ABC News(NEW YORK) -- Here’s a glimpse at some of the stories the ABC News political team will be tracking in the week ahead:
Kevin McCarthy isn’t House speaker yet, but his words have consequences. Republicans are scrambling to explain the House majority leader’s too-candid linking of the Benghazi committee and presidential politics, taking the GOP off-message even in a week that featured a new batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails. House leadership elections to replace Speaker John Boehner on Thursday will test McCarthy’s goodwill and pull among colleagues, in addition to the lingering unrest inside the GOP’s sizable tea party wing. McCarthy is hoping to avoid a second ballot in his bid to become House speaker.
President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin had hardly finished their awkward toast when Russian planes started attacking targets in Syria. Putin’s true intentions are typically hard to read. He may be simultaneously trying to defeat ISIS, prop up the Assad government and elbow the United States out of regional relevance. The conflict in Syria has drawn new contrasts in the 2016 race: Donald Trump flip-flopped with a vow to send refugees home, and Hillary Clinton is breaking with the Obama administration – and joining most of the GOP candidates - in advocating a no-fly zone. The turn toward foreign policy is a potential moment for Marco Rubio and other candidates who hope their resumes serve them well in the race.
BURN AND BERN
There’s nothing wrong with a $32 million campaign warchest … until you look at what it took to get there, and what it didn’t take a certain other candidate to come close. Hillary Clinton enters the fall stretch with a cash advantage over Bernie Sanders – and, most likely, all the Republican candidates. But she spent an estimated 90 percent of the money she brought in last quarter, and a grueling pace of fundraisers has been needed to get there. By contrast, Bernie Sanders is sitting on $26.5 million, according to his campaign, and has sliced into Clinton’s polling lead without even buying TV ads yet. Meanwhile, another mass shooting could focus liberal voters’ attention on Sanders’ record on gun control.
The first Democratic debate is drawing near, but it looks like there will extra space on the stage. Vice President Joe Biden has blown past self-imposed deadlines of summer, end of summer, and the beginning of October, and still hasn’t declared his 2016 intentions. Now the deadlines get real: Forget the Oct. 13 first debate, but look to the early November start of ballot filing cutoff dates to be the real motivating factor in forcing a Biden decision. Insiders say he looks more likely to run than not, though few claim to be inside the vice president’s head.
It’s come to the point for Rand Paul’s presidential campaign that this actual statement was released late in the week: “Rand Paul for President remains fully committed to the 2016 presidential race.” Why the doubts? The polling threshold announced for the next GOP debate leaves him on the cusp of missing the main event. Ted Cruz is almost mocking him by pointing out the former Ron Paul supporters who are on the Cruz bandwagon now. Donald Trump is predicting Paul’s exit from the race. And Paul found himself closing out another disappointing fundraising quarter having to raise money for his Senate – not presidential – campaign. Paul’s is among the most disappointing campaign of the cycle, with a candidate who seems not to be having much fun.
Paul Morigi/Getty Images(NEW YORK) -- Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner and real estate mogul, heaped praise on his wife Melania during an interview with ABC News, citing her "tremendous heart" and saying she would excel in her role as first lady should he be elected to the White House next year.
"I think Melania would be just unbelievable for women and for the country," Trump told ABC News' chief anchor George Stephanopoulos on This Week.
"Melania is a very beautiful woman both inside and out. She has got a tremendous heart. She feels so strongly about the women's health issues. In fact, she knows how strongly I feel about that and she's always pushing me on women's health issues," he said about his wife, who is a former model from Slovenia.
The real estate developer -– who has come under fire for controversial comments about Fox News host Megyn Kelly and Rosie O’Donnell -- added that his daughter, Ivanka, also cares strongly about women's health issues.
"They said, 'You have such respect for women,' and they say, 'You cherish women, you have such respect for women, you have to speak more about it, because there's nobody who cares more for women than you.' My mother was one of the great people ever in my life that I've ever met, and I have just amazing admiration and respect for women," Trump said.
Sean Rayford/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush has made several statements that have landed him in hot water since he entered the race.
This, of course, comes with the territory, especially when one tweet is all it takes to catapult a gaffe or slip of the tongue into an out-of-context behemoth that looms over a candidate's head for months.
It seems, however, that Bush has had more than the other candidates of these inelegant instances, where a great distance exists between what he said, what the public heard, and what he says he actually meant.
Let's explore five examples, starting with the most recent.
1. '...Stuff Happens'
What He Said:
While participating in a constitutional conversation in Greenville, South Carolina, on Friday, the topic turned towards Second Amendment rights and mass tragedies. The massacre in Oregon was referenced and the conversation then turned to the broader issue of tragedies and prayer.
"We're in a difficult time in our country and I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this. I think we need to connect ourselves with everybody else. It's just, it's -- it's very sad to see, but I resist the notion, I did -- I had this challenge as governor because we had -- look stuff happens. There’s always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something and it's not necessarily the right thing to do."
One tweet was sent out, then the progressive-leaning group American Bridge sent out a clip of his comments, and media and voters alike started weighing in. Twitter was aflame with reactions from both sides: Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz weighed in, and ABC News' Jonathan Karl asked President Obama about the comment, to which the president replied: "I don't even think I have to react to that one. I think the American people should hear that and make their own judgments based on the fact that every couple of months we have a mass shooting. And they can decide whether they consider that 'stuff happening.'"
The Bush camp and others on the conservative side decried the outcry as "sad and craven" and accused liberals and the media of taking his comments out of context in an attempt to politicize the issue.
What He Says He Meant:
Directly after the event, ABC News and other reporters sought to clarify his comments. One reporter asked if his comments were a mistake. "No it wasn’t a mistake, I said exactly what I said, why would you--- explain to me what I said wrong," Bush said, adding, "Tragedies, a child drowns in a pool, and the impulse is to pass a law that puts fencing around pools, it may not change it."
ABC News also asked him about his comments. Bush said that his comments were not related to the Oregon shooting and that he was broadly referring to tragedies.
"Let's make sure that we don't allow this to get out of control," he said. "There are all sorts of things that happen in life, tragedies unfold."
2. 'Free Stuff'
What He Said:
While speaking at an event in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, last week, Bush was asked by a voter how he would set out to attract African American voters. Bush, after citing his efforts to meet with Black ministers, set out to make the point that the Republican party could, indeed, attract black voters, a voting block that has historically leaned Democratic.
"We should make that case because our message is one of hope and aspiration, It isn't one of division and get in line and we'll take care of you with free stuff. Our message is one that is uplifting -- that says you can achieve earned success. We're on your side, things can get better," Bush said.
American Bridge sent out a video with the comments, accusing Bush of making the same mistake of insensitivity and racial polarization that Mitt Romney made back in 2012 when he said, "your friends who like Obamacare, you remind them of this, if they want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy -- more free stuff."
Singer John Legend tweeted, a hashtag started on twitter, and a controversy brewed, some critics arguing that Bush's comments portrayed African-Americans as handout-dependent or failed to recognize the societal constructs that systematically lead to high poverty rates for African-Americans. Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson spoke about it with Larry Wilmore on the Nightly Show.
"What we’ve seen from the Republicans is that they haven't talked about race beyond immigration, that there's, like, literally no language there yet," Mckesson said. "They, like, sort of start history where they want it to, in a way that erases all the people that pay with their lives. Nothing has been free. I think that all the people who died, who were the enslaved and everybody else, wouldn't say that any of this would be free."
What He Says He Meant:
Bush has long said that his message is aspirational, that his policies would lead to growth for all people, voters of color included. His views have long stated that low-income families don't want to be stuck in poverty and that solutions should be designed to raise them out.
"People don't want free stuff," he told Fox News. "We spend a trillion on poverty programs, and that result is the percentage of people in poverty has remained the same. We should try something different, which is to give people the capacity to achieve earned success, fix our schools, fix our economy, lessen the crime rates in the big urban areas."
3. 'We Should Not Have a Multicultural Society'
What He Said:
After remarks at a diner in Cedar Falls, Iowa, Bush was speaking with a young woman who asked him how the federal government should better incorporate refugees.
"We should not have a multicultural society. We ought to have- America as a nation is so much better than the other countries because it's a set of values that people share that defines our national identity not race or ethnicity or where you come from."
Hillary Clinton released a video, "GOP Candidates on Multiculturalism," that cuts together Bush's comments with an earlier Bush comment linking the term "anchor babies" to Asian-Americans. The video features controversial comments from other Republican candidates, including Donald Trump and Ben Carson, while "America the Beautiful" plays in the background.
It stirred up conversations that Bush was unappreciative of the many cultures in this country, questioning how he could make such comments, especially with a culturally and racially mixed family. (His wife, Columba, is Mexican born). To many, it seemed as though Bush was saying that unique cultural differences should be stripped and forgotten upon coming to America.
What He Says He Meant:
Bush said he was referring to multiculturalism in its most literal sense -- a phenomenon that refers to the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a larger society. His campaign says he was speaking out against the debate between multiculturalism vs. assimilation. He says he was advocating for all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, or creed, to unite under America and the set of shared values its people have, rather than remaining isolated in distinct cultural pockets.
He has long advocated for assimilation into the larger society, writing about it in his 1994 book, "Profiles in Character."
4. 'People Need to Work Longer Hours'
What He Said:
During an interview with New Hampshire's Union Leader, Bush was commenting on how to grow the economy and said this:
"My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families."
That quote seems to imply that the already over-worked American workforce should work even more. This time, the DNC pounced, releasing a statement that called Bush's remarks "easily one of the most out-of-touch comments we’ve heard so far this cycle," adding that Bush would not fight for the middle class as president.
What He Says He Meant:
Almost immediately, the Bush campaign fired back, releasing a statement that Bush was referring to the underemployed, those working part-time jobs that would rather be full-time.
"Under President Obama, we have the lowest workforce participation rate since 1977, and too many Americans are falling behind. Only Washington Democrats could be out-of-touch enough to criticize giving more Americans the ability to work, earn a paycheck, and make ends meet," the statement read.
5. Anchor Babies 'More Related to Asian People'
What He Said:
Bush came under fire in McAllen, Texas, for his repeated usage of the term anchor babies to refer to the American-born children of illegal immigrants. After being asked repeatedly by both Spanish and English media about it, he said this:
"What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed where there's organized efforts -- and frankly it's more related to Asian people -- coming into our country, and having children, in that organized effort, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship."
Needless to say, these comments were seized by partisan and Asian-American groups. The DNC pounced, Hillary Clinton pounced, and the National Council of Asian-Pacific Americans also released a statement condemning "the use of the derogatory term 'anchor babies.'"
What He Says He Meant:
Bush and his spokeswoman both said he was referring to the birth tourism industry, in which women travel to the United States with the explicit purpose of obtaining citizenship for their child. There are companies created just for facilitating this purpose. Many news organizations, including this one, have reported on it.
Adam Bettcher/Getty Images(BOSTON) -- Bernie Sanders swept through Massachusetts Saturday, drawing large crowds in both Springfield and Boston.
More than 20,000 people came out to see him in Boston, filling the stadium floor at the Boston Exhibition and Convention Center. A few thousand did not fit inside but stayed in cold weather and watched the speech on screens in an overflow area outside.
"You guys are the true believers," Sanders said, addressing those in the dark outside who gave him a celebrity's welcome after his hour and half speech inside the arena.
"Thank you for freezing out here," he continued standing on a platform with a microphone and waving to the crowd over their cheers. "Were you able to see the speech?
"What we have got to do -– and your presence out here tonight is half way here -– what we have got to do is to make a political revolution where we involve people in the political process in a way they have not been involved before," he told them.
It was Sanders' first day back on the campaign trail since announcing impressive fundraising numbers for the quarter this week, on pace with Hillary Clinton. And while Sanders has called for a grassroots movement and a "political revolution" since the first day of his campaign, he emphasized these ideas even more Saturday.
"Our campaign is a different type of campaign. It is a grassroots campaign, designed not only to elect someone to be president of the United States, but to build a political movement," he said in Springfield.
Later in Boston, he continued on the same theme.
"I am enormously proud," he said. "As some of you may have noticed, we have raised tremendous sums of money, because 650,000 Americans made contributions average $30 apiece.
"In other words words we are running a people's campaign," he said. "And the millionaires and billionaires may have more money than we do, but we have something they don't have. Look around this room -- this is what we have."
The line to get into the Boston event was at one point five blocks long. A team of nearly 300 volunteers ran up and down it, signing people up on the campaign mailing list as they waited. More volunteers were stationed at entry tables with computers logging contact information, handing out donation forms, and selling merchandise –- more than $13,000 worth in total, according to the campaign. Many in the crowd brought homemade signs.
The Springfield rally drew approximately 6,000 fans.
"The energy has just gotten so strong," said Raymond Bazydlo from Essex, New York, who said he has been to several of Sanders' campaign events along the East Coast. "I see the crowds seem to be getting younger and the enthusiasm is getting greater."
Dorthody Albrecht, a teacher from Holyoke, Massachusetts, said because she is from Massachusetts, which neighbors Sanders' home state of Vermont, she has been aware of Sanders' record for some time.
"I support Bernie Sanders, because I feel he is not bought," she said.
Asked why she thought he was having so much success she said, "I think that is about taking back our system of government from the people who bought it, and the only way to do that is through utilizing our one vote, and we’re going to have to all support him."
Sanders did not mention any of his opponents by name, but did give a shout-out to Massachusetts senator and torchbearer of the progressive movement, Elizabeth Warren.
He also made specific mention of the school shooting in Oregon this week, saying that people were "sickened" and "bewildered" with the ongoing gun violence in the country. Sanders has a a mixed voting record on the issue. He voted against the Brady Bill which back in 1993, which mandated background checks, in part because it called for longer waiting periods before gun purchases. Sanders is instead in favor of instant background checks.
"Guns should not be in the hands of people who should not have them," he said in Boston Saturday. "We have an instant background system right now that needs to be strengthened."
He spoke against the so-called gun show loophole, and in favor of more work for mental health.
"We need a revolution in terms of mental health in this country," he said, adding that people regularly call his Senate office seeking affordable help for loved ones.
Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Hillary Clinton on Saturday mocked Republican presidential candidates Ben Carson and Ted Cruz over their positions on gay rights during remarks to the Human Rights Campaign, where she also called for new laws to support and protect the rights of transgendered people.
"Ben Carson says that marriage equality is what caused the fall of the Roman empire," the Democratic presidential candidate said to laughter during a breakfast at the LGBT rights organization's annual gathering in Washington, D.C.
Clinton then mentioned Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, which drew hisses and boos from the crowd gathered inside the grand ballroom of the Mayflower Hotel, and went on to challenge him to join her at a gay pride parade.
"Ted Cruz slammed a political opponent for marching in a pride parade. He clearly has no idea what he's missing. Pride parades are so much fun. I was marching in them back when I was first lady. You should join sometime Senator, come on," she said.
Both Carson and Cruz have said they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. ABC News has reached out to their campaigns for comment to Clinton's remarks.
"Hillary would have everyone believe she's been in favor of marriage equality since the fall of the Roman Empire," Carson campaign spokesman Doug Watts said. "When she's not lying, she's spinning!"
Cruz' campaign did not respond to ABC News' request for comment.
Clinton, who supports same-sex marriage, also took a forceful stance on transgendered issues during her remarks, and called for the military to allow transgender people to serve openly.
"We need to say with one voice that transgender people are valued, loved, and one of us," she said. "Transgendered people are still banned from serving ... that is an outdated rule. I support the policy review that Defense Secretary [Ash] Carter recently announced in the Pentagon. I hope the United States joins many other countries and lets transgendered people join openly.”
She later called out the Republican presidential candidates for ignoring the issue all together.
"See if you are ever in a forum with any of them, if you can get them to say the word transgendered," she said.
In addition, Clinton called on Congress to pass the Federal Equality Act. And she said she would upgrade dishonorable discharges of service members who were forced out of the military in years past for being gay.
Clinton, who announced her support of same-sex marriage in March 2013 in a video produced by the Human Rights Campaign, thanked the organization on Saturday for the work it has done to help get it legalized in all 50 states.
"The people here today deserve a lot of credit for making it happen. You've helped change a lot of minds, including mine, and I am personally very grateful for that," she said.
There were plenty of jokes at the event playing on the fact that Clinton and the Human Rights Campaign share the same initials: HRC.
During the opening of her remarks, Clinton said, "It is great to be back with the other HRC ... there’s no one else I’d rather share my initials with.”
And later, when promising to fight for LGBT rights as president, she said this: "That’s a promise, from one HRC to another."
ABC News(WASHINGTON) -- With the 2016 race for the White House heating up, the gloves are coming off.
With 15 Republican candidates and seven Democrats still in the running for their party’s nomination, the crowded field has created fierce rivalries.
While the debates have offered the candidates an opportunity to confront each other face-to-face, many have been throwing punches on the campaign trail on everything from their opponents’ politics to personality.
Here is a look at the most contentious rivalries so far this campaign season:
Bobby Jindal vs. Donald Trump
Hate is a strong word, but it’s safe to say Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal “really, really, really” (his words) doesn’t like the GOP front-runner, Donald Trump. Jindal has made discussing Trump a central talking point of his campaign, both on social media and on the road.
The real estate mogul was quick to the punch, showing no mercy for Jindal.
Despite Trump’s response, it seems Jindal will continue attacking the Republican front-runner.
Jeb Bush vs. Marco Rubio
Although longtime friends Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio have plenty in common (both are Miami Dolphins fans, fluent in Spanish, and experienced in navigating Florida state politics) the 2016 Republican presidential candidates are trying to set themselves apart. Bush in particular has been on the offensive. This week, as Bush made the cable news circuit, the former governor of Florida made the case that his rival, Marco Rubio, lacks the leadership experience necessary for the White House.
During an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Bush likened the 44-year-old senator's appeal to another young senator who ran for office, Barack Obama.
"Look, we've had a president who came in and said the same kind of thing — 'new and improved,' 'hope and change' — and he didn't have the leadership skills to fix things,” said Bush.
Bush also suggested that Rubio is more of a protégée than a potential rival. When asked about Rubio’s leadership on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Bush said, “Marco was a member of House of Representatives when I was governor and he followed by my lead and I’m proud of that.”
Rubio on the other hand has not engaged in tit-for-tat candidate criticisms with Bush. But that could change soon as Rubio and Bush, the two establishment Republicans, court similar donors. While their polling numbers are neck and neck, Rubio is currently trailing Bush in fundraising. And when money’s involved, the gloves might finally come off.
Martin O’Malley vs. the Democratic National Committee
Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley routinely takes on Hillary Clinton, but his biggest white whale of 2016 appears to be the Democratic National Committee and its debate schedule.
There are only six sanctioned opportunities for Democratic presidential candidates to duke it out this cycle, down from 26 Democratic debates during the 2008 presidential election -- and O’Malley is not happy about it.
“We need debate” has become the former Maryland Governor’s battle cry. More recently at the DNC’s summer meeting in August, O’Malley argued the debate schedule was “unprecedented” and a “rigged process” made to benefit Hillary Clinton.
Some members of the O’Malley campaign -- including his campaign manager -- protested outside the DNC’s Washington, D.C. headquarters during the night of the second Republican debate. DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has so far remained firm in her decision to keep the debates capped at six.
Carly Fiorina vs. Hillary Clinton
The only two women running for president, Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina are often compared to each other.
Fiorina kicked off her campaign by attacking Clinton creating a website, ReadyToBeatHillary.com. In August, Fiorina published an op-ed on CNN.com sharply criticizing Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. “Throughout this campaign, I have repeatedly asked Hillary Clinton to name an accomplishment,” wrote Fiorina. “She has yet to name one.” And during the second Republican presidential debate in September, Fiorina quipped, “if you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name an accomplishment of Hillary Clinton.”
While Fiorina criticized Clinton’s track record as senator of New York and Secretary of State, Clinton responded by saying “If anyone is interested, there is a long list of what I’ve done and I’m very proud of it.”
But after a summer of attacks, is Fiorina starting to go soft? In a People magazine interview last week, Fiorina came to the defense of her political rival.
"I feel empathy with every woman who is working really hard and giving it all they've got – and Hillary is," Fiorina said. "She's smart, she's hardworking, she's giving it all she's got."
US Congress(WASHINGTON) -- Hillary Clinton outspent Bernie Sanders by a 2-1 margin last quarter, hosted almost 10 times as many fundraisers, and spent millions on television ads when Sanders spent none.
And yet, according to the two campaigns Sanders almost matched Clinton’s fundraising numbers for the third quarter. So now everyone has just one question: how did he do it?
Sanders has been able to bring in cash quickly since day one. In the first 24 hours of his campaign, Sanders was able to raise an astonishing $1.5 million from over 35,000 donors, according to his campaign, more than any other candidate who released first day numbers, including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.
Since then, he has convinced fans to give what they can and keep giving, resulting in a groundswell of small donations. While the official FEC filings do not come out until later this month, according to the campaign, the average donation size last quarter was $30 dollars and 99 percent of all of donations to the campaign were under $100.
In many ways, donors are responding to Sanders' populist message. He does not have a super-PAC. He rails against the Supreme Court’s "Citizen’s United" decision, which opened the floodgates of corporate money into elections. He calls for a “political revolution,” and during each of his campaign stops he says his candidacy is not about Bernie Sanders, but about the people.
As a result, donors at his events say they feel invested in and a part of his campaign, and donating to him has come to represent for many a statement against the status quo.
Considering the fact that many progressive organizations, such as MoveOn.org, say that the number-one issue for many of their members is ending the influence of corporate money in politics, it is not so surprising to see the fundraising surge Sanders is enjoying.
Progressives have shown the power of their networks in the past. In 2012 they mobilized their troops and brought in record-breaking $42 million for Elizabeth Warren’s senate campaign, putting her fundraising totals ahead of every other congressional candidate in the country.
And this election cycle, technology has made it even easier for voters on the left to give. Act Blue, a fundraising firm that helps many Democratic candidates including Bernie Sanders, has focused specifically on mobile applications, allowing voters to give on their phones and, by saving payment information, easily give again to their favorite candidates.
In the final hours before Wednesday’s quarterly fundraising deadline, this ability to give easily made a huge difference for Sanders’ campaign. According to Sanders' campaign spokesperson Michael Briggs, the campaign raised over $2 million alone that day, and it came in quickly with $500,000 spilling in the final two and half hours before the midnight quarterly deadline.
Sanders' campaign is also using social media tactics, email blasts and even limited direct text messaging to both get his political message out and translate that message into fundraising dollars.
While Hillary Clinton’s official Twitter account dwarfs Sanders’ in the number of followers, on Facebook, Sanders has slightly more followers than she does (1.6 million compared to her 1.4 million).
In addition, Sanders’ official campaign benefits from a very coordinated grassroots campaign called “People for Bernie,” which almost shadows the official campaign with chapters in multiple states. These chapters runs their own social media accounts and are able to consistently turn people out to Sanders’ events and drive traffic to his official fundraising pages.
From the beginning, the campaign has also been active on Reddit and now enjoys a huge community of active followers on that site. The "Sanders for President" subreddit page, run by grassroots volunteers, for example, is full of comments like these from the last few days.
“Yesterday I set myself up for $15/mo monthly payments for the next year! GO BERNIE! FEEL THE BERN!” writes one user.
“I donated $2 even though I only had $2.41 in my account until I get paid,” writes another. “Anyone want to match or double that? Poor people can only do so much individually, but together we can raise billions.”
Perhaps most telling is the comparison between Sanders and another presidential hopeful who relied on grassroots support: then-candidate Barack Obama in 2007 and 2008. Sanders is bringing in small contributions at a faster rate than Obama did. As of Thursday, Sanders had received 1.3 million donations, from 650,000 individual donors, according to the campaign. Whereas, Obama did not met the one million mark until February 2008, and in the same quarter, in 2007, Obama raised $3 million dollars less than Sanders.
“What it tells us is that Bernie has financial staying power,” Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, said. “We have the financial wherewithal that will allow for a major campaign through Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and beyond in state-by-state, delegate-by-delegate contests for the Democratic Party nomination.”
On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton often says she knew this would be a competitive race and Wednesday evening, her campaign manager Robert Mook said they were excited by their numbers. "We are thrilled and grateful for the support of hundreds of thousands of donors across the country, helping us raise a record $75 million in the first two quarters,” Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement.
Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- President Obama used his weekly address to urge Congress to pass a long term budget and not to “flirt with another shutdown.”
“Look, that’s not the way America should operate. It just kicks the can down the road without solving any problems or doing any long-term planning for the future. And that’s why I will not sign another shortsighted, short-term spending bill like the one Congress sent me this week,” he said.
He also said that come December, the U.S. could face another government shutdown, and Democrats and Republicans needed to work together to work on a solution to the budget.
Read the full transcript of the president's address:
Hi, everybody. Yesterday, we learned that our businesses created another 118,000 new jobs in September. That makes 67 straight months of job creation, and 13.2 million new jobs in all.
But we would be doing even better if we didn’t have to keep dealing with crises in Congress every few months. And especially at a time when the global economy is softening, our own growth could slow if Congress doesn’t do away with harmful austerity measures.
Now, on Wednesday, more than half of Republicans in Congress voted to shut down the government for the second time in two years. Fortunately, there were enough votes in both parties to pass a last-minute bill to keep the government open for another ten weeks. Unfortunately, that gimmick only sets up another shutdown threat two weeks before Christmas.
Look, that’s not the way America should operate. It just kicks the can down the road without solving any problems or doing any long-term planning for the future. And that’s why I will not sign another shortsighted, short-term spending bill like the one Congress sent me this week.
Here’s why. A few years ago, both parties agreed to put in place harmful, automatic cuts that make no distinction between spending we don’t need and spending we do. Those cuts have actually kept our economy from growing faster. Even worse, they’re actually undermining the middle class.
Here’s one example. If we don’t undo these mindless cuts, then next year, we’ll be funding our kids’ education at the same levels per pupil we did in the year 2000. Compared to my budget, that would be like cutting federal funding for 4,500 schools, 17,500 teachers and aides, 1.9 million students.
That’s not good for our kids or our economy. It’s a prescription for American decline. And it shouldn’t happen. We should invest in things like education today, or we’ll pay the price tomorrow.
Congress should do its job, stop kicking the can down the road, and pass a serious budget rather than flirt with another shutdown. A serious budget is one that keeps America strong through our military, our law enforcement; that keeps America generous through caring for our veterans and our seniors; that keeps America competitive by educating our kids and our workers.
That’s what I want to work with serious people in both parties to achieve. Because that’s how we’ll build on the progress of 13 million new jobs, and help the middle class get ahead.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Wyoming Senator John Barrasso delivered this week's Republican address, discussing regulations that he says are costing Americans billions of dollars.
The senator said the Obama administration had issued too many regulations, specifically those more involved with protecting the environment, citing 2,500 new regulations in the past six years.
“In this administration’s race to control more of what Americans do every day, it has lost all perspective," he said. "The rules are based on ideology, rather than practicality."
He continued to say that Republicans would be putting working on legislation in the fall to "rein in runaway regulations," and President Obama would "have to choose between big government and hardworking Americans."
Read the full transcript of the Republican's address:
Hi. I’m Dr. John Barrasso, United States Senator for Wyoming.
Let me tell you a story about a family in my home state.
Andy Johnson is 32, he works as a welder. He and his wife Katie have four kids and they live out in the country. They have a few cows and some horses.
Two years ago, the Johnsons wanted to build a small pond in their front yard.
They got their plan approved by the state, and used the pond to provide water for their animals.
They thought it was a beautiful addition to the dry landscape.
The pond attracts birds and other animals that make our state a special place to live.
Everything was fine until the Johnsons got a visit from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Even though the state of Wyoming had approved the pond, the federal government had not.
The Johnsons now face fines of more than $37,000 every day, until they remove the pond. This is what’s happened to government in America. It’s gotten so aggressive, so inflexible, and so unyielding – and seemingly for so little purpose.
And it’s going to get worse.
The Obama administration is seizing new authority to control what it calls Waters of the United States.
This includes things like irrigation ditches, isolated ponds – even low points in the landscape where water might collect after a heavy rain.
The consequences of this new federal authority will be severe.
Local land-use decisions will now be driven by Washington bureaucrats.
And this new water rule is just one of the thousands of regulations that Washington is churning out.
In the final 15 months of the Obama administration, Washington bureaucrats are working overtime, to finalize new rules on everything from prairie puddles to power plants.
Just this week, the White House released a new ozone rule that will increase electricity costs and decrease reliability.
In this administration’s race to control more of what Americans do every day, it has lost all perspective.
The rules are based on ideology, rather than practicality.
The result is an explosion of expensive regulations and new federal requirements on hardworking families.
Washington’s assault on Andy Johnson in Wyoming could soon be repeated all across the country.
The Obama administration has issued more than 2,500 new regulations in the past six years.
Complying with these regulations is expected to cost our economy a staggering $680 billion.
People will be forced to spend millions of hours filling out the paperwork.
You might ask, what do Americans get for all this time and money?
One of EPA’s rules on power plants would cost as much as $2,400 for every $1 in direct benefits.
This imbalance is a big reason why Americans’ wages have been stagnant since President Obama took office.
The costs of these regulations are real.
They are significant to our economy, to good-paying jobs, and to the ability of Americans to live freely.
That’s why Republicans are fighting so hard.
The White House’s cynical response is that only polluters would oppose these new environmental rules.
I’m fortunate to live in Wyoming, one of the most beautiful, pristine places in the world.
We protect fiercely our open spaces, our clean air, and water.
At the same time, the entire country benefits from our responsible and reliable production of American energy.
We’ve proven you can have both.
The Obama administration long ago left this reasonable objective in the dust.
What the administration won’t tell you is that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress oppose many of these regulations – including the new rules on Waters of the United States.
Senators Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin – all Democrats – joined us to change these water regulations.
Yet commonsense changes to all this rulemaking are being blocked by the president and the liberal Democrat leaders in the Congress.
Even the courts have dealt the Obama administration serious setbacks to its regulatory rampage.
But by the time the courts finally act, the damage is already done – those jobs are gone, and communities suffer.
The head of the EPA bragged that it didn’t matter if the Obama administration lost in court – because the rules had already been in effect for three years.
Meanwhile, the fines against Andy Johnson continue to pile up, and could exceed $16 million. His family cannot afford to fight anymore.
Just like the Johnsons in Wyoming, the American people can’t afford the overreach and the near-constant onslaught of new Washington regulations.
This fall, Republicans will put legislation on the president’s desk to rein in runaway regulations. He will have to choose between big government and hardworking Americans.
Ethan Miller/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush made an eyebrow-raising comment in the wake of the Oregon school massacre -- saying "stuff happens" in response to a discussion about gun violence.
Bush called the shooting in Oregon "very sad," but said he also had challenges that he faced during his tenure as governor of Florida.
"Look stuff happens, there's always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something and it's not always the right thing to do," Bush said at the Conservative Leadership Project in Greenville, South Carolina, referring to taking away rights.
A gunman opened fire on the campus of Umpqua Community College Thursday, killing 9 people and wounding seven others. He later died in a gun battle with police.
The 13 guns he had, including six that he had with him at the school, were all legally purchased, federal officials said today. The guns were either purchased by the shooter or his relatives over the past three years.
President Obama, speaking at the White House, said Bush's remarks didn't deserve a response after a question about them from ABC News' Jonathan Karl.
"I don’t even think I have to react to that one," he said. "I think the American people should hear that and make their own judgments based on the fact that every couple of months we have a mass shooting. And they can decide whether they consider that stuff happening."
Obama reacted emotionally to the shooting during an address Thursday and lamented that mass shootings had become "routine" in the U.S. He also called for greater gun control.
Bush attempted to clarify his comments to reporters after the event and said they were "not related to Oregon."
"Just for clarity here," he said. "Let’s make sure that we don’t allow this to get out of control."
He then defended his comments, adding that tragedies happen all the time and the key is to finding the solution to the deeper issue.
"It wasn't a mistake, I said exactly what I said," Bush said.
The Democratic National Committee has already pounced on the comments, amidst a firestorm of conversation on Twitter, condemning the remarks.
"Americans are killed and injured, families lose their loved ones, and an individual who wants to be the President of the United States shrugs his shoulders and says “stuff happens.” No. The reason this keeps happening is because we let it," said DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The Bush campaign later shot back that the remarks were "sad and craven" and that Democrats would take Bush's comments out of context to advance their political agenda in the wake of a tragedy.
They also tweeted out out a link to two organizations that are supporting the victims of the mass shooting.
Darren McCollester/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Donald Trump is speaking out after the latest mass shooting.
GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump told ABC News that current gun laws have "nothing to do" with the massacre that took place Thursday when a gunman opened fire on a college campus in Oregon killing nine people.
"Well the gun laws have nothing to do with this. This isn't guns this is about really mental illness. And I feel very strongly about it. And again politically correct, 'Oh we're gonna solve the problem, there'll be no problem, etc., etc,'" Trump told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos, when asked about the possibility of new gun laws.
"You're always going to have difficulties, no matter how tight you run it. Even if you had great education having to deal with mental illness. You educate the community – you're going to have people that slip through the cracks," he said.
More of the interview with Trump will air Sunday on This Week.
David Livingston/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence emphasized that universal background checks remain, in their opinion, the most effective way to stop gun violence – even though Oregon, where Thursday’s deadly shooting occurred, recently imposed background checks to all gun sales.
It’s not clear whether the Oregon shooter’s purchases would have been prevented by Oregon’s new law because he obtained them over the last three years, and Oregon’s new law was only imposed in May.
“I would question the motive of anyone who will cite one particular tragedy as an opportunity to dismiss the overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of background checks,” said Dan Gross, the Brady Campaign’s president, on a conference call with reporters.
“To use that tragedy to dismiss a law that is going to save lives really questions the intentions of anyone who would cite that in this regard,” he added.
He also said that the most effective legislation Congress can pass to prevent gun violence still relates to background checks, rather than bills that address the problem solely from the mental health approach.
“Our laser focus on expanding background checks on all gun sales is the most effective way of doing that and as a result the most effective way of preventing gun deaths at the hands of people who are dangerously mentally ill,” he said.
iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has quietly backed out of a planned event with the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce after the chamber says Trump found out that he would be asked about his plans to remove 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, the organization told ABC News.
The event, scheduled for next week in Washington, D.C., was part of the USHCC's Presidential Candidate Q&A Session, which they have been holding with all presidential contenders throughout the past few months, including former governors Jeb Bush and Martin O'Malley, and Sens. Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders.
The group's CEO, Javier Palomarez, met personally with Trump last month to secure the date for the Q&A, the organization said.
The cause of the withdrawal, according to the USHCC, which represents Hispanic-owned businesses, was that Trump didn't like the format and worried about the questions and some reporters in attendance, according to Palomarez.
"Mr. Trump was unwilling to abide by the terms and conditions of the USHCC's Presidential Candidate Q&A Series -- the same rules that all participants have previously followed," Palomarez said in a statement. "The USHCC refused to change the format of the forum, show any favoritism, exclude any issues or topics, or grant any immunity from objective scrutiny of his policies."
The Trump campaign responded Friday that the presidential candidate will instead be speaking in Nevada at a campaign rally, and alleged that USHCC requested Trump join the chamber "for a fee amounting to between $25,000 and $2 million, which Mr. Trump refused to do."
The USHCC responded that such accusations are a lie and that it never raised the subject of Donald Trump joining the association.
"Trump’s statement on sponsorship is a lie -- he asked if we would consider [Trump National] Doral [Hotel] for our Miami convention. We said no. We’ve also severed business relations with him indefinitely," Palomarez told ABC News Friday.
Trump has repeatedly declared Hispanics would love him because he'd get jobs back in America, but the USHCC denounces the sudden withdrawal as showing a lack of respect towards Hispanics.
"Withdrawing from the Q&A can only suggest that Trump himself believes his views are indefensible before a Hispanic audience," Palomarez said.
Questions for the session are often sent to candidates in advance. And while questions included issues such as jobs, the economy, women's rights and national security, they also planned to address immigration and immigration reform, Palomarez said.
"As it relates to immigration, our objective was to refocus the national debate toward the more positive, fact-based, and economically sound narrative that the USHCC has been advancing for years, long before the 2016 election cycle," Palomarez said. "With an 84 percent disapproval rating among Hispanics, Trump's decision to withdraw from the session only deepens our community's already negative perceptions of him."
Trump acknowledged his planned attendance of the USHCC event during an interview with Geraldo Rivera in September.
"We don't agree on everything certainly but I think I agreed to do some kind of luncheon or whatever down in Washington," Trump said. Palomarez "is having the meeting down in Washington. So, I will be going down at some point in October or whatever. I will go to Washington. That won't be that easy a meeting because you'll have hundreds of people and they will have constituents of his and they may disagree with me but ultimately we will all get along."
USHCC Communications Director Ammar Campa-Najjar told ABC News that the organization knew Trump was getting cold feet, but actually found out about the withdrawal from an inquiry they received from a media outlet.
One of the questions he was uncomfortable with included his plan on mass deportation, Campa-Najjar said.
"We were going to ask him about his own immigration plans. He cites undocumented immigrants get $4.2 billion a year in tax credits, yet estimates show his own plan to deport 11 million in two years would cost $400 billion," Campa-Najjar explained. "These people have to live 100 years to incur the cost of his two-year plan and he was uncomfortable answering those questions."
The Republican front-runner also was apparently uncomfortable with Univision anchor Jorge Ramos being in attendance, USHCC officials said.
Ramos was kicked out of a Trump news conference in August for trying to ask a question.
Trump backing out makes him the only candidate from either party to not participate in the chamber's series. Currently, Sen. Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton have agreed to take part in the series.