival of Is-

rael. Obama has broken with Israel on an

existential and unforgivable level. When

Obama finally tightened the sanctions

forcing Iran to the table, he surrendered,

especially on the issue of centrifuges that

Iran has developed. Perhaps Obama can

afford a bad deal because he has a year

and a half left of his presidency. But the

people in the Middle East have to live

with the consequences of Obama’s agree-

ment with Iran long after he is gone. For

that is when the bulk of the nuclear deal

with the world powers will be in effect.

Obama deliberately wrote off the in-

convenient view of the country that is

most endangered, Israel. He accommo-

dated radical Islamist theocrats when he

should have insisted on the opposite, that

the survival of Israel is non-negotiable.

In effect, he betrayed the trust of the

Jewish state. And it is not just Israel that

opposes Obama’s deal. The Arab lead-

ers, especially our closest friends, Saudi

Arabia and Egypt, have made clear they

share Israel’s view.

Linda Chavez asks whether any of

our allies even trust our word any lon-

ger? Why should they when the president

failed to live up to promises, for example,

to stop Russian aggression in Ukraine, or

to keep the murderous Assad regime from

killing Syrian civilians. The Iranian deal

is more capitulation to those who threat-

en U.S. national security. Iran will even

get an immediate economic boost when

we lift sanctions, which will strengthen

a regime that is already ascendant as a

regional power.

Obama has regularly tried to over-

sell Americans on this issue. When he

became president, Iran had “thousands

of centrifuges” which now would be cut

down to around 6,000. In fact, according

to the New York Post, in 2008 Iran only

had 800 centrifuges. It was on Obama’s

watch, and because of his perceived

weakness, that Iran accelerated its nucle-

ar program. Then, the president asserted

that all of Iran’s “paths” to developing a

nuclear arsenal would be blocked. Yet, he

still acknowledged what is now the com-

mon perception that Iran might still be

able to build a bomb in just a year.

The president offers false choices be-

tween something like this deal and U.S.

involvement in another ground war in the

Middle East. Why does he not acknowl-

edge the third choice is to force Iran to

behave: wider sanctions, diplomatic ac-

tion and proximity pressures to force

Iran to abide by six U.N. resolutions?

In fact, to prevent Iran from obtain-

ing nuclear weapons capability, the U.S.

must impose the most stringent possible

limits on Iran’s ability to produce fissile

material. It means permitting Iran only a

civilian nuclear power program without

enrichment facilities or capabilities. This

must be joined with a strict and compre-

hensive inspection regime underpinned

by credible and concrete promises to

punish noncompliance. Such a deal must

extend as long as the U.S. and its partners

believe Iran retains its nuclear weapons

ambition, which will threaten its neigh-

bors, and remains the unsettling force in

the Middle East.

But none of Iran’s nuclear facilities, in-

cluding the Fordow center will be closed,

as The Washington Post noted. Not one

of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will

be dismantled. Tehran’s existing pile of

enriched uranium will be “reduced” but

not necessarily shipped out of the coun-

try. In effect, then, Iran’s nuclear infra-

structure will remain intact even though

some of it will be mothballed for 10 years.

But when the accord lapses the Islamic

Republic will instantly become a thresh-

old nuclear state.

Most upsetting is that even with much

greater restriction the deal would not be

permanent but instead one or more sun-

set clauses whereby all limits would ulti-

mately be lifted.

Congress fears it has no substantive

input, which means a deal would be im-

plemented without its consent. The vote

and voice of Congress is vital to the cred-

ibility and durability of a final deal that

would be acceptable to the U.S. and not

just to this administration.

The Senate Foreign Relations Com-

mittee understands that breakout time

is crucially related to the size of Iran’s

stockpile of fissile material. How much

of its existing stockpile would Iran be re-

quired to ship out of the country? It has

reneged on one deal and will try to do

it on another if it is allowed to continue

its efforts to increase the efficiency of

its operating centrifuges. We need pro-

hibitions on such activity, which would

also include bans on any and all work on

EDITORIAL

Can the Iran nuclear deal be salvaged? Weigh in at [email protected].

Obama accomodated radical theocrats when he should have insisted that Israel’s

survival is non-negotiable.



centrifuges other than those currently

installed or operated, as well as clear re-

strictions on when, where, why and how

Iran could replace the installed centri-

fuges.

What would an acceptable deal look

like? We need an end to all research and

development activity on advanced cen-

trifuges in Iran; a significant decrease in

the number of centrifuges that are op-

erational or become operational if Iran

breaks the agreement and decides to

build a bomb; the closing of the Fordow

facility as an enrichment site, even if en-

richment is suspended there; an agree-

ment to ship Iran’s stockpile of enriched

uranium out of the country; a commit-

ment to scale back its nuclear programs

significantly for 10 to 15 years and to ac-

cept intense international inspections; a

willingness to limit enrichment of urani-

um at its Natanz facility to a level needed

only for civilian purposes; to cut back in-

stalled centrifuges by about two-thirds,

while converting Fordow into a center for

peaceful research and foregoing enrich-

ing uranium there for at least 15 years; as

well as modifying its Arak heavy-water

reactor to render it incapable of produc-

ing plutonium for a bomb.

Limits on when, where, why and how

Iran would replace centrifuges during a

breakout time would be crucial to pre-

venting Iran from developing more ef-

ficient centrifuges for use immediately

after an agreement expires. Iran believes

it can continue to use the Fordow under-

ground uranium enrichment plant for de-

veloping centrifuges, while the U.S. says

no enrichment could take place there for

15 years.

The United States should stand by its

original demands to shut down the facil-

ity altogether with the purpose of lim-

iting total output of Iran’s enrichment

facilities to its current capability. That

would prevent it from cutting break-

out times with the flip of a switch if it

chooses to renege on the deal. The next

few months will be nothing less than a

supreme test of our skill and our resolve

and give the Obama administration the

opportunity to manage a fundamental

change that improperly handled would

threaten American allies and the United

States itself. l

EDITORIAL

24 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | APRIL 17, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGECONTENTSPRINT

BRETT ZIEGLER FOR USN&WR

The Jefferson Memorial

THE BIG PICTURE

http://www.usnews.com/subscribe

April 17, 2015 Volume 7 • Number 16 We ekly - usnews.com · She’s on the cusp of shattering the ultimate glass ceiling, but still feels like a throwback ... QUIZ OF THE WEEK 11

Documents