Is Obama Admin. Prepared For Another Terrorist Attack?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Intelligence Chiefs Say Another Terror Attempt In U.S. Is "Certain"


Another attempted terrorist attack on the United States in coming months is "certain," the heads of major U.S intelligence agencies told a Senate committee Tuesday.

Al Qaeda remains the top security threat to the United States, but a growing cyber-security threat also must be addressed by the U.S. intelligence community, the heads of the CIA, the FBI and other agencies told the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The hearing covered a range of security issues and became contentious, with Republicans on the committee arguing with Democratic counterparts and the intelligence chiefs on how the Obama administration has handled terrorism suspects such as the failed Christmas Day bomber of a U.S. airliner.

Asked by committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, of the likelihood of another attempted terror attack on the United States in the next three to six months, the officials agreed with Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair's initial answer of "certain."

While none of the intelligence chiefs, who included CIA Director Leon Panetta, FBI Director Robert Mueller and others, cited a specific pending threat, their testimony made clear that an evolving al Qaeda remains their top concern.

"My greatest concern, and what keeps me awake at night, is that al Qaeda and its terrorist allies and affiliates could very well attack the United States," Panetta said.

Al Qaeda is adapting methods to make their plots more difficult to detect, shifting from large attacks with multiple players to using individuals without any background in terrorism, Panetta said.

He noted the Christmas Day attempt as an example, saying the suspect had a U.S. visa but little history of involvement with terrorist groups.

"Obviously, they decided to make use of someone like that within a very short period of time" of the suspect coming into contact with al Qaeda, Panetta said.

Blair also said that deciding whether to prosecute terrorist suspects in a criminal court or by a military commission should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The question involved the handling of Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the suspect in the failed Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner.

Republicans have criticized security officials for charging the suspect in criminal court instead of treating him as an enemy combatant to be prosecuted by a military commission.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, said it was a mistake for security officials to have read AbdulMutallab his Miranda rights on the night he was arrested, instead of first conducting further interrogation.

Blair, however, said the handling of terror suspects requires flexibility to allow for the appropriate response in each case. FBI Director Robert Mueller agreed, saying that providing a suspect with Miranda rights can bring better information than traditional military or intelligence interrogation.

Mueller noted that incentive agreements with suspects have many times resulted in gaining "actionable intelligence" that otherwise might never have come forward.

Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and James Risch of Idaho, asked why AbdulMutallab was read his Miranda rights so quickly. Mueller said the decision must be considered in the context of the full investigation.

"You're looking at it through the rear-view mirror," Mueller said.

"Do not discount what has happened or what does happen after that in terms of gaining intelligence."

Later Tuesday, a law enforcement official told CNN AbdulMutallab had been talking to investigators since last week and providing useful, current and actionable intelligence -- leads that the FBI and intelligence officials have been actively following up.

The official was not authorized to speak for attribution because the case remains under investigation. Mueller said none of the intelligence chiefs at Tuesday's hearing were consulted about the decision to read AbdulMutallab his Miranda rights. That decision was made by the chief security interrogator at the scene in consultation with the Department of Justice, Mueller said.

The discussion included a harsh exchange among committee members, with Democratic Sens. Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island accusing Republican Sens. Bond and Orrin Hatch of Utah of politicizing the issue.

Feinstein noted the policy of charging terrorists in U.S. criminal courts dates back to the Reagan administration, while Whitehouse called Republican framing of the issue "fallacious."

Hatch also asked Blair if any evidence showed that President Obama's plan to close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility for terrorism suspects would reduce the terrorist threat against the United States.

Hatch and Bond said they opposed the plan because it would bring terrorism suspects to U.S. soil.

Blair responded that Guantanamo has become a major recruiting tool for al Qaeda, setting off an exchange with Hatch that concluded with Blair saying: "Guantanamo has achieved a sort of mythic quality that helps al Qaeda."

In his written testimony to the committee, Blair said it would take the capture or deaths of al Qaeda's top two leaders -- Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri -- to possibly end the group's intent to attack the United States.

On the cyber-security threat, Blair's written testimony described an inability to contend with attacks using computer networks and telecommunications systems.

"Sensitive information is stolen daily from both government and private sector networks, undermining confidence in our information systems, and in the very information these systems were intended to convey," Blair wrote. "We often find persistent, unauthorized, and at times, unattributable presences on exploited networks, the hallmark of an unknown adversary intending to do far more than merely demonstrate skill or mock a vulnerability."

Feinstein agreed with Blair's assessment that the nation was unprepared for the kinds of possible cyber attacks it could face.

"The need to develop an overall cyber-security strategy is very clear," Feinstein said.


Sources: CNN, MSNBC

Scott Brown Is Pres. Obama's 10th Cousin...Fact Or Fiction?

President Obama, GOP Senator Scott Brown Are 10th Cousins


President Obama's failed bid to derail the candidacy of newly elected Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown wasn't just politics - it was a family feud.

It turns out that Obama and the rising Republican star are 10th cousins, the New England Historic Genealogical Society says.

"The President's reaction is that Sen. Brown clearly comes from the better-looking branch of the family," White House spokesman Bill Burton said Friday when told of the finding.

Brown, who once posed in the pages of Cosmo, was also complimentary after learning earlier that he and Obama were kin.

"I'm glad to be in such distinguished company," Brown said.

Don't expect a family reunion anytime soon. Brown's unexpected victory - over the Democrat that Obama had been backing to win the seat that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy held for a half-century - derailed the president's plans to push through health care reform.

Obama's late mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Brown's mother, Judith Ann Rugg, both descend from Richard Singletary of Haverhill, Mass., who died in 1687 at the remarkably ripe age of 102.

"I think it's a really interesting thing, where you have the separation between a Democrat and a Republican, but you have one link," said geneologist David Allen Lambert, who helped make the connection.

But Brown is not the only Republican in Obama's ancestral closet.

Two years ago, the society discovered that Obama was also distantly related to presidents George H.W. Bush, his son, George W. Bush, and Gerald Ford - all Republicans.

He's also related to president James Madison, who was a Democrat-Republican.

Obama can also claim as kin former Democratic presidents Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman - and actor Brad Pitt.



View Larger Map


Sources: NY Daily News, Google Maps

Voters Fed Up With A Dysfunctional, Partisan Congress

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Poll: American Public Fed Up With Washington


As President Barack Obama prepares to deliver his first State of the Union address Wednesday night, he will be speaking to an American public that’s fed up with Congress, the country’s two main political parties, and the federal government, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Only 28 percent believe the Federal Government is “working well” or even works “okay,” versus seven in 10 who think it’s “unhealthy,” “stagnant” or needs large reforms.

By comparison, in December of 2000 — during the height of the disputed Bush-Gore presidential election — 55 percent said the government was working well or okay.

What’s more, a whopping 93 percent believe there’s too much partisan infighting; 84 percent think the special interests have too much influence over legislation; nearly three-quarters say that not enough has been done to regulate Wall Street and the banking industry; and an equal 61 percent complain that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress aren’t willing to compromise.

And the percentage who believe the country is headed in the wrong direction now stands at 58 percent, the highest level of Obama’s presidency.

“The message is a big one,” said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. “The message is, ‘We hate what’s going in Washington.’”

Public’s anger isn’t directed at Obama

Indeed, the NBC/Journal survey finds that nearly half of the country (48 percent) said last week’s stunning election in Massachusetts, in which Republican candidate Scott Brown won a Senate contest in one of the nation’s most Democratic-leaning states, was aimed at sending a message to Washington. Only 15 percent disagreed.

But if the public is fed up with Washington, its anger isn’t necessarily directed at President Obama.

Only 27 percent say they blame him for not being able to find solutions to the country’s problems. By contrast, 48 percent blame Republicans in Congress and 41 percent blame congressional Democrats.

“The president has problems,” Hart adds, “but the Congress has much bigger problems.”

Obama’s numbers, in fact, are virtually unchanged from last week’s poll, which was released on the day of the Massachusetts election.

The president’s approval rating inched up two points to 50 percent, while the number believing his health care plan is a good idea declined two points to 31 percent.

“This data set reminds us that the Scott Brown election has been a huge event in Washington, D.C.,” said McInturff, the Republican pollster. “But around the country, I think this polling would suggest that it had a modest effect.”

Focus more on the economy, less on health care

However, the poll also suggests the public wants Obama to refocus his priorities: 44 percent say he has given too much attention to health care, 16 percent say he’s given it too little attention and 38 percent say he’s given it the right amount.

On the other hand, 51 percent maintain he’s given the economy too little attention, compared with only 5 percent who say he’s given it too much attention and 42 percent who say he’s given it the right amount of attention.

Still, a majority of Americans continue to have high hopes for Obama. A combined 54 percent either say that he’s facing a short-term setback from which he’ll rebound or that he’s not facing a setback at all.

That’s compared with 42 percent who say he’s facing a long-term setback from which he’ll unlikely recover.


GOP’s enthusiasm edge

Looking ahead to this year’s midterm elections, 44 percent of registered voters say they prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress, versus 42 percent who want a GOP-controlled one. Last week’s survey showed a 41-41 percent tie on this question.

But Republicans continue to enjoy a significant enthusiasm advantage. Voters who are most interested in November’s midterms prefer a Republican-controlled Congress by a 49-41 percent margin.

Yet the poll also provides evidence that Obama might be more of an asset than a liability in November. Thirty-seven percent say their vote will be a signal of support for the president, while 27 percent say it will be a signal of opposition; 35 percent said it won’t signal anything about Obama.

The poll was conducted of 800 adults from Jan. 23-25, and it has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.5 percentage points.


Sources: MSNBC

North Carolina Independent Voter Trend Increasing

Growing N.C. Independent Voters


More residents are shunning party affiliation when they register to vote, according to a new study.

The number of unaffiliated voters jumped 83 percent in 10 years, according to an analysis by Bob Hall, executive director of Democracy North Carolina.

Republican registration grew 16 percent, and Democratic registration grew 11 percent over the same period, Hall reported.

Unaffiliated voters make up about 23 percent of those registered. Ten years ago, about 15 percent of registered voters were unaffiliated.

Overall, the analysis shows electoral strength shifting toward urban counties and becoming less white.





Massachusetts G.O.P. Senate Victory Stuns Democrats


Scott Brown, a little-known Republican state senator, rode an old pickup truck and a growing sense of unease among independent voters to an extraordinary upset Tuesday night when he was elected to fill the Senate seat that was long held by Edward M. Kennedy in the overwhelmingly Democratic state of Massachusetts.

By a decisive margin, Mr. Brown defeated Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general, who had been considered a prohibitive favorite to win just over a month ago after she easily won the Democratic primary.

With all precincts counted, Mr. Brown had 52 percent of the vote to Ms. Coakley’s 47 percent.

“Tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken,” Mr. Brown told his cheering supporters in a victory speech, standing in front of a backdrop that said “The People’s Seat.”

The election left Democrats in Congress scrambling to salvage a bill overhauling the nation’s health care system, which the late Mr. Kennedy had called “the cause of my life.” Mr. Brown has vowed to oppose the bill, and once he takes office the Democrats will no longer control the 60 votes in the Senate needed to overcome filibusters.

There were immediate signs that the bill had become imperiled. House members indicated they would not quickly pass the bill the Senate approved last month.

And after the results were announced, one centrist Democratic senator, Jim Webb of Virginia, called on Senate leaders to suspend any votes on the Democrats’ health care legislation until Mr. Brown is sworn into office. The election, he said, was a referendum on both health care and the integrity of the government process.

Beyond the bill, the election of a man supported by the Tea Party movement also represented an unexpected reproach by many voters to President Obama after his first year in office, and struck fear into the hearts of Democratic lawmakers, who are already worried about their prospects in the midterm elections later this year.

Mr. Brown was able to appeal to independents who were anxious about the economy and concerned about the direction taken by Democrats, now that they control both Beacon Hill and Washington. He rallied his supporters when he said, at the last debate, that he was not running for Mr. Kennedy’s seat but for “the people’s seat.”

That seat, held for nearly half a century by Mr. Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate, will now be held for almost three full years by a Republican who has said he supports waterboarding as an interrogation technique for terrorism suspects, opposes a federal cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions and opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants unless they leave the country. It was a sharp swing of the pendulum, but even Democratic voters said they wanted the Obama administration to change direction.

“I’m hoping that it gives a message to the country,” said Marlene Connolly, 73, of North Andover, a lifelong Democrat who said she cast her first vote for a Republican on Tuesday. “I think if Massachusetts puts Brown in, it’s a message of ‘that’s enough.’ Let’s stop the giveaways and let’s get jobs going.”

Mr. Brown ran strongest in the suburbs of Boston, where the independent voters who make up a majority in Massachusetts turned out in large numbers. Ms. Coakley did best in urban areas, winning overwhelmingly in Boston and running ahead in Springfield, Worcester, Fall River and New Bedford, but her margins were not large enough to carry her to victory.

In a concession speech before cheering supporters, Ms. Coakley acknowledged that voters were angry and said she had hoped to deal with the concerns.

“Our mission continues, and our work goes on,” she said, echoing well-known remarks by Mr. Kennedy. “I am heartbroken at the result, as I know you are, and I know we will get up together tomorrow and continue this fight, even with this result tonight.”

The crowd at Mr. Brown’s victory rally, upset by reports that Democrats might try to vote on the health care bill before he takes office, chanted, “Seat him now!” Mr. Brown, for his part, noted that the interim senator holding the seat had finished his work, and that he was ready to go to Washington “without delay.” And he effusively praised Mr. Kennedy as a big-hearted, tireless worker, and said that he hoped to prove a worthy successor to him.

Ms. Coakley’s defeat, in a state that Mr. Obama won in 2008 with 62 percent of the vote, led to a round of finger-pointing among Democrats. Some criticized her tendency for gaffes — in a radio interview she offended Red Sox fans when she incorrectly suggested that Curt Schilling, a beloved former Red Sox pitcher, was a Yankee fan — while others criticized a lackluster, low-key campaign.

Mr. Brown presented himself as a Massachusetts Everyman, featuring the pickup truck he drives around the state in his speeches and one of his television commercials, calling in to talk radio shows and campaigning with popular local sports figures.

The implications of the election drew nationwide attention, and millions of dollars of outside spending, to the race. It transformed what many had expected to be a sleepy, low-turnout special election on a snowy day in January into a high-profile contest that appeared to draw more voters than expected to the polls. There were reports of traffic jams outside suburban polling stations, while other polling stations had to call for extra ballots.

The late surge by Mr. Brown appeared to catch Democrats by surprise, causing them to scramble in the last week and a half of the campaign and hastily schedule an appearance by Mr. Obama with Ms. Coakley on Sunday afternoon.

“Understand what’s at stake here, Massachusetts,” Mr. Obama said in his speech that day, repeatedly invoking Mr. Kennedy’s legacy. “It’s whether we’re going forwards or backwards.” He all but pleaded with voters to support Ms. Coakley, to preserve his agenda.

As voters went to the polls, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, made it clear that the president was “not pleased” with the situation Ms. Coakley found herself in. “He was both surprised and frustrated,” Mr. Gibbs said.

Although the race has riveted the nation largely because it was seen as contributing to the success or defeat of the health care bill, the potency of the issue for voters here was difficult to gauge. That is because Massachusetts already has near-universal health coverage, thanks to a law passed when Mitt Romney, a Republican, was governor.

Thus Massachusetts is one of the few states where the benefits promised by the national bill were expected to have little effect on how many of its residents got coverage, making it an unlikely place for a referendum on the health care bill.

On Capitol Hill, the fate of the health care legislation was highly uncertain as Democratic leaders quickly gathered to plot strategy in the wake of the Republican victory.

Sentiment about how to proceed was mixed, with several lawmakers saying the House would not accept the Senate-passed plan. Top officials had said that approach was the party’s best alternative, and many members said they still believed it was crucial that Democrats pass a plan.

“It is important for us to pass legislation,” said Representative Baron P. Hill, a conservative Democrat from Indiana.

Mr. Brown will fill the seat until it is up for election again. Depending on how soon he is sworn in, Mr. Brown will serve almost three full years — not two. (The next election will be in November 2012, and the winner will be sworn in for a six-year term in early January 2013.)



View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, MSNBC, McClatchy Newspapers, Newsobserver, Democracy Now, Youtube, Google Maps

Ben Bernanke's Confirmation Uncertain After Scott Brown's Election

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ben Bernanke No Sure Bet In The Senate



Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke may be Time magazine’s Man of the Year – but he hasn’t convinced senators he’s the man for the job.

In the wake of Tuesday’s Massachusetts stunner, Bernanke’s chances of returning for a second term as head of the Fed were thrown into doubt, as a pair of liberal Democratic senators on Friday jumped on the dump-Bernanke bandwagon.

It was no idle threat. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he’d call a vote next week but couldn’t say for sure Friday that he has the 60 votes to confirm Bernanke by the time his term expires Jan. 31.

That raised the prospect of a fill-in Fed chief, which would shock a skittish stock market that already dipped 5 percent in three days.

And a Bernanke defeat would be a stunning blow to President Barack Obama, who interrupted his Martha’s Vineyard vacation to re-appoint Bernanke over the summer and now is forced to salvage a nomination that once seemed a shoo-in.

Blame the Scott Brown brushfire. Brown’s upset Senate victory in Massachusetts put the nation’s populist angst on vivid display – the same forces that have led senators, left and right, to target Bernanke for the past few months.

The anti-Bernanke fervor picked up steam this week after Brown’s victory, as senators turned up the volume on their complaints that Bernanke has been too beholden to Wall Street bankers and not attentive enough to the pain for middle-class families.

“It is time for a change – it is time for Main Street to have a champion at the Fed,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Friday in announcing her plan to vote against Bernanke. “Dr. Bernanke played a lead role in crafting the Bush administration’s economic policies, which led to the current economic crisis. Our next Federal Reserve Chairman must represent a clean break from the failed policies of the past.”

On Friday, the White House was moving to firm up Bernanke’s chances. Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner were working the Hill by phone to help him.

And Reid, who had withheld his endorsement of Bernanke after meeting him Thursday, signed on Friday, highlighting Bernanke’s role in staving off a worse recession – the work that won him Time’s honor and plaudits from many economists.

In an election year that’s being driven by populist voter rage over the state of the economy, many lawmakers are wary of casting a vote to support one of the chief architects of the U.S. response to the crisis.

But Bernanke’s supporters tout his role in staving off economic Armageddon once the crisis started and injecting more than $1 trillion in new money into the economy to prevent the economy from shutting down in 2009.

“I don’t want to see the Fed destroyed,” said Ernest Patrikis, a partner at the law firm White & Case who spent 30 years as an official at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. “People are so upset that they’re flailing left and right. We’re killing the dollar and confidence in the United States as a place to invest. There are issues that are so much more important than getting elected.”

At the Federal Reserve, where one source describes the mood as “weary exasperation,” aides scrambled to put together a plan for what happens if Bernanke does not receive a confirmation vote before his term ends.

In the event that Bernanke isn’t confirmed, several sources say, Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Donald Kohn likely would be elevated to acting chair of the U.S. central bank. Bernanke would be entitled to stay on the board until his term as a Fed governor expires in 2020, but the sources said Bernanke could instead return to a professorship at Princeton University.

Possible successors to Bernanke include three people currently advising Obama on the economy, former Fed chief Paul Volcker, Larry Summers and Christina Romer.

Kohn was traveling in Europe at the end of the week on Fed business, but strategy on the Bernanke confirmation was being led by former Enron lobbyist Linda Robertson, who is viewed as an effective advocate for the banking chief on Capitol Hill.

On Wall Street, executives predicted a dire market reaction if Bernanke’s confirmation fails. “A decision to kill the Bernanke nomination will cause a large and disturbing upset in global financial markets,” said economist Joseph Brusuelas. “Not just equities, but the dollar and interest rates will be immediately impacted.”

Wall Street lobbyists in Washington said they were quietly making the case for Bernanke on Capitol Hill, but were hamstrung by the politics. Because Bernanke has been criticized as too close to Wall Street, they said, the surest way to seal his fate would be for financial lobbyists to make a full court press to save his nomination.

“Three months ago, we thought this was a slam dunk,” said one financial services executive. “And today people think this may not even be a layup. There’s lots of concern in the markets that the politics of the Senate might derail him.”

And at the White House, staffers strategized over how to finesse the delicate politics of confirming a man who has become increasingly linked with the Wall Street bailout policies of the past year and a half. “[White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel] and the other people are all engaged,” said an administration source.

“As the President has said before, he has a great deal of confidence in what Chairman Bernanke did to bring our economy back from the brink,” said White House spokesman Bill Burton. “And he continues to think that he's the best person for the job, and will be confirmed by the United States Senate.”

In the Senate, though, leadership aides said neither Democratic nor Republican leaders were whipping the vote as of Friday, a testament to how fractured the caucuses of both parties are on the fate of Bernanke. Democratic leadership aides said they did not have the votes to confirm Bernanke without significant support from Republicans.

Bernanke has come under fire from the left for being too close to Wall Street, and from the right for his role in extending government control of the financial markets. And both sides have complained that the Fed’s policy of lowering interest rates to spur the economy was part of the problem that led to the crisis of 2008.

And although most Senate watchers continued to predict that Bernanke will squeak through, speculation turned to what happens if he is rejected – and just who might take over one of the most powerful economic positions on the planet.

All the angst puts a rare spotlight on the otherwise-obscure vice chairman of the Fed, Kohn. Officials said Kohn sees the world largely the same way as Bernanke, and the Fed under his control wouldn’t take radically different steps than it has under Bernanke’s reign. “There’s no daylight that I'm aware of between Kohn and Bernanke,” said one former Fed official. “[Kohn has] spent his entire career at the Fed. He’s a creature of the institution.”

Kohn, a native of Philadelphia, is seen as a vital inside player inside the central bank. “He’s the glue that holds the Fed together,” said Patrikis. “If he were the acting chairman, it would be steady on course.”

Democratic leaders on the Hill have very little time left to gather votes before the Jan. 31 deadline. By Senate procedural rules, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would need to file cloture – the procedural move to force debate – on the nomination by sometime Tuesday morning to ensure a final vote during the normal workweek,. The move is necessary because several Republicans and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders plan to filibuster Bernanke nomination.

Late Friday, Reid released a statement offering an endorsement of Bernanke – but did not indicate when he will call a vote. “No one pretends for a minute that our economy is back at full capacity,” Reid said. “But Chairman Bernanke has worked hard to strengthen the economy in recent months . …He also deserves recognition for what didn’t happen: An expert on the Great Depression, Chairman Bernanke helped steer us away from a second one.”

But the Friday announcements by Boxer and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) opposing Bernanke brought the total of publicly declared “no” votes on both sides of the aisle to about a dozen.

And there are even more undecideds.

“I’m cogitating on it,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). But he’s far from sold on Bernanke. “I just have some uneasy feelings that his mindset is not where we need to be in terms of the Federal Reserve right now.” Harkin said the White House had not reached out to him to support Bernanke.

Dodd, who defended Bernanke against liberal critics during the Democratic caucus lunch Wednesday, told reporters Friday that he doesn’t know where the votes stand but he believes his Democratic colleagues who plan to oppose the Fed chairman are making a mistake.

"If you want to send a worse signal to the markets right now and send us in a tailspin, it would be to reject this nomination. This is not naming someone to be an assistant secretary to something -- this is the most important central banker in the world,” Dodd said.


Sources: Politico, MSNBC, TIME

Obama Finally Lets Finance Whiz Paul Volcker Spread His Wings

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama's "Volcker Rule" Shifts Power Away From Geithner


For much of last year, Paul Volcker wandered the country arguing for tougher restraints on big banks while the Obama administration pursued a more moderate regulatory agenda driven by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

Thursday morning at the White House, it seemed as if the two men had swapped places. A beaming Volcker stood at Obama's right as the president endorsed his proposal and branded it the "Volcker Rule." Geithner stood farther away, compelled to accommodate a stance he once considered less effective than his own.

The moment was the product of Volcker's persistence and a desire by the White House to impose sharper checks on the financial industry than Geithner had been advocating, according to some government sources and political analysts. It was Obama's most visible break yet from the reform philosophy that Geithner and his allies had been promoting earlier.

Senior administration officials say there is now broad consensus within the White House and the Treasury for the plan advanced by Volcker, who leads an outside economic advisory group for the president. At its heart, Volcker's plan restricts banks from making speculative investments that do not benefit their customers. He has argued that such speculative activity played a key role in the financial crisis. The administration also wants to limit the ability of the largest banks to use borrowed money to fund expansion plans.

The proposals, which require congressional approval, are the most explicit restrictions the administration has tried to impose on the banking industry. It will help to have Volcker, a legendary former Federal Reserve chairman who garners respect on both sides of the aisle, on Obama's side as the White House makes a final push for a financial reform bill on Capitol Hill, a senior official noted.

Advocates of Volcker's ideas were delighted. "This is a complete change of policy that was announced today. It's a fundamental shift," said Simon Johnson, a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management. "This is coming from the political side. There are classic signs of major policy changes under pressure . . . but in a new and much more sensible direction."

Industry officials, however, said they were startled and disheartened that Geithner was overruled, in part because they supported the more moderate approach Geithner proposed last year.

"His influence may have slipped," said a senior industry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve his relationship with the administration. "But you could also argue that it wasn't Geithner who lost power. It's just that the president needed Volcker politically" to look tough on big banks.

Geithner agreed with Volcker that banks' risk-taking needed to be constrained.

But through much of the past year, Geithner said the best approach to limiting it is to require banks to hold more capital in reserve to cover losses, reducing their potential profits. Geithner said blanket prohibitions on specific activities would be less effective, in part because such bans would eliminate some legitimate activity unnecessarily.

The shift toward Volcker's thinking began last fall, according to government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations were private.

Volcker had been arguing that banks, which are sheltered by the government because lending is important to the economy, should be prevented from taking advantage of that safety net to make speculative investments.

To make his case, he met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and gave numerous speeches on the subject, traveling to at least nine cities on several continents to warn that banks had developed "unmanageable conflicts of interest" as they made investments for clients and themselves simultaneously.

"We ought to have some very large institutions whose primary purpose is a kind of fiduciary responsibility to service consumers, individuals, businesses and governments by providing outlets for their money and by providing credit," he said during one speech in Toronto. "They ought to be the core of the credit and financial system. Those institutions should not engage in highly risky entrepreneurial activity."

Gradually, Volcker picked up allies. John Reed, the former chairman of Citigroup, expressed his public support. So did Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England.

His ideas began gaining traction within the administration in late October, when the president convened a meeting of his senior economic advisers in the Oval Office to hear a detailed presentation by the former Fed chairman.

There was no immediate change of course. But after the House passed a regulatory reform bill on Dec. 11 that was largely based on the Geithner's vision, the administration began to warm to Volcker's ideas, which had the political value of seeming tough on Wall Street, said sources in contact with the Treasury and White House.

At the time, administration officials were growing concerned that government guarantees designed to spur lending by letting banks borrow cheaply were instead funding banks' speculative investments and fueling soaring profits, said Austan Goolsbee, a member of the president's Council of Economic Advisers.

"We started coming out of the rescue and you saw some of the biggest financial institutions . . . who had access to cheap financing . . . use that money without lending or anything, just doing their own investments," he said. "That clearly started putting [the issue] on the radar screen for us."

Goolsbee said that Vice President Biden became a particular advocate for Volcker's approach.

In mid-December, the president formally endorsed Volcker's approach and asked Geithner and Lawrence H. Summers, the director of the National Economic Council, to work closely with the former Fed chairman to develop proposals that could be sent to Capitol Hill. The three men had long discussions about the idea, including a lengthy one-on-one lunch between Geithner and Volcker on Christmas Eve.

Summers and Geithner had been reluctant to take on battles that weren't at the heart of the problem that fueled the crisis. But ultimately, an administration official said, the two men concluded that reform needs to be about more than just fighting the last war -- it needs to address sources of future risk as well.


Sources: Washington Post, MSNBC

Independent Voters Change Political Landscape

Independents' Anger In Massachusetts A Sign Of Things To Come?


Political analysts say that emotions played as big a role as issues in Republican Scott Brown's earthshaking win this week in traditionally Democratic Massachusetts.

And those emotions will appear likely to influence the rest of the political season into the November midterm elections.

"People are so angry out here in the real world they can't see straight," political analyst Jennifer Donahue said.

Independent voters can break an election. It happened in 2008 and once again in 2010.

A day after his victory to fill Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat, Brown said Wednesday the one thing he heard the most during his campaign was that people were tired of business as usual.

"That means the behind-the-scenes deals. ... They want to make sure that their elected officials are doing things in a transparent manner, and doing it with the best interests of our state and mine."

While Massachusetts has traditionally voted Democratic, there are more voters registered as independents than Democrats or Republicans combined. And they largely broke for Brown rather than state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate.

Donahue said the surge of independents voting for Brown reflects a larger phenomenon happening across the country.

"[The election had] a similar dynamic to the electorate and the actual group that elected Obama ... this combination of independent swing voters and Democrats," she added. "What it really shows and what the big implication is for the rest of the 2010 elections are -- the country has moved to the center. Washington has not kept up."

Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and CNN contributor, said he had a similar theory.

"People in the middle, particularly, but actually at both fringes as well, they really want change. That's how we got Barack Obama in there," Begala said.

The challenge for Democrats is to reconnect with voters and try to make the case that they're not fully responsible for the country's problems, Begala said.

"That those deficits that all those independents hate, they were caused by the other guys," he said. "Those were all Republican-Bush deficits that the Democrats are now trying to pay down. And I think they have to make that case. They have not done so. They certainly haven't done so in Massachusetts."

Donahue said fear and insecurity are driving voters' anger.

"The roar that was heard [Tuesday] night by Scott Brown's supporters is about joblessness," Donahue said. "The roar is about the lack of financial security and lack of a financial picture going forward for most Americans. That is where the anger is coming from."

Those emotions got Obama elected, said Republican strategist and CNN contributor Alex Castellanos, adding they're now focused on the president.

"Two years ago, the Republican Party was the party of irresponsibility; we set the world on fire and spun ourselves to death," said Castellanos, who advises the Republican National Committee. "We de-branded ourselves. Democrats elected Barack Obama as the opposite of that -- the candidate of responsibility.

"Guess what, he has now de-branded the Democratic Party as a party of economic responsibility. He is the guy creating uncertainty out there, and that's a big change. The Democrats have to repair that or suffer the consequences."

Anger and frustration fueled the "Tea Party" movement through last summer and fall when the health care overhaul was ramping up in Congress, some political observers say.

Ned Ryun, president of American Majority, which offers training for many Tea Party activists, said the movement's followers, much like independents, are frustrated with both parties.

"They are sick of it, and it's very much anti-establishment at both parties," he said. "They don't care about party labels."

And that message of anti-establishment really resonated, Ryun said, with voters in Massachusetts who went to the polls for the Republican.

Ryun said he believes voting behavior is changing.

"I think we're getting to the point where you can truly say we're entering a post-party era. They aren't going to be necessarily wed to a certain party -- they want to see leadership that reflects their values first," he added. "They don't care what party you're in; they just want to know if you reflect their values -- limited government, fixing the economy."

As for the upcoming midterm elections? It's a wake-up call, a longtime political analyst said.

"The voters in Massachusetts sent a message loud and clear. Maybe even a 'shot heard around the world,' " Ed Rollins, a senior political contributor to CNN and Republican strategist, said in a CNN.com opinion column. "... [It] was a massive win for disenchanted voters everywhere."


Sources: CNN

GOP's Roadmap For 2010 Elections: Independents, Solutions & Tea Parties

The GOP's New Roadmap


The secret to Scott Brown’s success in Massachusetts was his strong appeal to independent voters—a template for the GOP in 2010, and a Democratic nightmare.

Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts Tuesday tells us a lot about the power of independents and what it takes to win their vote. Despite the media’s focus on the “fringe” elements on the far right and the far left of the ideological spectrum, the vast majority of Americans reside somewhere in the political center. Most people want the same things from Washington: a federal government that is efficient, competent, transparent, and frugal. Unfortunately for the party in power, our leaders in Washington have failed spectacularly on all these fronts.

“But Republicans started it,” liberals will squeal. Fair enough. But Democrats were handed decisive margins of victory in 2006 and 2008 to turn things around, and it appears that voters have run out of patience.

Independents are particularly disillusioned. They were quick to display anxiety about President Obama’s liberal agenda and appetite for spending. After passage of the White House stimulus plan, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) warned that a kind of “generational theft” was under way. That registered with independents. And their anxiety about the Democratic administration only snowballed from there.

Independents tend to have a lower tolerance than partisans for government shenanigans. They’ve watched the bribery and back-room dealing on health-care legislation in abject horror.

Obama’s inability to call “time out” on the Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill has taken a toll on the political health of the White House. He had a window several months ago to halt negotiations and demand that integrity and transparency be returned to the legislative process—a promise he campaigned on in his historic run for the White House. These missed opportunities have not gone unnoticed. In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, President Obama’s approval rating among independents is 41 percent, down from 52 percent on Election Day in 2008. And while independent voters are not the squeaky wheels in our political system, their mood swings have serious consequences.

In November, independents in New Jersey sided with Republican Chris Christie 58 percent to 31 percent, helping pave the way for his stunning upset in the governor’s race in this deep blue state. In Virginia, a state Obama turned blue in 2008, Republican Bob McDonnell carried independents by a margin of 65-34 percent en route to victory in that state’s governor’s race. And Tuesday night, independents in Massachusetts—who make up more than half of the electorate—decided that the most qualified candidate to succeed Ted Kennedy was Scott Brown, the “independent-minded Republican” in the race.

Scott Brown won for a variety of reasons. He is scrappy, accessible, humble and hard-working. The pickup truck helped. So did his young, energetic daughters. But the most interesting thing about Brown’s appeal among Massachusetts independents is that he didn’t back away from the issues that are of the greatest importance to Republicans. With confidence and without alienating the political center, Brown ran as the 41st vote against Obama’s agenda. He wasn’t intimidated or distracted by the white noise that emanates from Washington about how Republicans can’t simply run “against” something; they need to be “for” something. Scott Brown proved all the wise men (and women) wrong on that front by running as “41.” And he was for the important things: jobs, tax cuts, less government, and a strong military.

Brown also spoke in stark terms about terror. The wounds of 9/11 run deep in Massachusetts. Two of the planes took off from Logan International that day. Brown ran as an unapologetic supporter of waterboarding and an opponent of granting rights and privileges to enemies during wartime. Massachusetts’ voters went with him.

Brown did something else that’s important. He allowed voters to like Obama. For Republicans to win in November, they will have to acknowledge the personal appeal of both President and Mrs. Obama. Brown described his call from Obama in his victory speech Tuesday night and continued his courtship of the popular president in his news conference Wednesday with an in-depth read-out of the conversation the two men had.

Perhaps the secret of Brown’s appeal to the independent set is the simple fact that he knows who he is; he hasn’t been focus-grouped or scripted or insulated from the people he represents. He put it best when he ended his acceptance speech Tuesday night with this:

“[B]ecause of your independence and your trust, I will hold for a time the seat once filled by patriots from John Quincy Adams to John F. Kennedy and his brother Ted... I’m Scott Brown. I’m from Wrentham. I drive a truck. And I am nobody’s senator but yours.”


Sources: The Daily Beast

Eric Cantor Confident About GOP Wins During 2010 Midterm Elections

View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Is Pres. Obama Tired Of Health Care Reform Fight?

Sources: ABC News, The Daily Beast

Obama Admin. Staff Seems Unfazed By Brown's Win...Arrogance

Sources: MSNBC, The Daily Beast, Zimbio

Obama Admin. Still In Denial About Why Brown Won

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps

U.S. Senator Elect (MA) Scott Brown's First Official Press Conference

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sources: MSNBC

Brown's Win Shot Heard Around Political World! Chilling Message

Chilling Message From Unhappy Voters


The voters in Massachusetts sent a message loud and clear. Maybe even a "shot heard around the world." At least the political world. Tuesday night's victory for Scott Brown for the vacant seat held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy for 46 years was a massive win for disenchanted voters everywhere.

His message that this wasn't the "Kennedy seat; it's the people's seat" reverberated coast to coast. This was the biggest upset of the political establishment since George Nethercutt defeated House Speaker Tom Foley in 1994. The message was similar. The winning slogan for Nethercutt was this "district doesn't need a speaker; it needs a listener."

Brown arguing that his becoming the 41st vote would make every senator the 41st vote had real meaning. It means that every senator needs to represent their voters and not be beholden to either party. And every vote counts.

The voters were saying in the bluest of the blue states, to both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, "We aren't happy. Washington, D.C., is not working and it's your fault. It's not Bush's fault, it's not Newt Gingrich's fault. It's your job and if you can't do it, we'll find somebody who can."

It is a chilling message to professional politicians. "Wanted! New senators; no experience necessary; just an ability to listen to voters."

To Democrats this defeat may be viewed as the second Boston massacre. For Republicans it maybe the second Boston Tea party. The warning shot is that business as usual is unacceptable, and if you continue down that path, do so at your own risk. And remember, we the voters hire you and we can fire you, too.

Wednesday marks the one year anniversary of President Obama's inauguration. I am sure he never thought that this anniversary would follow Tuesday's inaugural of the new Republican governor of New Jersey or the loss of the Senate seat of his good friend and mentor, Kennedy .

My only advice on your anniversary is: Mr. President, don't run away from or misinterpret Tuesday's results. Don't let the Chicago sycophants surrounding you in the White House tell you this defeat had nothing to do with you or your health care legislation or your style of governing. It did big time, and every poll said it did.

You have three more years before the next inaugural. It may be yours or it maybe someone else's. But don't let your team convince you that this loss was only about Martha Coakley being a lousy candidate. (She was.) But she was good enough to win the state attorney general's job three years ago with 73 percent of the vote. She was good enough to trounce three other candidates, including a sitting congressman to win the primary a few weeks ago.

No, Brown's victory was about a lot more, and Mr. President, even though you weren't on the ballot, you were a big part of it. Remember this was a a state you won by a 26-percentage point margin, a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1. But the critical voting data is that 51 percent of the voters are unaffiliated.

This is a state that hasn't elected a Republican senator since the Nixon landslide election of 1972. (Massachusetts was the only state Nixon lost.) Sen. Ed Brooke, a liberal, African-American, was re-elected in that year, only to lose six years later. Brooke was the first member of his race since Reconstruction to be elected to the Senate and the only Republican. Since 1920, Massachusetts has only voted Republican for president in the Eisenhower and Reagan landslide victories.

Republicans are obviously joyful but need to learn the lessons of the gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey as well as this victory. Listen to the voters. Talk to them. Try to find solutions for their problems.

Democrats don't need me to give them advice. But killing each other in back-stabbing contests won't help. The blame game started before the first vote was counted. But maybe they will be humbled by losing the seat they thought they owned.

I am sure a Kennedy or a follower will try to win it back in 2012. But in the meantime, the senators and House members running in 2010 better start listening to their bosses -- and I don't mean House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And Obama's likable personality isn't going to help if the country doesn't like his policies.


Ed Rollins, a Senior Political Contributor for CNN, is Senior Presidential Fellow at the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency at Hofstra University. He was White House political director for President Reagan and chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.



View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Grand Old Possibility In Nov. 2010! Obama Magic Gone!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dazed Democrats Re-think Entire Strategy


Scott Brown has turned this town upside down.

Usually, the tendency among political reporters and operatives alike is to over-react and over-interpret elections.

And there are caveats to the stunner in Massachusetts. Yes, this was a special election, which often produce unusual results. Yes, Democrat Martha Coakley ran a timid, sometimes terrible, campaign for Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat. And it’s true that Massachusetts is not as liberal as many people assumed.

But none of that counters the stunning reality of an election where breathtaking results more than justify breathless analysis. Here’s why:


1.) Grand Old Possibility


Democrats are right that polls show the vast majority of the public holds Republicans in even lower esteem. But that might not matter because they blew the last two elections – and no longer own what Washington does.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and others are bragging that they have a real shot at winning back the House. They would need to net 40 seats to do so.

Republicans say the have recruited some quality candidates in winnable seats. Democrats grudgingly agree. But Republicans are getting their clocks cleaned when it comes to fundraising, especially by the House campaign committees. Democrats gleefully agree.

The special election – and the enthusiasm it has generated among conservatives – will make it a lot easier for the GOP to raise money and recruit volunteers. It gives conservatives, many of whom remain frustrated by memories of free-spending Republicans when they controlled things, now have a cause. The NRCC blasted out a fundraising appeal overnight – and plans to leverage the results to convince candidates to run in races once seen as unwinnable. GOP fundraisers says the special election – combined with Obama’s new attacks on Wall Street – has some big companies hedging their bets by investing more in the minority.

Cantor told us earlier this month Republicans will spend most of their money and energy running negative campaigns. It’s a convenient way of glossing over the party’s own weaknesses—and Brown proved this can be effective.


2.) The Obama Magic has vanished

Think back a year ago and imagine someone saying Obama would throw his support behind Democrats in New Jersey, Virginia and Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts - and lose all of them.

Think back a year ago and imagine someone saying he would celebrate his one-year anniversary without having gotten health care, financial regulation or energy legislation signed into law. And that less than 50 percent of the public would hold a favorable view of his presidency.

Obama clearly remains popular at the personal level, a big asset that Republicans privately concede could easily help turn things around for this White House in the months ahead. But it is similarly clear that the Obama magic of 2008 has vanished. His personal popularity is plainly not transferable to other Democrats. His power with Democrats is somewhat diminished.

So much now rides on health care for Obama. His top advisers have told reporters for months he will be judged on one issue and one issue alone: getting health care signed into law. They now realize the bill – and with it Obama’s reputation and leverage on Capitol Hill – could go down. As they look ahead to the rest of the year, White House advisers talk publicly of bold action but most of the talk in private is smaller, less controversial action. Deficits. Incremental changes to energy policy. Debt commissions.

This is not the way Obama — or many of the people watching him at his inaugural address a year ago-expected that he would mark his first anniversary.


3.) The Angry Independent wins

Ideologues and hard-core partisans dominate the leadership of both parties and the cable TV debates. But it’s the independents who are the deciders in most elections.

This voting bloc has swung decisively against Democrats, starting this past summer. A review of polling in Massachusetts, other states and nationally shows the same thing: By about a two-to-one margin, independents have turned on Democrats.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that two-thirds of independents plan would prefer Republicans controlled Congress. The same polls show the voters don’t even like Republicans. A CBS News poll showed only one-third of independents approve of Obama’s handling of the economy – a nearly 20 point drop in less than one year.

In all three big Democratic losses this past year – in New Jersey, Virginia and now Massachusetts – better than 60 percent of independents said they backed Republicans.

It would be a mistake for Republicans and Democrats to chalk this up to the health care bill. Independents consistently tell pollsters they aren’t happy with anything Washington is doing when it comes to the economy and domestic issues.

For the foreseeable future, the wrath of independents will hit Democrats hardest.


4.) The lock is broken

There is no way for Democrats to spin an upside to losing their 60th vote in the Senate.

Without it, the health care bill that passed one month ago with 60 votes would go down today. Same goes for any other bill Republicans decide to torpedo with unity, obstruction or whatever one wants to call zero votes.

There are ways Democrats can jam through the current health care bill with procedural tricks or legislative creativity. But what seemed a certainty a week ago feels unlikely today. Don't take the word of Republicans or even reporters on this one. Listen to what Democrats are saying as they appraised the results overnight:

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) told a local reporter “it’s probably back to the drawing board on health care, which is unfortunate.” Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) told MSNBC this morning he will advise Democratic leaders to scrap the big bill and move small, more popular pieces that can attract Republicans. And Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said his leadership is “whistling past the graveyard” if they think Brown’s win won’t force a rethinking of the health care plan.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who now might draw a challenge from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said the party needs to rethink its entire approach to governing.


5.) Voter Fear is unleashed

Any Democrat with even the faintest fear of a tough race in 2010 is rattled. It was easy for some to rationalize the defeats in New Jersey and Virginia last year - and even the flood of polls showing bad news since then.

They are in denial no more: if Democrats can lose in Massachusetts, they can lose anywhere. That is the mindset that will shape the next nine months for Democrats. It will affect who runs for re-election, who bolts on big votes, who gives money and who speaks out against Obama. All of this will make governing harder.

The focus has been on the special election the past week. But Democratic insiders were equally concerned about other signs of troubles that got insufficient notice: Polls show Democrats could lose the New York Senate seat; Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson’s favorable ratings plummeted in Nebraska; New polls showed Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) trailing badly in his swing district, and Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) is a statistical tie and in more trouble than previously expected.

Again, it's the appraisal of Democratic lawmakers overnight that speaks loudest. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) told us the results prove that unhappiness with political leaders has “gone mainstream” and could hit anyone. Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) said “when it happens in Massachusetts, it really throws us a curve. It’s a big deal for a lot of members here.”


6.) The Leaders are rattled

It has been an ugly 24 hours of blame-casting for Democrats. In fact, it's the first time in the Obama era that so many Democrats aired their private grievances in such a public way.

The White House blamed Martha Coakley’s campaign. Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to fault Senate Democrats. Senate Democrats, in turn, put the blame back on Coakley, who by Tuesday night had campaign officials thrashing the White House and Senate leaders.

Chalk this up to frayed nerves. But the Democratic unity that brought health care to the brink of passage will be tested like never before in coming days. Democrats on Capitol Hill told us they could be headed for a major clash with Obama. The reason: Obama’s agenda – getting health care to prove he can govern and earn reelection – could quickly be in tension with lawmaker’s agenda of saving their jobs.

David Axelrod told POLITICO it would be a “terrible mistake to walk away now” and “leave the stigma of a caricature” of a failed bill and effort. Pelosi and Harry Reid agree – but many members are demanding they think again. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, speaking to the New York Daily News as results were coming in last night, put it bluntly: “If she loses, it’s over.”

By contrast, David Plouffe, who ran the Obama campaign in ‘08, said in an interview it's imperative Democrats not back down, calling it a "test of our party and whether we truely are ready to lead."



Sources: Politico, MSNBC