HRC Clips | 2.11.15

From:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com To: nmerrill@hrcoffice.com Date: 2015-02-11 12:14 Subject: HRC Clips | 2.11.15

HRC Clips February 11, 2015 HRC Jeb Bush faces plenty of early warning signs (WAPO)...................................................................... 2 Hillary Clinton has a busy March, but all’s quiet now (WAP).......................................................... 4 Big donors awaiting word from Clinton (WAPO)............................................................................ 5 Emerging Clinton Team Shows Signs of Disquiet (NYT)................................................................. 7 Hillary Clinton fundraising off to slow start (Politico)................................................................... 10 Hillary Clinton’s best frenemies (Politico)...................................................................................... 14 Brock Is No Stranger to Political Rumbles Involving Clintons (NYT)........................................... 17 Hillary Clinton Seeking Office Space in Brooklyn or Queens (Time).............................................. 18 Hillary Clinton’s Brooklyn options are limited (Capital New York)............................................... 19 Dems make up after Hillaryland spat (CNN).................................................................................. 23 Boris Johnson once compared Hillary Clinton to ‘a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital’ (Telegraph) 24 Boris Johnson Had Unkind Words for Hillary Clinton (WSJ)......................................................... 26 Bill, Hillary tee off; for pay — and to play (SF Chronicle)............................................................. 27 Inside the Beltway: Where’s Hillary Clinton - and why is she hiding? (Washington Times)............ 30 Republicans say Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign is already falling apart (Business Insider)............ 33 Targeted GOP senator: ‘I will never vote with my reelection in mind’ (The Hill).......................... 34 The domestic side of national security (The Hill)........................................................................... 37 Three reasons why markets would love a President Hillary Clinton (Business Insider)................... 40 Axelrod: Hillary not a ‘healing figure’ (Washington Times)............................................................ 41 Dukakis: Hillary will be ‘16 nominee (The Hill)............................................................................. 43 Hillary Clinton to be in D.C. on same day as Bibi speech (Politico)................................................ 44 Word by word; New Chicago program aims to prevent achievement gap by teaching parents (Grand Forks Herald) 45 Jeb Bush faces plenty of early warning signs (WAPO) By Aaron Blake February 11, 2015 By Washington Post . We’ve seen a smattering of new polls of the nascent 2016 campaign in recent days. The good news for Jeb Bush: Most of them show him as a front-runner. The bad news: There’s plenty of bad news. Of the four major Iowa and New Hampshire polls released over the past 10 days, half show Bush leading, and all show him toward the front. This is a function, in large part, of name recognition. But there are plenty of warning signs, too. Here’s a quick recap: 1) His image numbers are not good The lone Iowa poll in the bunch shows that likely Iowa GOP caucus-goers view Bush more negatively than anybody not named Chris Christie. Just 46 percent had a favorable opinion of Bush in the Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll, while 43 percent had an unfavorable one. Again, this is Republicans. Bush’s numbers in New Hampshire (where the universe of voters is less conservative) were better, but not by a huge amount. He was at 61 percent favorable/26 percent unfavorable in the Bloomberg/Saint Anselm College poll released over the weekend, and at 47/33 in the University of New Hampshire/WMUR-TV released just prior. Part of this is that Republicans today are just fussier when it comes to purity, and Bush can’t help but be seen as the establishment (i.e. “moderate,” to the tea party) candidate. But it’s also clear they have some preconceived notions about Bush that he’ll have to dispel. Which brings us to... 2) The name isn’t helping Bloomberg asked likely New Hampshire primary voters whether they viewed Bush’s and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prospects as being more tied to their own accomplishments or to their family name. While just 21 percent of Democrats said Clinton is a front-runner because of her family connections, 59 percent of Republicans say the same about Bush. Only 31 percent said Bush is where he’s at because of his “unique qualities and achievements.” Similarly, a Washington Post/ABC News poll released a few weeks ago showed the Bush name was a net-negative for 33 percent of voters, while just 11 percent said it was a reason to vote for him. It was more even among Republicans, but again, it wasn’t nearly the benefit the Clinton name was. 3) The porridge question The other reason Bush’s numbers might suffer -- in addition to him being a Bush -- is that he’s seen as too moderate. We’re not sure how much people have actually processed his positions in favor of comprehensive immigration reform and Common Core, but already 37 percent of likely Iowa caucus-goers see him as “too moderate.” Another 7 percent say he’s “too conservative.” In fact, the 40 percent who say Bush is ideologically “about right” is lower than Ben Carson (49 percent), Ted Cruz (48), Mike Huckabee (57), Rand Paul (55), Rick Perry (62), Mitt Romney (46), Marco Rubio (53), Rick Santorum (49) and Scott Walker (56). That’s pretty much anybody who is reasonably well-known (and isn’t named Chris Christie). 4) Immigration and Common Core While most likely New Hampshire primary voters don’t yet say these issues are disqualifying, plenty still do. The Bloomberg poll showed 41 percent of likely New Hampshire primary voters say Bush’s pro-comprehensive immigration reform position is a deal-killer, while 20 percent say the same of Common Core. Those are significant chunks of voters who say Bush’s positions are non-starters. Perhaps more illustrative, just 40 percent say Common Core is not a real problem for them when it comes to Bush, and just 22 percent say the same of his immigration position. The others are in the mushy middle (but haven’t ruled out supporting him) or haven’t decided. The good news is that these liabilities, at this point, aren’t yet overwhelming; Scott Walker’s lack of foreign policy experience, for comparison, is deemed as a deal-killer by 28 percent of Republicans — something we have a hard time believing will pan out. All of this, indeed, is quite preliminary. While Bush has been something of an open book, the campaign hasn’t actually begun in earnest, and thus he hasn’t had much of a chance to combat these early preconceived notions. These notions, in other words, probably aren’t based on a whole heck of a lot. What these numbers prove, though, is that there are preconceived notions that he’ll have to contend with. And they’re generally bigger hurdles than his opponents have to clear. Of course, his opponents aren’t likely to have the kind of funding Bush does, either. Washington Post Hillary Clinton has a busy March, but all’s quiet now (WAP) By Anne Gearan February 10, 2015 The Washington Post . This post has been updated. Hillary Rodham Clinton is everywhere and nowhere these days. The subject of daily news stories and Republican attacks befitting her position as the 2016 Democratic front-runner, Clinton has made just two public speaking appearances since Christmas. Both of them were in the voter-rich state of Canada. She hasn’t visited Iowa or New Hampshire since the November midterm election. As she readies a vast campaign operation to be rolled out later this spring, Clinton is keeping an intentionally low profile. She isn’t even an official participant in a Clinton Foundation event Tuesday at which her husband and daughter spoke. Clinton did attend a session with daughter Chelsea on saving endangered wild elephants that was closed to the press. The day-long Clinton Global Initiative winter meeting focused on the Clinton network’s expanding philanthropic efforts. By staying mostly mum now, Clinton isn’t exactly keeping people guessing. Although she heads off questions about her intentions in public, Clinton has sent unmistakable signals to Democrats that she is running. Her quiet schedule makes it easier to navigate this time in official political limbo, although of course everything Clinton says and does is viewed through that lens. The former first lady, senator, secretary of state and 2008 presidential candidate is in heavy demand as a speaker, both paid and unpaid, but is declining most invitations. She will speak at a Silicon Valley technology conference later this month, for which she is expected to draw a paycheck of $250,000 or more. She has a busy March planned, with at least four speaking appearances. She is expected to be paid for one of those, a practice that has already raised eyebrows and that would be awkward to continue once Clinton announces. There is nothing on her public schedule after March 23. Washington Post Big donors awaiting word from Clinton (WAPO) By Matea Gold February 11, 2015 The Washington Post Hillary Rodham Clinton’s decision to delay an announcement about her presidential ambitions until as late as July has stymied efforts of a major allied super PAC to come out of the gate early with a slew of big-money commitments. Priorities USA Action - which has positioned itself as the main advertising vehicle to back a Clinton candidacy - had hoped to line up dozens of seven-figure pledges before April as a show of strength but has secured only about 10, according to people familiar with the situation. One factor that has contributed to the reluctance: Many wealthy political givers on the left have written large checks to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, part a drive to raise money for the nonprofit organization before a likely Clinton presidential run. Major foundation donors have indicated to super-PAC fundraisers that they are holding off on other large pledges for now, according to people with knowledge of the conversations. Priorities’ slow progress has prompted internal conversations about whether the group will recalibrate what it can expect to raise this cycle - a sum that people close to the operation originally expected to be around $300 million. The super PAC’s difficulties in securing pledges were first reported late Tuesday by Politico. Priorities officials said they are not concerned. “Priorities USA Action chose not to raise money in the 2014 cycle because we did not want to compete with the many good Democrats who were fighting for their political lives,” senior adviser Paul Begala said in a statement. “We will play a critical role in electing a Democratic President in 2016. Anyone who doubts us should ask President Romney.” Many party fundraisers concur, saying that once Clinton is officially in the race, the money will rush in from loyalists and new donors eager to be part of her candidacy. “I think it’s like everything else going on -- what’s the timeline with her?” said one party strategist familiar with the dynamics, who requested anonymity to discuss donor attitudes. “Once things are more finalized with what she is doing, their job will become a little easier.” Some top Democratic contributors said they won’t consider committing large amounts until she is officially in the race. “I’m waiting to see if Hillary announces a campaign and to see what it looks like,” said David desJardins, San Francisco-based investor who supports independent political groups on the left. Among the major Clinton supporters who have not pledged to Priorities is Esprit co-founder Susie Tompkins Buell, according to a person familiar with the situation. Buell, an early backer of the group Ready for Hillary, did not return a request for comment. Billionaire media mogul Haim Saban, who has said he will spend “whatever it takes” to help Clinton reach the White House, has also not made a commitment to the super PAC, according to a person with knowledge of the fundraising efforts. Saban and his family have given between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, including a donation last year, according to the foundation’s records. A spokeswoman for Saban could not immediately be reached for comment. The difficulties that Priorities has encountered in assembling an early money juggernaut also suggests that Democrats are still working to overcome distaste in the donor community for big-money groups. New York venture capitalist Alan Patricof, a longtime Clinton friend and fundraiser, said he does not plan to get involved until she is an official candidate - and at that point, he said, he will probably focus his efforts on helping her official campaign. “I am not much interested in a super PAC,” he said. “It’s just not something I believe in. I’m not ready to deal with the realities that people can give any amount of money.” The early donor drought is one of the factors that led to a public falling-out this week between liberal activist David Brock and Priorities officials. Brock, who runs a network of prominent groups on the left such as Media Matter and American Bridge, noisily resigned from the super PAC’s board Monday, accusing people affiliated with the group of feeding negative information to the New York Times about the fundraising practices of his organizations. After outreach by top Priorities officials, Brock agreed to reconsider joining the group. But the public showdown exposed a clash between two power spheres on the left, both vying for big contributions. Supporters of Priorities were hoping to build an early financial base and avoid scrambling for dollars in the midst of the campaign, as the group did during the 2012 race, when the nascent super PAC initially struggled to raise money to run ads on behalf of President Obama. In the end, Priorities pulled in $79 million. While the group was far outpaced by the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future, which raised $153 million, its hard-hitting ads were credited with helping frame the Republican presidential nominee as an out-of-touch plutocrat. This time around, the donor outreach began early. The day after last November’s elections, DreamWorks Animation chief executive Jeffrey Katzenberg and Hollywood political strategist Andy Spahn began reaching out to potential backers, urging them to make commitments to Priorities, which was refashioned into a pro-Clinton vehicle after 2012. Other top officials have also been making pitches, including Priorities board co-chair and former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, executive director Buffy Wicks, finance adviser Jonathan Mantz, and senior advisers Sean Sweeney and Begala. Less involved has been Jim Messina, who ran President Obama’s reelection campaign and co-chairs Priorities with Granholm. Most recently, he has been in London, where he has been consulting for Prime Minister David Cameron in the run-up to British elections. Emerging Clinton Team Shows Signs of Disquiet (NYT) By Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick February 11, 2015 The New York Times Lingering tensions between Hillary Rodham Clinton’s loyalists and the strategists who helped President Obama defeat her in 2008 have erupted into an intense public struggle over who will wield money and clout in her emerging 2016 presidential campaign. At issue is controlling access to the deep-pocketed donors whose support is critical to sustain the outside organizations that are paving the way for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. It is a competition that has been exacerbated, many Clinton supporters said, by Mrs. Clinton’s reluctance to formally enter the race and establish a campaign organization with clear lines of authority. The dispute broke into the open on Monday after David Brock, a Clinton ally, accused Priorities USA Action — a pro-Clinton “super PAC” whose co-chairman is Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s 2012 campaign manager — of planting negative stories about the fund-raising practices of Mr. Brock’s organizations. Mr. Brock resigned from the super PAC’s board in protest. Mr. Messina is one of the half dozen top veterans of Mr. Obama’s campaigns that Mrs. Clinton’s tight-knit circle of advisers has hired or courted, vexing some longtime Clintonites seeking more prominent roles for themselves. Other former Obama aides are working with pro-Clinton groups to organize grass-roots volunteers or to fend off attacks on her record, efforts that some Democrats view as the first step toward a place in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign when it finally gets off the ground. All recognize that Mrs. Clinton’s political operation could dominate the Democratic Party for the next decade, controlling the flow of commissions, consulting work and political appointments. But the marriage between the two camps — based to a large degree on mutual interest, if not love — now appears more uneasy than at any time since Mr. Obama asked Mrs. Clinton to serve in his administration after the 2008 election. “It is ‘The Dream Team,’ but only five can start,” said John Morgan, a Florida lawyer who has raised money for both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. “Who do you put at guard? Jordan, LeBron, Kobe, Magic, Bird, Derrick Rose? That is where it is.” The list of Obama veterans now working in “Clinton World” includes the New York-based pollster Joel Benenson, who Mrs. Clinton has settled on as chief strategist over several pollsters with long Clinton ties. A consulting firm founded by two Obama voter-turnout specialists, Mitch Stewart and Jeremy Bird, is being paid $20,000 a month by Ready for Hillary, a super PAC focused on organizing grass-roots Clinton supporters. Jim Margolis, whose firm handled lucrative media-buying contracts for Mr. Obama’s campaigns, will also advise Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign will probably raise and spend over a billion dollars in the next two years. But Mr. Brock’s path to the Clinton inner circle is perhaps the most convoluted. Once a conservative journalist whose reporting on President Bill Clinton prompted Paula Jones’s 1994 sexual harassment lawsuit against him, Mr. Brock has since emerged as a prominent liberal organizer and one of Mrs. Clinton’s chief defenders. With the tacit blessing of both Clintons, Mr. Brock has maneuvered his $28 million network of media-monitoring and opposition research organizations into the center of the emerging Clinton effort, establishing a new project, Correct the Record, that has defended Mrs. Clinton in the news media and even issued daily emails explaining her positions. His successful fund-raising has been led by Mary Pat Bonner, whose firm has been paid millions of dollars by Mr. Brock’s groups to court donors — some of whom have criticized the arrangement as well as Mr. Brock. “He is a cancer,” said Mr. Morgan, who is close to Mr. Messina. “If you care about your party and our country, you just do what you are asked,” said Mr. Morgan, referring to Mr. Brock’s public resignation from Priorities USA, which immediately reignited tales of infighting from Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign. “If you care about yourself, you take your toys and go home.” Mr. Brock declined to comment. Susie Tompkins Buell, a friend of Mrs. Clinton’s and a donor from San Francisco who is close to Mr. Brock, said he “is an incredibly important part of the Democratic Party” whose work “protects us from the onslaught and destruction of the Republican attack machine.” Ms. Buell added: “Certain people are trying to destroy David through off-the-record conversations with reporters. They are spineless and devious.” Mr. Messina, now a consultant with a significant roster of corporate and political clients, became co-chairman of Priorities early last year, charged with helping the advertising-oriented super PAC secure hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions. But with the campaign season still a year away, Mr. Messina and his team have encountered some difficulty getting commitments, according to several Democrats involved in helping the group. Mr. Brock, in turn, has been reluctant to cede turf — or pre-eminence — to Obama veterans like Mr. Messina. “He was never accepted” by the Obama camp, said one Clinton loyalist, who like most people interviewed for this article declined to speak on the record for fear of angering either the president or the woman who hopes to replace him. Months ago, Mrs. Clinton’s top advisers encouraged the three pro-Clinton super PACs — Ready for Hillary, Priorities USA, and Mr. Brock’s American Bridge 21st Century — to combine efforts. Mr. Brock’s organization would provide opposition research to Priorities, which would eventually raise high-dollar donations to pay for attack ads. Ready for Hillary would dissolve after Mrs. Clinton officially declared her candidacy. But Priorities is the only one of the groups founded by Obama operatives, making it the least easiest to fit into the emerging Clinton apparatus. And all outside groups are facing increased competition from official party organizations, like the Democratic National Committee, which are now free to solicit their own million-dollar commitments from big donors, thanks to new campaign finance rules inserted into December’s federal spending bill. In a statement, Mr. Messina suggested there was little tension with Mr. Brock or his organizations. “Priorities USA Action works closely and cooperatively with progressive champion David Brock and American Bridge,” he said. “Both organizations have clear and complementary missions, and we look forward to continuing to work together to build on our shared success.” Several donors approached by Priorities in recent months, including some advised by Ms. Bonner, said they had already given generously or otherwise committed to Mr. Brock. Mr. Messina’s allies worry that Clinton loyalists will seek to replace him with another strategist closer to Mrs. Clinton, perhaps Guy Cecil, previously a contender for the job of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager. When the Priorities board issued a statement on Monday evening asking Mr. Brock to reconsider his resignation, it was signed not by Mr. Messina but by his co-chairwoman, Jennifer M. Granholm, the former Michigan governor and a Clinton supporter in 2008. Ms. Granholm and other Priorities officials have sought to soothe Mr. Brock, Democrats assisting the group said, and he has suggested he would be open to rejoining the super PAC’s board. In an interview, Mr. Messina denied a report in BuzzFeed that he had used the controversy around Ms. Bonner’s fees to try to rally donors around a pledge to hold back checks from any organizations paying fund-raisers on commission. Such a campaign could cripple Mr. Brock’s groups, which rely entirely on Ms. Bonner’s firm to raise money. “I’ve never heard of a petition, I don’t know anything about it, no one has talked to me,” Mr. Messina said. “It’s not true.” Hillary Clinton fundraising off to slow start (Politico) By Kenneth Vogel February 10, 2015 Politico The main super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton is struggling in its early efforts to line up cash toward a fundraising goal of as much as $500 million, according to sources with knowledge of its fundraising. The group, Priorities USA Action, is trying to secure 30 or more pledges of at least $1 million apiece to be unveiled publicly when the former secretary of state officially enters the race, sources say. But, so far, it has received only about 10 firm commitments, and it is encountering resistance from top donors who have given to other Clinton-linked vehicles, including ostensibly aligned super PACs and even the apolitical Clinton Foundation. Discussions have focused on trying to supercharge the sluggish fundraising by enlisting help from heavyweight surrogates with close ties to the Clintons, including possibly Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe or investment banker Tom Nides, who served under Hillary Clinton at the State Department, according to sources. Priorities, which has worked to reinvent itself after helping President Barack Obama win reelection in 2012, has been buffeted by disagreements over its mission, as well as its fundraising strategy and goals, according to interviews with about a dozen Democratic donors and operatives working to lay the groundwork for an expected Clinton campaign. Priorities occasionally has clashed behind the scenes with other groups working toward the same goal. The tensions spilled out into public view Monday, when Clinton ally David Brock quit the Priorities board amid accusations it was trying to boost its own fundraising by undercutting that of two pro-Clinton groups he runs. While Brock said late Monday he was “open to returning” after Priorities pledged to address his concerns, it’s Priorities itself that some Clintonites are concerned about. “People are starting to worry that Priorities could be a weak link,” said a strategist who has worked with the various pro-Clinton outside groups. The stumbles — and the slow fundraising start — raise doubts about a key assumption about Clinton’s strength as a presidential candidate: that her allies will be able to rely on a seemingly bottomless well of support from rich supporters to build an historic political money juggernaut that will overwhelm prospective rivals. Over the past two years, the two super PACs that have been most active paving the way for an expected Clinton campaign — Brock’s American Bridge 21st Century and Ready for Hillary — raised a combined $29 million, according to Federal Election Commission filings. And the Clinton Foundation this week said it had raised all but $2 million of an aggressive $250 million fundraising drive for an endowment it had hoped to complete before any campaign kickoff, at which point the Clintons themselves likely would have to withdraw from foundation activities. Meanwhile, Priorities, which was created in 2011 to help boost Obama’s reelection, has been mostly idling since it spent $75 million during the 2012 campaign. It raised only $364,000 in the past two years, and finished 2014 with less than $500,000 in the bank, according to FEC filings. Peter Kauffmann, a spokesman for Priorities, said “we are confident that we will have the resources necessary to execute our mission.” But there’s also debate about how much exactly the PAC will need to provide effective advertising cover for Clinton’s would-be campaign during an election cycle in which the network overseen by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers intends to spend at least $889 million. Some Clinton allies argue that Priorities must raise as much as $500 million — a major increase from the $300 million goal floated by insiders late last year — while others privately worry that figure is out of reach, even for the Clintons. For perspective, the super PAC supporting Republican Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign raised $154 million, while the Karl Rove-conceived Crossroads advertising groups spent $325 million during that cycle. Priorities is hampered by the absence of a Clinton campaign organization, say people familiar with its early efforts. They expect fundraising to spike once Clinton declares her candidacy, but that might not come until July, which is one reason Priorities began seeking pledged donations. The group’s co-Chair Jennifer Granholm, Executive Director Buffy Wicks and Finance Director Diana Rogalle are among those soliciting pledges for Priorities. Many donors have begged off solicitations until Clinton formally announces, with some saying they have recently given to other groups associated with the Clintons. Granholm and Wicks last year discussed Priorities’ efforts with Michael Vachon, a representative for billionaire financier George Soros, who has donated $25,000 to Ready for Hillary. But Vachon told them Soros had not yet made any decisions about 2016 political spending, sources say. Another major donor got a visit from two Priorities fundraisers about a month after attending a fundraising luncheon for the Clinton Foundation but did not make a pledge to the group. Los Angeles television producer Marcy Carsey and Boston philanthropist Barbara Lee this year turned down requests from Granholm to pledge seven figures to Priorities, according to sources, despite both having written recent large checks to other Clinton-related endeavors. Carsey had given a significant sum to the Clinton Foundation, as well as $275,000 in the last two years to EMILY’s List and Ready for Hillary, while Lee has given at least $875,000 in that span to Ready for Hillary, EMILY’s List and Brock’s American Bridge. Carsey could not be reached for comment, while a spokeswoman for Lee said in an email, “Barbara receives a number of various requests, and as a matter of strategy, she does not publicly discuss them.” Investment banker Robert Wolf, a top bundler for Obama who describes himself as “fully supportive” of a Clinton 2016 campaign, nonetheless said he hasn’t pledged to Priorities. “In 2014, I gave to CGI [the Clinton Global Initiative], Clinton Foundation, Obama Library and DNC [the Democratic National Committee] and individual races, so I have not focused yet on 2016 Presidential stuff, but will at some point,” he wrote in an email. There is a sense among some donors that donations to various Clinton-linked efforts are indistinguishable, say sources who travel in Democratic finance circles. That impression may be reinforced by the involvement of a handful of key operatives in both the political and foundation fundraising efforts. Brock and his fundraising team, including his star fundraiser, Mary Pat Bonner, who also raises money for Ready for Hillary, have raised funds for the foundation on a pro bono basis. The foundation official who oversaw the endowment drive, Dennis Cheng, served as a finance director on Clinton’s 2008 campaign and is expected to play a similar role in any 2016 bid. Cheng is stepping down at the end of this week, which some read as a signal that Hillaryland is officially shifting its attention to a more imminent campaign. Clinton Foundation spokesman Craig Minassian credited Cheng with “diversifying the donor base” of the foundation, which works on public health and women’s empowerment initiatives around the world. Priorities board member Joe Solmonese, a former president of the Human Rights Campaign, said major donors aren’t going to conflate any of the pro-Clinton super PACs, let alone the foundation. “People who write big checks like that are a lot smarter than that,” he said. “Having many different entities doing many different things is necessary to win in the context of an election cycle. And donors are sophisticated enough to evaluate these things individually and to give on the basis of what they’re passionate about and what there is a need for.” A veteran Democratic operative with close ties to the Clintons who has been briefed on Priorities efforts said, “I have not heard of anyone saying, ‘I gave at the office.’ The folks Priorities is talking to are intensely political people. Many were there for Clinton the first time, they were there for Obama, they’ll be there for Hillary this time, and they’ll be there for Chelsea if she ever runs.” The operative said it had not been determined whether Priorities would release the list of pledged donations, casting the pledge push as just in the “internal discussion” phase. “I’m less interested in the announcement as I am in the cash.” And the operative also stressed that the overall fundraising goal had not been definitively determined, while conceding that waiting for Clinton to declare her intentions creates planning and fundraising challenges. “Nobody is going to write a seven-figure check for a cause that has not yet come to fruition,” said the operative. The resulting questions about how Priorities would make best use the interregnum between the Obama and Clinton campaigns has occasionally left the impression that “there is a lot of lurching over there,” in the words of one Democrat involved in laying the groundwork for a Clinton campaign. And there have been lingering tensions from the 2008 Democratic presidential primary between some Clinton backers and Priorities co-Chair Jim Messina, who ran Obama’s reelection campaign and is said to have taken a significant behind-the-scenes role in shaping Priorities’ strategy. Then came this week’s blow-up, during which Brock, whose groups defend Clinton against attacks, suggested that the Priorities leadership was pursuing “their own personal agendas.” Granholm dismissed concerns about the infighting, asserting in a Monday night statement, “we all have the same shared goals.” Hillary Clinton’s best frenemies (Politico) By Ben Schreckinger February 11, 2015 Politico What makes Jim Webb a better presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton? “I really don’t have an answer for you on that,” the former Virginia senator told NPR late last month. Where does Martin O’Malley differ from Clinton as a leader? “My mind is not even in the compare-contrast mode,” O’Malley told the New York Times. How does the bombastic Bernie Sanders feel about the candidate he’s planning to challenge for the Democratic nomination? “This is a woman I respect, clearly a very intelligent person,” Sanders said Monday. With enemies like these, who needs friends? Time and time again, when invited to criticize Clinton, her potential Democratic primary rivals have ducked, deflected and dodged. They’re trying to present themselves as viable alternatives to the daunting frontrunner without addressing the obvious question of how they stack up against her. “At the end of [interviews], somebody has to ask me a question about Hillary, and I try not to attack her. Usually, no matter what I say, it becomes ‘Hillary Clinton,’” said Sanders, raising his arms in a sweeping gesture as if to indicate that Clinton’s name becomes the banner headline. “What I’m running on are the issues … Her name recognition is about 10 times greater than mine, so if I run, it would take a lot of work getting around the country introducing myself to people.” With Elizabeth Warren continuing to resist entreaties to enter the race, liberals are still waiting for a serious challenger to Clinton to emerge — if only to ensure the party’s progressive wing gets the attention and respect it believes its views deserve. At this point in 2007, President Barack Obama was declaring his candidacy and drawing a contrast with Clinton on issues like the Iraq War and the politics of triangulation, pioneered by Clinton’s husband in the 1990s. This time around, would-be Clinton spoilers are not so far along. The outspoken Sanders deflected a question about Clinton posed by POLITICO late last month. “All I know is if I run, I’m not running against Hillary Clinton,” protested the Vermont senator, who if he runs, almost certainly would be running against Clinton. Over the weekend, he did engage the prospective match-up more directly, telling MSNBC that it would be a “real clash of ideas” on issues like trade, climate change and infrastructure investment. But at an event at the Brookings Institution this week, Sanders made it clear he had little interest in going after the former secretary of state. “It is not my style to trash people,” he said. Clinton’s other two most likely rivals haven’t even gone that far. Before Webb dodged a Hillary question from NPR’s Steve Inskeep (“If I were to run, it would not be sort of as a counterpoint to her”) he ducked a similar one put to him by Yahoo’s Matt Bai in late December (“I’m not running against Hillary Clinton”). When an O’Malley operative began talking about Clinton to a New York Times reporter last fall, the former Maryland governor’s communications director “jabbed him in the side” to make him stop, according to the newspaper’s account. The repeated questions and dodges underscore the unusual nature of the Democratic race. Though Clinton is a private citizen who has not declared she is running, she has cultivated an aura of inevitability so strong that, “She’s tantamount to an incumbent,” in the words of Democratic consultant Tad Devine. Naturally, voters will want to know how lesser-known candidates compare to Clinton, but advisers to those candidates argue that talking about the former secretary of state would be a mistake. “It makes no sense, whether it’s Webb, Sanders, or O’Malley, to start a campaign by going on the attack,” said an adviser to one Democrat considering a 2016 run who was not authorized to speak on the record about messaging strategy. “It would be putting the cart before the horse a little bit to start lobbing bombs at Hillary Clinton before you even enter the race.” “You need to make an affirmative case before you get to the contrast,” said the adviser, who added that Mitt Romney erred in 2012 by focusing on Obama before he had articulated a positive vision of his own candidacy. Devine, a longtime Sanders ally who will advise the senator’s presidential campaign should he launch one, conceded that conflict generates coverage, a precious commodity for lesser-known candidates. But he said that the Vermont senator would try to attract attention by targeting the forces of runaway capitalism rather than his primary opponents. “It’s a huge challenge,” said Devine. “It’s a different kind of conflict than the press is used to covering and perhaps than voters are used to hearing.” “Governor O’Malley is looking forward to introducing himself to Democrats outside of Maryland and talking about his own affirmative ideas for the future,” wrote O’Malley spokeswoman Lis Smith in an email. Candidates on the livelier Republican side of the presidential fieldhave been a lot more willing to snipe at both Clinton and each other. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio have both characterized Clinton as old news, with Rubio calling her a “20th century candidate.” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul regularly trolls his presidential rivals on social media and recently released a gag audio recording of a Jeb Bush impersonator conspiring with a Hillary Clinton impersonator. But the Democratic field faces something of a Catch-22. Because no challenger has gained traction, Clinton feels little pressure to campaign and is reportedly considering postponing an announcement until July. But the longer Clinton stays out of the race, the longer she can avoid taking positions that opponents can attack to gain traction. “They don’t know what she’s going to say,” said Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, who worked on the presidential campaigns of John Kerry and Al Gore. “And it’s hard to define yourself without knowing what contrast you want to draw.” Webb, Sanders and O’Malley are all planning to travel to early primary states in the coming weeks and months, and the pressure to define themselves in contrast to Clinton will only intensify. For now, though, they’re content to play nice. “The Beltway media might want a food fight right now,” said Smith, the O’Malley adviser, “but that won’t do anyone — let alone Democrats — any good.” Brock Is No Stranger to Political Rumbles Involving Clintons (NYT) By Amy Chozick February 10, 2015 The New York Times “As rough and tumble as they get.” That’s how one old friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton described David Brock when he arrived in Arkansas in early 1993 to dig up dirt on President Clinton. Back then, Mr. Brock was a star reporter for The American Spectator, the conservative magazine. Today, he is a liberal devoted to getting Hillary Rodham Clinton elected president. But he’s still rough and tumble. On Monday, Mr. Brock accused a pro-Clinton “super PAC,” Priorities USA Action, of “spreading derogatory material” about his organizations, Media Matters and American Bridge, to The New York Times. He knows a thing or two about how to generate a controversial press report. Mr. Brock’s story accusing Arkansas state troopers of setting up sexual liaisons for Mr. Clinton led to Paula Jones’s 1994 sexual harassment lawsuit against him. Mr. Brock later converted to the left, and his 2002 memoir, “Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative,” became one of Mr. Clinton’s favorite reads. (He keeps copies in a dresser at his home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and gives them out to visitors.) In turn, Mr. Brock has become one of the Clintons’ most loyal political soldiers, though he is sometimes accused of applying the attack-dog tactics he used as a conservative on behalf of the other side of the political spectrum. Hillary Clinton Seeking Office Space in Brooklyn or Queens (Time) By Sam Frizell February 10, 2015 Time Magazine Hillary Clinton’s staff are working with global real estate broker CB Richard Ellis to find a headquarters for her likely 2016 presidential campaign, TIME has learned from several sources familiar with the matter. Her campaign headquarters would likely be located in Brooklyn or Queens, where commercial rents are significantly cheaper than in Manhattan. It’s unclear whether, or how soon Clinton will settle on a headquarters. The Los-Angeles-based brokerage CBRE has worked with the Clintons in the past. Roshan Shah, a broker and senior vice president at CBRE, helped the William J. Clinton Foundation negotiate the move out of its Harlem offices. CBRE declined to comment. There aren’t many options for large, contiguous office spaces in downtown Brooklyn and Queens, where a high demand for commercial leases has raised prices in recent years. The current average annual rent price per square foot of office space in Brooklyn is around $40-$45. Prices in a 2013 report indicated averages around $35 per square foot in Brooklyn compared with around $60 in Manhattan. Clinton’s staff privately toured office space at MetroTech last year, a large office complex in downtown Brooklyn, and have also looked at the One Pierrepont Plaza building in Brooklyn Heights. The Pierrepont building is home to over 120,000 square feet of available office space. Both spaces are owned by Forest City Ratner, whose chairman Bruce Ratner is a Democrat and an ally of New York City mayor Bill de Blasio. De Blasio served on Clinton’s 1999 campaign for Senator in New York. In 2011 and 2012, the Obama campaign leased 50,000 square feet of office space in the Prudential Building in Chicago, which is now available for $20 to $27 per square foot but was cheaper four years ago, according to the current property managers. Clinton has been courted by Westchester notables in an effort to attract the presumptive presidential candidates 2016 campaign to the New York City suburb. Hillary Clinton’s Brooklyn options are limited (Capital New York) By Dana Rubenstein February 11, 2015 Capital New York In recent days, people who pay close attention to the undeclared presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton have been wondering about her real estate plans, which could, reportedly, involve setting up shop in Brooklyn or Queens. “A base in gentrifying Brooklyn or Queens could help give Clinton’s campaign a youthful feel, and would likely be a relief for Democratic operatives dreading a relocation to the suburb, or a daily commute from New York City,” explained MSNBC. In the ensuing days, two pertinent details leaked out. First, the Daily News reported that Clinton’s team, which is believed to include brokers from CBRE, checked out One Pierrepont Plaza and MetroTech, both owned by Forest City Ratner. Bruce Ratner, the company’s executive chairman, is a big Democratic donor. Then, the News reported that Clinton was seeking 100,000 square feet of office space. That’s a quite a lot. For comparison, 100,000 square feet is twice the amount Barack Obama’s campaign occupied in 2012. It’s also roughly twice the space Clinton’s campaign occupied in 2008. It would be hard enough for Brooklyn and Queens to accommodate a 50,000-square-foot tenant. A 100,000-square-foot requirement would further narrow Clinton’s options in two boroughs that have, for decades, sent commuters to offices in Manhattan, rather than developing office space themselves. Brooklyn is “a borough of churches and houses,” said Chris Havens, the vice president of commercial real estate at the Brooklyn-based aptsandlofts.com. “I’m skeptical,” he said. “This is a very tight market. There’s a lot of space available in Manhattan.” Roy Chipkin, a Queens commercial real estate broker at CBRE, described the Queens market as “very thin,” because “nothing’s been built in 100 years,” and most of what has been built is residential. Given the slim pickings, what are Clinton’s realistic options, should she indeed decide to headquarter in the outer boroughs instead of Manhattan? The contours of her former presidential endeavor may provide some guidance. The last time Clinton ran for president, in 2008, she ran her campaign from a drab office building at 4420 North Fairfax Drive in Arlington, VA. It had roughly 50,000 square feet, five floors, an elevator. According to former staffers, the space was aggressively utilitarian. (Before Clinton, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ran a detention center there.) It was also quite spacious. There was a floor devoted to ping pong and debate prep. Mold flourished on a war-room wall. The headquarters were close to the Metro line, and 20 minutes from D.C. by car. There was ready access to mid-market food options, like Cosi, not to mention a hamburger joint called Big Buns. It’s not clear how much Clinton paid per square foot in Arlington, but commercial real estate database CoStar indicates that asking rents at her old headquarters are now $36 per square foot. Clinton’s office didn’t respond to any questions about the real estate requirements of her campaign-to-be. Interviews with several real estate experts in both boroughs suggested a few potential options. If Clinton wants to cultivate a pioneering vibe, she could venture out to Industry City, the creative-industry beehive on the Sunset Park waterfront. Michael Phillips, president of Jamestown Properties, which owns part of the complex, said it could accommodate a new, 100,000-square-foot tenant. To get there, staffers could take the N or D trains one stop past Atlantic Avenue. Or drive. There are some good food options on site, but not that many of them. It would offer her space and some distance from the ravenous media crowd. “That’s definitely a place where they’d be able to find chunks of space and have a lot more flexibility,” said Ofer Cohen, president of TerraCRG, a Brooklyn-based commercial real estate brokerage. Cohen also said, “The cost would be significantly, significantly less [than other parts of Brooklyn], in the 20 dollar per-square-foot range.” There isn’t much of anything available in North Brooklyn. The Walentas family’s DUMBO properties are not believed to have the necessary space. “DUMBO Heights,” the old Jehovah’s Witnesses complex now partly controlled by Jared Kushner, has some room. But it’s thought to be on the pricey side, with asking rents in the $50s per square foot, according to Cohen. Nor is it clear that the complex, which Kushner is renovating, is imminently available. “From what I understand, the building’s not really open for occupancy yet,” said Tucker Reed, president of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership. “They’re a year or two away, so the timeline might not match up.” Kushner wouldn’t comment for this story. Finally, and most obviously, there’s Downtown Brooklyn proper, a neighborhood where high demand and a paucity of office space have created a very low vacancy rate. Sources say that Forest City could make about 170,000 square feet available at One Pierrepont Plaza, the building the Daily News said Clinton’s people had visited. But some wonder whether the asking rent—which sources say is at least in the $40s per square foot—is too high. From a symbolism standpoint, Brooklyn isn’t necessarily all upside either. “Brooklyn has the advantage and the disadvantage of having cache,” said Seth Pinsky, a real estate executive and the former president of New York City’s Economic Development Corporation. “The advantage is that you can attract a lot of young, talented people and it links you to a new, very highly desirable urbanism. At the same time, there are also a lot of stereotypes—good and bad—that come with both of those and it’s unclear whether she wants to be associated with those as she’s campaigning for president.” Queens, which is often cheaper than downtown Brooklyn, appears to offer Clinton more options. “If she’s looking for something that’s funkier and that’s close to Manhattan, then certainly a place like Long Island City would be the most logical place,” said Pinsky. Last week, at Capital’s request, Evan Daniel, the executive vice president of the ModernSpaces real estate group, sent Capital a list of properties 50,000 square feet and greater in the western Queens submarket. There’s a 1930s-era Astoria factory on 36th Street down the street from the Museum of the Moving Image called “Offices at the Square.” Sixty-three thousand square feet are available there, it’s close to the M, R, N and Q trains and there’s a beer garden downstairs There’s hundreds of thousands of square feet available at the Factory, on 47th Avenue in Long Island City, according to the report. The nearby Falchi Building could also accommodate a 100,000-square-foot tenant. There’s 90,000 square feet at an old industrial building on Austell Place, and more than 100,000 square feet at 30-30 Northern Boulevard and One MetLife Plaza. There’s nearly that much at 3430 Steinway Street. There’s also Queens Boulevard in Kew Gardens, home to borough hall and the Queens district attorney’s office, though that market’s not believed to have to have enough space. And, should she more inclined to maintain her distance from Midtown, there’s Jamaica. It’s accessible by subway and Long Island Rail Road, but not too accessible. It’s also close to the airport and some of her donors on Long Island. It’s pre-trendy. “If she wanted to show she was more a ‘woman of the people’, then a place like Jamaica, with a feel similar to where her husband is in Harlem, would send an interesting signal and it’s certainly transit accessible as well,” said Pinsky. (It’s not clear that there’s supply there either, though. Justin Rodgers, managing director of real estate and economic development at the Greater Jamaica Development Corporation said he couldn’t think of anything off the top of his head.) Certainly, Queens leaders would love to have her. “Queens is the gateway to the city, the nation and the world, with its unparalleled transportation connections including bridges, tunnels, rail and airports, and has a population to match,” said Elizabeth Lusskin president of the Long Island City Partnership. “While space is tight, I’m sure Queens would find room for any national candidate wise enough to chose the World’s Borough for her home base.” Dems make up after Hillaryland spat (CNN) By Brianna Keilar February 10, 2015 CNN Washington (CNN)Priorities USA and American Bridge -- two super PACs aligned behind likely 2016 Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton -- are publicly mending fences after the head of American Bridge abruptly resigned his position on the board of Priorities USA earlier today. David Brock, longtime Clinton defender and the founder of the liberal opposition research juggernaut American Bridge and media watchdog Media Matters, quit in protest of a New York Times story published Friday that pulled the curtain back on the opaque fundraising practices of his groups. The piece questioned Brock’s ties to fundraising adviser Mary Pat Bonner, revealing that she receives 12.5% commission on the donations she raises for Brock PACs. In a letter, first published by Politico and verified by multiple sources, Brock defended his fundraising practices and called the Times story “an orchestrated political hit job,” taking aim at current and former officials at Priorities USA, saying they “were behind this specious and malicious attack on the integrity of these critical organizations.” Brock’s resignation was a departure from the cooperation that Priorities, American Bridge and another pro-Clinton super PAC, Ready for Hillary, have displayed since brokering an agreement to work together last year. But it also harkened back to the days of the 2012 presidential cycle when American Bridge and Priorities USA, then a nascent super PAC backing President Barack Obama, were at odds at they competed for the attention of Democratic donors. Democratic operatives close to Clinton who are involved in outside groups dedicated to her seemingly certain presidential run, were eager to tamp down speculation about trouble in Hillaryland and orchestrated the public make up, according to multiple sources. In a statement distributed to reporters following the flap, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, co-chair of Priorities USA, said, “We take the concerns board member David Brock raises seriously and are working to address them.” Brock said he had spoken to the group’s leaders and was assured his concerns would be addressed, though for now he remains off the board of Priorities USA, a sign that not all is forgiven. “I’m open to returning to the board and I share their desire to find a way to move forward,” he said in the statement. Republicans, meanwhile, were only too happy to see the intra-party fighting. “If they can’t keep it together 20 months out and before Hillary has even officially announced, one has to seriously wonder how they’re going to hold up in the heat of a national campaign,” said Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short. Boris Johnson once compared Hillary Clinton to ‘a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital’ (Telegraph) By Raf Sanchez Washington February 10, 2015 The Telegraph Online Mayor of London hastily tries to make amends for comparing the potential next president of the United States to Lady Macbeth Boris Johnson today attempted to make sheepish amends for once comparing Hillary Clinton to “a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital” and alluding to conspiracy theories she was involved in a friend’s death. A day before he was due to meet Mrs Clinton in New York, the Mayor of London was reminded that he had once said she represents “everything I came into politics to oppose” including “an all-round purse-lipped political correctness”. Writing in the Daily Telegraph in November 2007, when Mrs Clinton looked the favourite to win the 2008 presidential election, Mr Johnson mused about whether he could support her candidacy. “She’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital,” he noted. Perhaps more damaging than his colourful remarks about her appearance was Mr Johnson’s conclusion that he thought Mrs Clinton should win in 2008 because it would bring Bill Clinton back to the White House: For all who love America, it is time to think of supporting Hillary, not because we necessarily want her for herself but because we want Bill in the role of First Husband. And if Bill can deal with Hillary, he can surely deal with any global crisis. Mr Johnson also made a reference to conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Vince Foster, a close friend of Mrs Clinton’s who killed himself with a gun in 1993. Some opponents of the Clintons have suggested that he may have been killed and they had a hand in his death - a theory refuted by multiple official investigations. In his column, Mr Johnson referred to “worrying allegations” about “the anomalies in the position of poor Vince Foster’s gun”. He also said Mrs Clinton appeared to have spent her eight years as First Lady behaving like “a mixture between Cherie Blair and Lady Macbeth, stamping her heel, bawling out subordinates and frisbeeing ashtrays at her erring husband”. When reminded about his eight-year-old comments by ITV News<file://localhost/javascript/void(0)>, Mr Johnson said: “I’m delighted to be able to meet Senator Clinton. I’m sure that whatever I’ve said in the past will be taken by the Senator who is a very distinguished politician in the light hearted spirit in which it was intended.” Even his efforts to make amends may cause new issues. While Mrs Clinton was once a senator from New York, and therefore entitled to be called “Senator Clinton”, that title was overtaken by her work as US Secretary of State. Americans universally refer to her as “Secretary Clinton”, which may have been the title Mr Johnson was grasping for. The mayor is due to meet Mrs Clinton, who is expected to run for president in 2016, in New York on Wednesday for talks expected to focus on foreign policy. The flap over his past comments is the latest in a series of hiccups to befall Mr Johnson’s US trip. He had been due to meet with Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York, on Tuesday but his Big Apple counterpart pulled out of the meeting citing illness. While Mr de Blasio cancelled his meeting with Mr Johnson - and several other engagements during the day - he was apparently well enough to give a speech at the premiere for a television documentary later in the evening. Parts of Mr Johnson’s scheduled visit to Boston also had to be called off as the northeastern city was inundated by historic snowstorms. He is due to travel to Washington on Thursday. Boris Johnson Had Unkind Words for Hillary Clinton (WSJ) By Tim Hanrahan February 10, 2015 The Wall Street Journal London Mayor Boris Johnson, set to meet with Hillary Clinton on Wednesday, found himself in a bit of hot water over a column he wrote in 2007 that took some jabs of the then-senator. In the Telegraph column, Mr. Johnson -- today seen as a potential future U.K. prime minister -- said he found himself hoping that Mrs. Clinton would be the next U.S. president, despite his long list of misgivings about her. “She’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital,” wrote Mr. Johnson. He added: “[S]he represents, on the face of it, everything I came into politics to oppose: not just a general desire to raise taxes and nationalize things, but an all-round purse-lipped political correctness.” After a few more digs, Mr. Johnson explains why he was pulling for Mrs. Clinton, instead of the “plainly brilliant” Barack Obama and others: so that former President Bill Clinton could return to the White House as first husband. In a statement to ITV News Tuesday, Mr. Johnson said: “I’m sure that whatever I’ve said in the past will be taken by the Senator ...in the light-hearted spirit in which it was intended.” Bill, Hillary tee off; for pay — and to play (SF Chronicle) Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross February 11, 2015 The San Francisco Chronicle Democrats’ other first family, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, are getting into the swing of things around here — both on and off the golf course. Hillary Clinton is scheduled to headline the $295-a-head Lead On conference for women at the Santa Clara Convention Center on Feb. 24. The event is being put on by Watermark, an executive networking group for women, and is being sponsored by a number of prominent Silicon Valley companies, including Cisco and Intel, as well as by the San Francisco 49ers and The Chronicle. Watermark spokeswoman Karen Breslau said the organization does not comment on whether “any speaker is paid or not.” Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, who received $17 million in speech honorariums in 2013, delivered four for-pay talks last week in Oakland, San Rafael and San Mateo as part of the MPSF Speaker Series. While he was in town, Bill also had time for some good old-fashioned political schmoozing, including a quick morning meet-and-greet with San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee at the Harding Park Golf Course. Afterward, the former president shot 18 holes with a foursome that included city Recreation and Park Commission President Mark Buell, whose wife, Susie Tompkins Buell, has been one of Hillary’s most ardent backers. “I’m always glad to welcome a Clinton to San Francisco,” Lee said of his get-together.So, apparently, was an SUV full of women who spotted Bill Clinton crossing the road and rushed to get his photo and autograph, causing the obliging ex-president to wave off the fast-descending Secret Service. Later, Clinton realized he had left his favorite sand wedge on the course. Rec and Park staff promised to get it to Mark Buell at City Hall.However, when the staffer showed up with club in hand, sheriff’s deputies refused to let it past security. Buell eventually retrieved the club outside City Hall and delivered it that night to Clinton — who greeted its safe return with his trademark toothy grin. Split rail: It ought to be an interesting BART meeting this week when directors take up the question of what do to — or not do — about the 14 protesters who were arrested after shutting down the system for three hours on the Friday after Thanksgiving. “Right now, I see a three-way split,” said Board of Directors member Joel Keller. At issue is BART’s initial call for Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley to prosecute and seek $70,000 in restitution from the protesters — or $5,000 each — for losses from the shutdown. BART General Manager Grace Crunican has since backed off on the cash demand, saying she would prefer a payback through community service. The “Black Friday” protesters chained themselves to a BART train at the West Oakland Station, effectively shutting down the system for hours, to call attention to their anger over grand juries’ refusals to indict police officers who killed unarmed black men in New York and Ferguson, Mo.. BART Directors Rebecca Saltzman and Tom Radulovich want both the restitution and the charges dropped altogether. Keller and fellow director Nick Josefowitz have come out for dropping the restitution demand, but supporting whatever charges O’Malley decides to pursue. A third option would be to let the call for prosecution and community service stand. The nine-member board will hash it all out Thursday. “From my count, there are three directors leaning for each of the options,” Keller said. Crash call: In San Francisco, everything gets political — even a head-on collision with a suspected car thief. At least that was the case for former Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, who was in a crash Saturday night with a suspected car thief who was fleeing from police. As Ammiano described it in an Internet posting, he and a friend were stopped at a red light at Sixth and Mission streets when the suspected thief “ran a red light, nailing 2 or 3 cars and then slammed into us.”Ammiano’s car was totaled, but he and his passenger escaped with “scrapes, bruises and whiplash,” Ammiano wrote. It was while sitting in the ambulance waiting to go to St. Luke’s that things took a political twist. According the Ammiano, a cabbie whose car had also been bashed by the fleeing thief yelled, “I hope this is a wake-up call to run for mayor!” “Only in San Francisco,” Ammiano said. Inside the Beltway: Where’s Hillary Clinton - and why is she hiding? (Washington Times) Jennifer Harper February 11, 2015 The Washington Times The Republican National Committee is fretting about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s absence from the public arena at the moment. “We’ve noticed it. You’ve noticed it: Hillary Clinton is hiding,” the committee notes in a public memo. “Potential Republican presidential candidates are out in public, speaking to voters, and sharing their ideas. But Hillary Clinton is nowhere to be found.” Their point has resonated. Others parse the who, what, when and where of it all. “Come out, come out wherever you are,” writes the Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper. “Where in the world is Hillary Clinton? Over the past several weeks, she has been behaving like a reclusive third-world dictator,” declares Washington Free Beacon editor Andrew Stiles. Journalist and author Sharyl Attkisson wonders why Mrs. Clinton — who once erroneously claimed she was shot at in a Bosnian war zone — isn’t scrutinized as closely as NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who falsely claimed he encountered enemy fire in the skies over Iraq. It’s ironic, Ms. Attkisson told NewsMax TV, that he could lose his career, “yet we didn’t care enough to have it matter with someone who became our Secretary of State.” The point was also brought home by Washington Times columnist Joseph Curl. The GOP, meanwhile, points out that it has been 202 days since Mrs. Clinton held a press conference, and 184 days since offering a major interview. She has been spotted around Manhattan, enjoying a Broadway show, and appearing at a fundraiser also attended by Mitt and Ann Romney, speaking of irony. Mrs. Clinton had two public speaking engagements in Canada in late January, notable for a moment when she imitated Russia President Vladimir Putin. She is now said to be hard at work on a “modern, aggressive campaign,” according to the Washington Post. The GOP is not buying any of it. “Why would a would-be presidential candidate behave this way? Because she’s made a strategic decision that the only way to ensure she is the Democratic nominee is to make everyone think she’s inevitable. The last time she had to face voters and actually compete for the nomination, she lost to a newcomer. She doesn’t want to make the same mistake twice,” the organization continues. “As her poll numbers show, when Hillary is campaigning, she’s much less popular. What’s the only way not to seem like she’s campaigning? Go into hiding.” FOR THE LEXICON “Infotainment confusion syndrome.” — A condition developed by NBC anchor Brian Williams, according to Comedy Central’s fake newsman Jon Stewart, who told a recent audience, “It occurs when the celebrity cortex gets its wires crossed with the medulla anchor-dala.” Mr. Stewart noted that “celeb-rellum” is then activated, adding, “That’s known as the brain’s applause center. Once that engages, there’s no going back.” And what timing. Late Tuesday, NBC announced that Mr. Williams had been suspended from his newscast for six months minus pay, for his aforementioned fib - in the same hour that Mr. Stewart went public with news he would leave his own show later this year. And as the sages say, hmmm. CALIFORNIA DREAMIN’ Fire up Air Force One, it’s California fundraising time. In 48 hours, President Obama will travel to Palo Alto to address the Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection at Stanford University. Well that’s nice. Then it’s on to San Francisco proper for a Democratic National Committee fundraiser — specifically an “intimate dinner” with 60 other fans in the private home of an investment guru, priced at $10,000 a person for dinner and a photo with Mr. Obama, and $32,400 for dinner, a photo and a “co-chair” title. And just to review, the president attended 71 fundraising events in 2014, this according to an excruciating count by the Sunlight Foundation. But we also must mention that the group also says that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie went to 109 fundraisers last year in his role as chairman of the Republican Governors Assoc. Meanwhile, there is some more traveling to come, though. On Valentine’s day, “the President will depart San Francisco and travel to Palm Springs, California where he will remain overnight. Further details about the President’s travel to California will be made available in the coming days,” the White House advised earlier this week. MCCAUL GETS BUSY The mission does not end. A House Committee on Homeland Security hearing titled “Countering violent Islamist extremism: The urgent threat of foreign fighters and homegrown terror” has drawn some very helpful witnesses, including Nicholas Rasmussen, director of he National Counterterrorism Center; Francis X. Taylo r, undersecretary for intelligence and analysis at the Department of Homeland Security and Michael B. Steinbach, the FBI’s assistant director for counterterrorism. “Islamist terror groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are surging, and every day we witness their brutality and senseless violence. The threat they pose to the homeland has reached its highest level since 9/11,” says Rep. Michael McCaul, Texas Republican and committee chairman. “I want to make sure we are doing everything possible to keep that terror from reaching our shores.” And on the death of Kayla Mueller, an American aid worker who was held hostage by the Islamic State group, Mr. McCaul says, “While Kayla selflessly devoted herself to the cause of helping those in need, violent Islamist extremists like ISIS have devoted themselves to death and destruction. Her death will only strengthen our resolve to destroy these depraved barbarians.” The hearing is at 10 a.m. ET, and will be carried live by C-SPAN. ONE FOR A HISTORIC FEBRUARY Allen Wes t, Ben Carson and Kenneth Blackwell are among the sizable host committee for a Republican gathering of significance on Wednesday. The Republican National Committee hosts the 3rd Annual Black Republican Trailblazer Awards in the nation’s capital, meant to celebrate Black History Month and honor those with “historic victories,” says committee chairman Reince Priebus. Awards and kudos will go to Sen. Tim Scott, Reps. Will Hurd and Mia Love, plus the late Ed Brooke — who is honored posthumously. The event is at the splendidly restored Howard Theater; onstage with Mr. Priebus and co-chairman Sharon Day: New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, TVOne host and editor Roland Martin, and CNN political analyst Tara Setmayer Love. VOTE OR ELSE “More than 100 Hamilton County poll workers got fired for failing to do the one thing that matters most on Election Day. They didn’t vote. The board of elections said goodbye to the 104 workers after learning they had not voted in either the 2013 or 2014 elections, despite spending most of those Election Days in a polling place, surrounded by voters and ballots,” reports the Cincinnati Enquirer. “I’m frankly kind of shocked by the number of people on that list,” said Tim Burke, chairman of the board and leader of Hamilton County’s Democratic Party. “We want everyone to vote. If we have poll workers who don’t vote, we’re not encouraging that.” POLL DU JOUR • 74 percent of Americans say the federal government does not have the right rules and regulations in place to prevent another recession from occurring. • 55 percent say the U.S. government did a “good” job helping the nation recover from the recession that began in 2007. • 55 percent say “big business” has recovered from that recession; 52 percent say the stock market has recovered. • 35 percent say their own family has recovered from the recession; 30 percent say their local real estate market has recovered. • 27 percent say the same of local job markets have recovered, 18 percent say the same for small businesses. Republicans say Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign is already falling apart (Business Insider) By Colin Campbell February 10, 2015 Business Insider One of the leading political operatives in Hillary Clinton’s world caused some major behind-the-scenes drama on Monday. David Brock, a close Clinton ally who leads several liberal advocacy groups supporting her potential presidential campaign accused other Hillary backers of leading “an orchestrated political hit job” against him, according to a letter obtained by Politico. “Our Democratic Presidential nominee deserves better than people who would risk the next election – and our country’s future – for their own personal agendas,” Brock declared in the letter. Brock was apparently upset over a recent New York Times report detailing the millions of dollars a prominent Democratic consultant’s firm made while helping organizations affiliated with Brock raise money. Brock accused officials from a major pro-Clinton “super PAC,” Priorities USA Action, of intentionally leaking information to benefit themselves at his expense. In the letter to the PAC’s leaders, Brock announced his resignation from their board. (Priorities denied involvement in the Times story to Politico.) Reporters and conservative political operatives quickly compared the drama behind Brock’s resignation letter to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, which infamously suffered from perennial infighting and leaks. In “Game Change,” John Heilemann and Mark Halperin described her White House bid as “a simmering cauldron of long-held animosities” — much of it centered on her then-pollster, Mark Penn. “Good afternoon – Meet the new Hillary Clinton presidential campaign,” Michael Short, a spokesman for the national Republican Party, quipped in an email, “same as the old Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.” Targeted GOP senator: ‘I will never vote with my reelection in mind’ (The Hill) By Alexander Bolton February 10, 2015 The Hill Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is up for reelection this cycle, but he says he’s not changing. Not one bit. “I’ll always tell Wisconsinites the truth, to the best of my ability, and I will never vote with my reelection in mind. I’m not afraid to justify my votes. I generally have a pretty good rationale for voting the way I do,” he told The Hill in an interview from his office in the Hart Senate Office Building. To win back the upper chamber in 2016, Democrats probably have to defeat Johnson. The freshman senator knows he is a huge target, but he isn’t shying away from his conservative credentials in a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1984. Johnson, 59, says he won’t let a difficult reelection race push him out of bare-knuckled confrontations with the administration or soften his resolve to reform entitlement programs. As the new chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, he is taking a prominent role in the immigration debate by putting together a border security bill that will be the first item of the GOP’s reform agenda. Johnson was sworn into office in 2011 after beating incumbent Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.) in a stunning upset. This time, he will run for reelection in a presidential year, when Democratic voters typically turn out in greater numbers. A member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Johnson is positioning himself as an outspoken critic of the Democrats’ likely nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He has slammed her for not taking enough precautions to avert the attacks that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, Libya. “The bigger problem for Secretary Clinton is just her dereliction of duty. She has not been held to account yet for that,” he said. The two had a contentious exchange during Clinton’s testimony before the Foreign Relations panel in 2013, when Johnson pressed her on the administration’s initial claim that the attacks evolved from a spontaneous protest. “Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?” Clinton asked. Johnson’s Homeland Security Committee gavel gives him a platform to speak out on another fast-rising issue: the threat posed by militant Islamic groups around the world. ”We’re not the ones devising the strategy. Only the commander in chief can do that. So, [President Obama] has to establish the goal. He has to define what that looks like. What do you mean by defeat? Is it just in Iraq? Is it in Iraq and Syria?” he asked. Democrats say Johnson’s refusal to distance himself from his party will come back to haunt him next year. “Without a doubt, Ron Johnson is the most vulnerable senator in the country,” said Justin Barasky, communications director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “He has distinguished himself in a variety of ways, be it his record, his public posturing, his partisan warrior stance he’s used to taking on every issue.” Barry C. Burden, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said, “He’s really latched onto two or three Washington issues to focus on. … When he arrived, it was about the healthcare law and wanting to repeal that, and then moving on to Benghazi and other foreign policy issues. To his credit, he hasn’t relented on any of those things. They’re still his focus, even though we’re a year and a half from the election.” There’s speculation that Feingold might want a rematch and some chatter that veteran Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) might jump in the race. Republicans say that, while Johnson has stuck to his conservative principles, it won’t hurt his reelection bid, because he eschews the heated rhetoric of some of his colleagues. “He’s conservative, but he’s not somebody who’s alarming. He has a reassuring presence. Some conservatives don’t have it. He’s conservative and responsible in his rhetoric,” said Peter Wehner, former director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives under George W. Bush. Johnson, he said, feels free to speak his mind on thorny political and policy topics because he’s not a career politician. The Wisconsin Republican spent most of his professional life in the business world running a plastics manufacturing company. He never visited Washington before running for the Senate. Privately and publicly, Johnson has pressed Obama on the debt, noting that the Congressional Budget Office has projected federal spending will exceed federal revenue by about $126 trillion over the next 30 years. “Know what he said to me? He said, ‘Ron, we can’t show the American public numbers that big. If we do, they’ll get all scared, throw up their hands, give up all hope,’ “ Johnson recalled of his conversation with Obama. “He said, ‘Besides Ron, we can’t do all the work; we have to leave some work for future presidents, future Congresses.’ “It would be funny if it weren’t so sad,” Johnson added. Johnson will be a central player in this year’s fiscal debate as a member of the Budget Committee. While he views the growth of Social Security and Medicare spending as a dire problem, he has enough of a sense of political self preservation to advise his GOP colleagues not to propose cuts to those programs unilaterally. “I’d say that’s probably not the smartest thing to do politically,” he said. Instead, Johnson wants them to lay out a “solution menu” of options to extend the solvency of those programs. The domestic side of national security (The Hill) By James Joyner February 10, 2015 The Hill The Obama administration has released its long-awaited update to the “National Security Strategy.” While ostensibly a report to Congress on the president’s priorities for safeguarding U.S. interests globally, around which to base funding and procurement discussions, a fair amount of the domestic political agenda inevitably creeps in. This go-around, though, this was flipped on its head; the domestic focus predominates. The second sentence of the report posits that, “America’s growing economic strength is the foundation of our national security and a critical source of our influence abroad,” and a remarkable amount of text that follows is related to that premise. Before any mention of external threats or challenges, we’re told that “we have created nearly 11 million new jobs during the longest private sector job growth in our history,” that “[u]nemployment has fallen to its lowest level in [six] years,” “[w]e are now the world leader in oil and gas production,” and “[w]e continue to set the pace for science, technology, and innovation in the global economy.” Flattery abounds, with kudos given to our “young and growing workforce” and the “entrepreneurial spirit of our workers.” We’re told that “[o]ur higher education system is the finest in the world” and that “we continue to attract immigrants from every corner of the world who renew our country with their energy and entrepreneurial talents.” It shouldn’t come at all as a surprise, then, that “[o]ur economy is the largest, most open, and innovative in the world.” The first mention of conflict is to proclaim that “we have moved beyond the large ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” followed by a nod to “a military whose might, technology, and geostrategic reach is unrivaled in human history.” To be sure, that’s followed by serious talk about violent extremism, the terrorist threat, cybersecurity, a resurgent Russia, a nuclearizing Iran and various other honest-to-goodness national security issues. And, as I argue elsewhere, the agenda set forth for global “leadership” is unbounded by geography or time. Still, seldom a paragraph and nary a page goes by without a sop to the American public. Indeed, the very “model of American leadership” extolled in the document is allegedly founded on “the values of the American people.” The “American exceptionalism” the president rejected early in his tenure is now enthusiastically embraced and attributed at least partly to “the grit, talent, and diversity of the American people.” Congress, the ostensible target audience of the report, gets a few shout-outs as well, although they’re mostly either perfunctory or backhanded. We’re told that the document “serves as a compass for how this administration, in partnership with Congress, will lead the world though a shifting security landscape.” That the institution has just turned over to the opposition party, which opposes much of the agenda set forth in the document, is left unstated. There’s an olive branch in that direction, with a note that “[m]any achievements of recent years were made possible by Democrats and Republicans,” but it’s followed by the caveat that “we face continued challenges, including political dysfunction in Washington that undermines national unity, stifles bipartisan cooperation, and ultimately erodes the perception and strength of our leadership abroad.” While it’s perhaps axiomatic that “American leadership is always most powerful when we are able to forge common ground at home around key national priorities,” it’s neither appropriate for a national security strategy nor a circumstance that occurs in a vacuum. The economy has substantially rebounded from the Great Recession and the “National Security Strategy” mentions this fact repeatedly. It professes to build “on the progress of the last [six] years, in which our active leadership has helped the world recover from a global economic crisis and respond to an array of emerging challenges.” A couple pages later, we’re reminded, “[i]n the last [six] years alone, we arrested the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and catalyzed a new era of economic growth.” Despite the fact that “economy is the largest, most open, and innovative in the world” and “an engine for global economic growth and a source of stability for the international system,” the administration is “investing in a new foundation for sustained economic growth that creates good jobs and rising incomes.” In turn, this requires an impressive domestic agenda, including “expanding access to early childhood and affordable higher education,” the “further acceleration of our manufacturing revolution” to “create the next generation of high technology manufacturing jobs,” “immigration reform that combines smart and effective enforcement of the law with a pathway to citizenship,” “quality, affordable healthcare to more and more Americans,” “opening markets and leveling the playing field for American workers and businesses abroad” and a “more modern and reliable infrastructure.” Sustaining our “competitive edge” in technology, which in turn “secures our military advantage, propels our economy, and improves the human condition” has long been part of our national security strategy, going back at least to the Manhattan Project and the “missile gap.” Still, the agenda which flows in this iteration is impressive indeed; it “requires robust Federal investments in basic and applied research”; that we somehow “strengthen science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education to produce tomorrow’s discoverers, inventors, entrepreneurs, and high-skills workforce”; and translates into “preparation and compensation for STEM teachers, broadband connectivity and high-tech educational tools for schools, programs that inspire and provide opportunities for girls and underrepresented minorities, and support for innovation in STEM teaching and inclusion in higher education.” In a section on homeland security, the administration posits that they “have countered terrorism and transnational organized crime” — very much traditional national security threats — “in ways that enhance commerce, travel, and tourism.” While the combination is surely desirable if true, one would think a national security strategy might focus on lives saved rather than tourists attracted as the key metric. Climate change, legitimately a national security issue if one not amenable to traditional hard power solutions, gets 15 mentions, including inclusion among the eight “top strategic risks to our interests” that they administration will “prioritize.” Indeed, even “improv[ing] our banking practices and forg[ing] ahead with regulatory reform” are somehow matters of national security. No section of the report is more indicative of the predominance of U.S. domestic policy than the one entitled “Advance Equality.” We’re told that “American values are reflective of the universal values we champion all around the world.” In addition to ones that, while certainly not universal, are widely embraced at home “including the freedoms of speech, worship, and peaceful assembly; the ability to choose leaders democratically; and the right to due process and equal administration of justice,” the document declares that “[w]e will be a champion for communities that are too frequently vulnerable to violence, abuse, and neglect — such as ethnic and religious minorities; people with disabilities; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) individuals; displaced persons; and migrant workers.” Now, I happen to think that’s a noble sentiment. But, given the fact that we’re simply not going to place a premium on LGBT rights in our negotiations with our closest allies, let alone our adversaries and frenemies in less savory cultures, there’s simply no reason but domestic politics to include these platitudes in a national security strategy. While they may be aspirational, publicizing them in this manner is likely counterproductive in the actual conduct of U.S. foreign relations. Similarly, the document makes repeated references to “the political and economic participation of women and girls — who are too often denied their inalienable rights and face substantial barriers to opportunity in too many places.” That focusing on the particular plight of women and girls is critical to development efforts is supported by years of social science research. The administration has, to its credit, made this a point of emphasis from the outset, notably during Hillary Clinton’s time at the helm in Foggy Bottom. But, again, the intended audience here are American voters, not the heads of government in places where we routinely overlook horrific human rights abuses — much less a second-class role for women — in the furtherance of other interests. Public-facing foreign policy documents like the “National Security Strategy” naturally have many audiences and the president’s employers, the American public, are certainly among them. Selling his national security policy — which after all requires the lion’s share of the discretionary budget — in terms that appeal to their interests, including the impact on their pocketbooks, is perfectly reasonable. But this document goes well beyond that, sending political messages at best tangentially related to security while failing to take seriously the business of prioritizing our national interests. And it seeks to score political points while poking a finger in the eye of the party that controls the purse strings, making the restoration of “the bipartisan center that has been a pillar of strength for American foreign policy in decades past” just a bit more difficult. Three reasons why markets would love a President Hillary Clinton (Business Insider) By Akin Oyedele February 10, 2015 Business Insider Greg Valliere at Potomac Research says Hillary Clinton, “has to be considered the favorite to win the presidency.” And for the markets, Valliere thinks a Clinton presidency would be a positive. “Our very early bottomline is that the markets could gladly live with her,” Valliere wrote in a note Tuesday. Valliere gives three main reasons why: A divided government is good for markets: Stocks rose over 200% when Bill Clinton was president. Hillary would have to deal with a Republican-controlled house – currently a 246 - 188 majority, and the GOP is likely to be in control until the next redistricting exercise in 2021. She’ll avoid the “us-versus-them rhetoric” against Wall Street, with a more moderate approach to big business than President Obama. She’s a crony capitalist, or someone who would develop a close relationship with businesses and give them incentives to invest in the economy. While some like senator Elizabeth Warren see this as a problem, it’s actually a plus for Clinton because she would look to market leaders for advice more than Obama has. Regulations on business would not be as tough as they are under Obama, if she wins. And what’s more, Valliere adds that if the 2016 presidential race turns out to be Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush, markets will find either winner acceptable. Axelrod: Hillary not a ‘healing figure’ (Washington Times) By Dave Boyer February 11, 2015 The Washington Times Political adviser David Axelrod told Barack Obama prior to the 2008 Democratic presidential primary that rival Hillary Rodham Clinton was not a “healing figure” and would have difficulty convincing voters that she was as a candidate of the future. Mr. Axelrod’s memoir, released Tuesday, includes a 12-page strategic memo written for Mr. Obama after Thanksgiving 2006, when the then-senator from Illinois was gearing up for his presidential campaign. The Chicago adviser wrote: “Hillary... and her team have played this course many times before. They know every bunker, sand trap and the lay of the greens. And she has the best caddy in the business. But for all of her advantages, she is not a healing figure. ... The more she tries to moderate her image, the more she ... compounds her exposure as an opportunist.” And in an observation that could have implications for Mrs. Clinton’s anticipated presidential bid in 2016, Mr. Axelrod wrote nearly 10 years ago: “After two decades of the Bush-Clinton saga, making herself the candidate of the future will be a challenge.” Mr. Axelrod’s memoir, “Believer: My Forty Years in Politics,” was published Tuesday by Penguin Press. In interviews promoting his book this week, Mr. Axelrod said Mrs. Clinton will need to run “like an insurgent” in 2016. “She needs a very well-conceived message about where she wants to lead the country,” he said. “If she doesn’t have that, then it does become a problem. ....I think she has to approach this campaign like a challenger, not like a front-runner — like an insurgent.” The Republican National Committee said Tuesday that Mrs. Clinton is behaving like someone “in hiding” as the 2016 campaign begins to heat up. “She’s made a strategic decision that the only way to ensure she is the Democratic nominee is to make everyone think she’s inevitable,” said RNC spokesman Sean Spicer. “The last time she had to face voters and actually compete for the nomination, she lost to a newcomer. She doesn’t want to make the same mistake twice.” The RNC said it will be keeping a tally “of just how secretive she’s been,” including: Days since last press conference: 202 Days since she’s done an interview: 184 Days since she’s been in Iowa: 103 Days since she’s been in New Hampshire: 100 Days since she’s done an event that didn’t require significant speaking fees: 69 Dukakis: Hillary will be ‘16 nominee (The Hill) By Kevin Cirilli February 10, 2015 The Hill Michael Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, says Hillary Clinton is going to be the party’s 2016 standard-bearer — and he’s okay with that. “Look, I consider myself part of that liberal base. I’m very comfortable with her as a candidate, as a nominee and as the president of the United States,” Dukakis said Monday on Fox Business Network’s “Cavuto.” “Hillary is going to be the nominee and I’d like to see as many of us as possible get behind that effort now.” Many progressives have raised concerns about Clinton’s ties to Wall Street, a relationship they see as too cozy. But Dukakis pushed back against that idea, suggesting that Clinton’s views are more skeptical of Wall Street than progressive critics would suggest. That being so, he asserted that she will likely not have to change those opinions to rebuff a primary challenge from the left. “I don’t think she will be forced to vary her view dramatically. ... She’s a very progressive Democrat and one who’s not soft on the kinds of financial fooling around that virtually sucked the country dry,” Dukakis, a former governor of Massachusetts, told Fox Business Network. Liberal groups such as Democracy For America and MoveOn.org are trying to move Clinton to the left and in some cases draft candidates such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has insisted she’s not running. “I don’t think these folks have anything to worry about and frankly — I’d feel a lot better if they were out organizing 200,000 precincts in this country and getting ready for what is going to be a very tough contest in 2016,” Dukakis told Fox Business Network. Hillary Clinton to be in D.C. on same day as Bibi speech (Politico) By Gabriel Dibenedetti February 10, 2015 Politico When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu heads to Washington to deliver a controversial address to Congress on March 3, he won’t be the only big name in town who might soon be facing an election. Hillary Clinton is also scheduled to be in the capital city on that day, to be honored by EMILY’s List, the group supporting female Democratic candidates. Clinton’s spokesman did not respond to a question about whether the two plan to meet, but the convergence of the prime minister and former secretary of state brings together two of the most talked-about figures in politics, at a crucial time for both of them. While Clinton’s all-but-certain 2016 campaign will be nearing its likely launch, Netanyahu’s speech will generate major attention after drawing condemnation from many Democrats who are critical of him and of House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation of the prime minister despite the White House’s disapproval. Neither President Barack Obama, nor Vice President Joe Biden will attend the speech, which will address the Iran nuclear deal. Biden will be out of the country, Obama has ruled out meeting with Netanyahu just before Israel’s March 17 election. Secretary of State John Kerry is also expected to avoid seeing Netanyahu. Clinton has repeatedly spoken about her role in Middle East policy since leaving the State Department in 2013, but she has not commented on Netanyahu’s upcoming address. Her Washington event is sure to draw the attention of many political observers, as it will be one of her first public events in months. The former senator and first lady has been busy building her campaign team. And while Clinton is the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2016, a potential rival — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — grabbed headlines Monday by becoming the first senator to announce he would boycott the speech. Word by word; New Chicago program aims to prevent achievement gap by teaching parents (Grand Forks Herald) By Sara Neufeld February 10, 2015 Grand Forks Herald CHICAGO - On the third-floor hospital maternity ward at the University of Chicago Medical Center, Bionka Burkhalter had just given birth to her first child, a 7-pound, 4-ounce boy named Josiah. There was a knock on the door, and two women asked to give a presentation on how to build her baby’s brain. The 21-year-old single mother gave them her attention. In the next 15 minutes, she heard about the importance of talking a lot to Josiah, whose thick dark hair poked out from under a swaddle blanket in a bassinet beside her bed. She heard about tuning into his cues and responding when he cries, and about giving him a chance to communicate back to her, even if just through eye contact. Burkhalter is a test subject in one of many initiatives being piloted by the Thirty Million Words Project, which aims to prevent the achievement gap from starting with the power of parent-child talk - beginning at day one. In this intervention with newborns, mothers still in the hospital learn research-based parenting practices less commonly known in poor households. There will soon be follow-up lessons at pediatric checkups. This winter, Thirty Million Words is embarking on a major long-term study of a home-visiting program that teaches communication skills to parents of slightly older babies. Children will be trailed from about 15 months old through at least kindergarten. Thirty Million Words was founded by University of Chicago pediatric surgeon Dana Suskind, who performs cochlear implant surgery on deaf children, allowing them to hear. Suskind was disturbed to discover that, after the same operation, some patients from poor families had more difficulty learning to speak than children from affluent homes. She became intrigued by a famous study finding that a hearing child born into poverty hears 30 million words fewer before age 4 than a middle-class peer. This so-called “word gap” has been getting a lot of attention lately, thanks to Hillary Clinton making it a pre-campaign campaign of sorts. Her Too Small to Fail partnership has spurred a White House conference on the topic, public service announcements on Spanish-language Univision, and strategic dialogue on TV shows like “Orange Is the New Black” and “The Fosters.” The American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy in June asking its 62,000 member doctors to encourage parents to read to their babies daily. There are now text message campaigns to give parents talking reminders and tips. Thirty Million Words has promising results from a small pilot home-visiting program, and the national buzz has helped catapult the organization into a rapid expansion in Chicago. Suskind and her 13-member staff, plus graduate student interns and volunteers, are trying several approaches to reach families while measuring impact for potential widespread replication. These strategies do not simply involve the quantity of words spoken; they target parent-child relationships, in line with new research that the quality of communication matters most. “Obviously, language can in itself be a key part of building a child’s brain, but the parent relationship really is the basis for all of child development,” said Suskind, 46, a widowed mother of three school-age kids who sits on the Too Small to Fail advisory council. “We’re using the lever of parent talk to get into the parent-child relationship.” Language, though, can be quantified where relationships can’t. In the long-term study that began in December, babies will wear a device recording how many words adults say to them in a day and how many chances they get to respond. Results will be collected for 200 children recruited from Early Head Start and other city programs. All families will receive six months of home visits, but parents won’t all learn about the same thing. Half in a control group will get lessons on nutrition.