HRC Clips | 2.6.15 [Afternoon Update]

From:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com To: nmerrill@hrcoffice.com Date: 2015-02-06 21:05 Subject: HRC Clips | 2.6.15 [Afternoon Update]

HRC Clips February 6, 2015 [Afternoon Update] HRC Afternoon Clips We need to start the presidential campaign earlier? (Des Moines Register) 3 Hillary Flew Private for Peanuts, and You Can Too (Vanity Fair) 5 'Unsure' outpolls Christie in New Hampshire (Courier-Post) 7 Hillary Clinton's campaign doesn't need Bill's contributions: James Varney (Times-Picayune) 8 Elizabeth Warren's top media consultant isn't ready for Warren (Vox) 10 Hillary Clinton: Grandmother in Chief (The Atlantic) 11 Benghazi panel chief wants to hear from Clinton ASAP (The Hill) 13 Republicans mock Hillary Clinton for avoiding the press (Business Insider) 14 Report: Pakistan aid plans hit snag after political promise by Hillary Clinton (Washington Examiner) 16 RNC Hits Hillary Clinton's Press Team For Not Answering Reporter Q's (Daily Caller) 18 Embattled Brian Williams, Hillary Clinton should swap war stories (Chicago Tribune) 20 Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court nod would have been unusual, in modern times (Constitution Daily) 23 Opinion: Ohio has always been Clinton Country: Tim Ryan (Clevland.com) 25 John Kerry considered least effective secretary of state in past five decades, poll shows (Washington Times) 26 Will Brian Williams Get Away With 'Misremembering' a War Story? Well, Hillary Clinton Did (Reason) 27 Morning Clips Making Money Raising Funds for Politicians (NYT) 28 Mandy Grunwald to Join Clinton Team (NYT) 31 Mandy Grunwald to join Hillary Clinton's team (Politico) 32 Can Jennifer Palmieri Keep Hillary Clinton On Message? (Bloomberg) 33 Clinton widens her circle (Hill) 35 Are men afraid to run against Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she's a woman? (WAPO) 37 Election campaign will debate troops to stop Islamic State 39 Attention Hillary staffers: Here are directions to all the big donors in New York City (WAPO) 41 NBC's Bad Memory (Slate) 43 Hillary Clinton's consolation prize for Brooklyn (WaPo) 45 'Talking is Teaching' event focuses on early childhood literacy (Tulsa World) 46 We need to start the presidential campaign earlier? (Des Moines Register) By Lanny J. Davis February 6, 2015 The Des Moines Register Many political pundits and Republicans are hyper-ventilating about the news that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may actually wait a while longer before making up her mind whether to run for president of the United States. How could she delay? How dare she? If you Google the words, "Hillary Clinton ... waiting too long" you will get over 2 million hits (whatever that means). For the media, this is a crisis of major proportions. If Secretary Clinton waits months and months to decide, just imagine all the loss of expense-account paid campaign trips, front-page column inches, breathless "just breaking" cable news 24/7 reports, "gotcha" moments. Imagine media's impatience to write the stories with headlines already written, waiting to be published when and if Hillary announces: "Hillary's Rusty," "More Hillary Gaffes," "Boring Hillary Front-Runner Campaign" and - the one we know is coming, must be coming, not whether but when: "Hillary Clinton Wins By Less Than Expected; Campaign in Disarray." Many writers say she shouldn't delay or else Massachusetts Sen. Elisabeth Warren will run. Put aside that Sen. Warren has repeatedly stated that she isn't going to run - perhaps because she and Hillary Clinton agree on virtually every major progressive issue. Yet Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake insist: "[A] big reason she should at least consider announcing sooner rather than later... is Elizabeth Warren....[who] is the beating heart of the Democratic base." Oh, really? Beating heart? In the Jan. 22-25 Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey, Clinton leads over Warren among all voters 60 percent to 10 percent (Biden is in second place at 15 percent). Among Democrats who describe themselves as "very liberal" (what one could accurately call the "beating heart of the Democratic base"), Clinton is the choice of 65 percent - compared with 16 percent for Warren. Clinton is rated as "favorable" by 88 percent of those who identify themselves as "very liberal" - that is, nine out of 10 - compared to 61 percent favorable for Warren. In January 2012, the Pew Research Center found that 57 percent of the national sample found the presidential campaign was "too long." Surprise! Is this campaign fatigue a recent phenomenon? When I Googled the words, "presidential campaigns too long," I received 10,500,000 hits. The first hit was a Time magazine article with the headline, "Is the Presidential Campaign Too Long? Both Allies & Candidates Think So." The article states: "The long campaign is debilitating, tedious, and expensive." One presidential candidate is quoted as saying: "Obviously a year of perambulating, incessant exposure is exhausting. You grow weary, frustrated and bored. Any man who has listened to himself several times daily since February is not likely to inspire his countrymen in October." The date of the Time article: June 27, 1960. The quoted candidate was the two-time former Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson, who lost the nomination to John F. Kennedy. So the point is, nothing has really changed. Is there any political danger, as some suggest, that if Hillary Clinton delays her announcement, she will coast to the Democratic nomination and run in the general election as if she has already won? Politico recently reported that some Iowans fear Clinton will take them for granted and not make an effort to win the caucuses. Fear not, Iowans. Not a chance. Full disclosure: I am a long-time friend and loyal supporter. I don't know whether, or when, Clinton will announce for president. I really don't. But this much I do know: When and if she runs, she will work very hard. She will not act as if she is entitled to a single vote. She will work to earn every vote. Hard work, issues, facts, respect for her opponents, respect for those who disagree, respect for those on both sides of the aisle: This is Hillary Clinton. This is who she always has been. And, no doubt: This is the kind of campaign she will run - if she runs. Of that I am certain. Hillary Flew Private for Peanuts, and You Can Too (Vanity Fair) By Bruce Feirstein February 6, 2015 Vanity Fair Word comes to us from the newly redesigned Bloomberg Business site that during her years in the senate, Hillary Clinton hitched rides on lots of corporate jets, and reimbursed companies like Coca Cola and Abbot Pharmaceuticals only a tiny fraction of the actual operating costs. Most of the reported data in the January 30 article, "Hillary Clinton Faces Scrutiny for Use of Private Jets", comes courtesy of an anonymous "Republican operative," who is clearly trying to paint the presumed presidential candidate as being out of touch with those of us who fly coach. (A more accurate headline might be "The G.O.P. Hopes Hillary Clinton Will Face Scrutiny for Use of Private Jets.") Now, truly, we have no truck with Mrs. Clinton's supposed air-transportation preferences. We're not going to criticize her for taking private planes. Especially since the Bloomberg Business piece exonerates her of any wrongdoing. (Note to the G.O.P.: if you're trying to clip Hillary's wings, you're going to have to do better than this.) But even without Mrs. Clinton's security requirements-which no rational person can dispute-who among us wouldn't jump at the chance to avoid the boarding lines at J.F.K., praying for an upgrade, worried about whether there'll be space in the overhead bin for the roller bag, all while mourning the devastating loss of the SkyMall catalogue? So the question, then, is: How do you and I get Hillary's airfare deals? How do we close the pernicious Gulfstream-inequality gap? How do we manage to snag 200 flights for only $225,000? Or, more specifically, how do any of us get to pay only $475.93 for a window seat on a private plane from Chicago to Washington, D.C., when air-charter companies like JetSuite.com have priced the trip closer to $10,000? The answer lies in knowing where to look, and, above all, being flexible in your preferred destination. It turns out that charter operators like JetSuite.com and Jets.com offer hugely discounted deals on empty flights. Some for as low as $536. JetSuite.com posts their empty legs daily; PrivateFly has a downloadable app. BlueStarJets sends out a monthly e-mail, and currently lists more than 1,200 empty flights on their site. In the end, your prices, and your mileage may vary. A few words of advice: if you ever find yourself hitching a ride on one of these planes, here are the three inviolate rules to fly by: 1) Show up on time, and don't start posting selfies. It's the most obnoxious way to humble-brag. 2) Even if you're flying from Colorado, don't break out the pot and hotbox the cabin. As Justin Bieber learned, private pilots don't enjoy having to put on oxygen masks in order to avoid landing stoned. 3) No matter what, don't start throwing phrases around like, "We go wheels up at 10:30." It makes you sound like a poseur. And needless to say, that's something no Vanity Fair reader ever wants to be accused of. Of course, another solution to the high price of c-suite flying would be to spend a million dollars buying a seat in Congress, whereupon you get to enjoy all the air perks of our elected officials. The pricing is all about optics, and corporate donors avoiding the appearance of buying favors. Pre-2007, congressmen were only required to reimburse corporations for the price of a first-class ticket when flying on a Fortune 500 Gulfstream. Nowadays, they pay for the actual cost of the jet, divided by the number of passengers. And the ultimate, albeit more expensive route, would be to spend a billion dollars winning a presidential campaign. In this case, you get to tool around in the ultimate private jet, Air Force One, arranging your social schedule (read: fundraising events) around your official duties, so that the taxpayers pick up most of the $210,877-per hour operating costs. According to the New York Daily News, political operatives are supposed to reimburse the government for the price of a first-class ticket on these quasi-official jaunts. Perhaps Hillary will be able to fill them in on the intricacies come 2017. 'Unsure' outpolls Christie in New Hampshire (Courier-Post) By Bob Ingle February 6, 2015 The Courier-Post Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker leads the Republican field for 2016 in a new New Hampshire primary poll. Hillary Clinton is way out front for the Democrats with 44 percent; Elizabeth Warren has 25 percent for second place. "The poll ran right after Mitt Romney got out of the race, so what we are seeing is the move of Romney's support to Governor Scott K. Walker, who was the choice of 23 percent," said Doug Kaplan, managing partner at Gravis Insights, the Florida-based company that conducted the poll. Following Walker are Jeb Bush with 16 percent, Unsure at 14 percent and Gov. Christie with 12 percent. Then it's Rand Paul (11 percent), Marco Rubio (8 percent), Ted Cruz (6 percent, tied with Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum (3 percent). It was expected Romney's support would go to Bush. "Jeb did well at 16 percent, but with 14 percent undecided, he still has not made his case," Kaplan said. Christie is off to Iowa on Monday and Illinois Thursday. The following Monday, New Hampshire is on his schedule. Hillary Clinton's campaign doesn't need Bill's contributions: James Varney (Times-Picayune) By James Varney February 6, 2015 The Times-Picayune There's a story going around the tabloids and the trashier parts of the mainstream media that could spell trouble for the presumed Democratic frontrunner in 2016. It concerns a certain (as he would be listed on Louisiana ballots) William "Bill" Clinton. The story involves Clinton palling around with the very shady (and very rich) Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein, a convicted pedophile who would later donate somewhere between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Presidential Library, reportedly flew with Clinton and a couple of babes to visit the Sultan of Brunei back in 2002. There's so much trouble packed into that flight plan it must be causing Team Hillary some sleepless nights. First, the Sultan of Brunei isn't the sort of man the Clintons or anyone else should have anything to do with, given his state is so medieval it wants to execute gays. Second, if there is one thing the Clintons need to put a stop to if they are going to make good on their dream of creating a political dynasty that surpasses the Kennedys, it is more "bimbo eruptions." Epstein has been accused of many unsavory crimes involving mostly underage girls and tropical orgies. He is such a toxic figure that when Prince Andrew was linked to him last month, the royal had to cut short a Swiss Alps getaway and jet back to London to huddle with his advisors. Thus far, all these creepy stories have been largely confined to the Page Sixes and National Enquirers of the world. Those are the same outlets where tales of John Edwards' adulterous parenthood languished while his Democratic enablers in the mainstream media studiously dodged the story. It stayed there until the Enquirer caught Edwards red-handed, slinking around a Los Angeles hotel. At that point, even the dailies had to acknowledge the former Democratic Senator and presidential aspirant - who ran on the Democratic ticket as the vice-presidential candidate in 2004 - was a proven sleaze. Edwards' trashy but undeniably juicy career has moved on to Hollywood options. Hillary, on the other hand, still has her eyes on the prize (and the high flying expenses to prove it). So, leaving aside the pain Bill's adventures must be causing in the Clinton's surprisingly sturdy marriage, all this can't be good for politics. If Hillary is going to become president, Bill has got to behave himself. To be sure, Bill has a much longer leash now than he once did. That's partly because, although American voters would again be getting two Clintons for the price of one in 2016, this time around Hillary would hold the occasional press conference. But it's also partly because Clinton's philandering is a known commodity and thus already built into the price. That's the phrase they love to use on Wall Street when pushing a stock with a potential bombshell lurking but, invariably, when the bomb detonates it turns out it wasn't built into the price at all. Consequently, on this one I support the mainstream press ignoring the story. At this point, a survey of the potential Democratic field and a close look at Clinton's presumed rivals shows it would not be in America's interest to deter Hillary's bid. She's the best the Democrats got right now. What's more, many of us made that mistake in 2008. Afflicted with Clinton Derangement Syndrome, we welcomed the surging Barack Obama. Anyone-but-a-Clinton summed up the stance of many conservatives and they cheered as Obama hit Hillary hard from the left and won the nomination. That is some past worth remembering when the phrase "President Warren" pops into mind. It's all well and good to sit around and laugh at the prospect of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., taking her feather-brained populism on the campaign trail. But there wouldn't be anything funny about a Warren administration. Hillary Clinton would not only be a better president than Warren, she would be a much better president. Bill Clinton's tawdry antics aren't going to stop. They deserve to be known, too. Hopefully, however, they will remain a tabloid staple, proving insufficiently explosive to block Hillary's nomination but sordid enough to remind Americans they don't need that circus back in the White House. Elizabeth Warren's top media consultant isn't ready for Warren (Vox) By Matthew Yglesia February 6, 2015 Vox An awful lot of people in progressive politics would like to see Elizabeth Warren run for president, but the latest sign that it's not going to happen is a big one - Mandy Grunwald is joining Hillary Clinton's team. That's not a shocking move. Grunwald worked on Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign. So she's a natural fit for Clinton. But she was also the top paid media consultant for Warren's 2012 Senate campaign. To take the leap from the Senate to the White House, you need to build on and expand your political team - not watch it shrink as key personnel drift off to other campaigns. To be clear, this isn't so much bad news for Warren - who has genuinely never given any indication that she's wanted to challenge Clinton - as it is for the circle of people who've latched on Warren as the hypothetical Clinton-slayer of their dreams. It shows that Warren is not laying the groundwork for a campaign, and that Clinton really and truly does have the Democratic Party's top operatives lined up behind her. Hillary Clinton: Grandmother in Chief (The Atlantic) By Peter Beinart February 6, 2015 The Atlantic On Monday, when Hillary Clinton issued a pro-vaccination tweet with the hashtag #GrandmothersKnowBest," journalists quickly spotted a potential theme for her presidential run. For Hillary's sake, I hope they're right. Because in 2016, grandmotherhood may help her convey the quality that she so disastrously failed to convey for much of 2007 and 2008: authenticity. It's easy to mock Hillary's constant talk about the obligations of grandmotherhood, but it comes with an intriguing backstory: She had lousy grandmothers herself. In her memoir Living History, Hillary's descriptions of her own grandmothers are harsh. On page two, she says that her maternal grandmother, Della Murray, "essentially abandoned my mother [Dorothy Howell Rodham] when she was only three or four, leaving her alone all day for days on end." At age eight, Della sent Dorothy to live with relatives. They reunited ten years later, but when Dorothy realized that Della "wanted her only as a housekeeper and that she would get no financial help for college," they parted ways again. Hillary's own memories of Della are also strikingly negative. She remembers her maternal grandmother "as a weak and self-indulgent woman, wrapped up in television soap operas and disengaged from reality." When Hillary was ten, and Della was babysitting, "I was hit in the eye by a chain-link gate...I ran home three blocks, crying and holding my head as blood streamed down my face. When Della saw me, she fainted." Then "when Della revived, she complained that I had scared her and that she could have gotten hurt when she fell over." Hillary is critical of her paternal grandmother too. She calls Hannah Jones Rodham-father of Hillary's father, Hugh Rodham Sr.-"a determined woman whose energies and intelligence had little outlet, which led to her meddling in everyone else's business." And she remarks that, "I believe my father knew that he had to make a break from Hannah if he was ever to live his own life." It's clear from Hillary's memoir that she feels sadness, even anger, about the absence of more caring, competent grandmothers from her own life. Her current paeans to their importance, therefore, may be a bit like Barack Obama's lectures on the necessity of fathers. Behind the political positioning lies a conviction born of personal pain. Emphasizing grandmotherhood may be authentic for Hillary in another way too. In the popular imagination, grandmothers are both caring and conservative. They dote on their grandchildren while also tut-tutting about a culture gone awry. They are pro-family in both the liberal and conservative senses of the world. That's a good persona for Hillary because it reflects what she actually believes. Even Hillary's critics acknowledge that her devotion to the welfare of children runs very deep. At Yale Law School, she made children's rights the focus of her studies, and in her first job in Washington, working for what would become the Children's Defense Fund, Hillary investigated the appalling conditions endured by the children of migrant workers. In Carl Bernstein's biography, A Woman in Charge, Hillary's friend Nancy Bekavic says, "I remember being struck by this aggressive, ambitious, bright woman who studied child development and cared about children. It was unusual in some ways. Every young woman was running away from, you know, childhood and family issues. Jesus Christ, the last thing you wanted to do was family law ... It was very unusual." When Hillary burst onto the national scene in the 1990s, her work on children gained national attention. But because of the blowback she provoked as the first non-homemaker First Lady, the nature of that work was frequently distorted. The right portrayed her as a cultural radical who wanted children to be able to sue their parents. In 2016, however, Hillary may be more effective in conveying her real attitudes toward children and families, which are anything but radical. In part, that's because high-profile working women are somewhat less threatening than they were twenty years ago. But it's also because running as a grandmother may help voters see the cultural conservatism that has been part of Hillary's worldview all along. In his biography, Bernstein quotes a former Clinton administration aide calling Hillary "a very judgmental Methodist from the Midwest." And it's true. Hillary's most important mentor growing up was a local youth minister. Despite attending college and law school in the late 1960s, she never touched drugs. And while working on George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, according to Bernstein, she carried a heavily marked-up Bible around everywhere. In 1994, according to Sally Bedell Smith's book, For Love of Politics, Hillary said she was "not comfortable" with distributing condoms in schools. Hillary promoted abstinence from pre-marital sex in her 1996 book, It Takes a Village, and surprised many reporters by declaring in a 2005 speech to family planning activists that, "Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this-and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do." In It Takes a Village, Hillary is also critical of adults for being too quick to divorce, declaring that, "Children without fathers, or whose parents float in and out of their lives after divorce, are precarious little boats in the most turbulent seas." Part of Hillary's challenge in 2016 is mobilizing progressives excited by the prospect of a woman president without mobilizing conservatives who see her as a threat to traditional morality, as she did in the 1990s. Changing times make that easier: Ambitious women are a little less scary now. But so does her new role as grandmother. For decades now, Hillary has been insisting that she's a trailblazer and a traditionalist all at the same time. Now, by running as a grandmother, she may finally make Americans believe her. Benghazi panel chief wants to hear from Clinton ASAP (The Hill) By Martin Matishak February 6, 2015 The Hill The Republican chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi said panel members want to speak to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "as soon as possible." The comments come at the end of a list of desired witnesses Rep. Trey Gowdy (S.C.) sent Thursday to Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the committee's top Democrat. However, he does not give a timeframe for speaking with Clinton. The 20 person list "does not purport to or begin to identify the full universe of individuals the committee expects to interview or who might have knowledge about the policies, decisions and activities related" to the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks, Gowdy said in his letter. The interviews - set to begin Tuesday and conclude in April - show Gowdy is making good on a promise he made last week during a rancorous committee hearing, that the panel would "ratchet up" the pace. The witness roster includes a number of high-profile Obama administration officials, including: National Security Adviser Susan Rice and her deputy, Ben Rhodes, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. The list also includes former officials who were part of the administration at the time of the attacks, such as then-White House press secretary Jay Carney, CIA Director David Petraeus and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Cummings derided Gowdy's witness list. "The committee has not adopted an investigative plan, rules, or a budget, and it remains unclear what additional questions it seeks to answer," he said in a statement. "In this case, a majority of these witnesses have already provided information to Congress through prior interviews and testimony - in some cases multiple times - during seven previous congressional investigations." In terms of Clinton, Gowdy wrote that he reissued a subpoena to the State Department seeking documents related to the agency's 2013 Accountability Review Board examination into the attacks. He also gave the department a Feb. 13 deadline for all "emails, documents and other materials ... which would be needed to constructively ask questions of Secretary Clinton." Benghazi is a political land mine for Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. Republicans have skewered her handling of the attacks and argue the security failure at the U.S. complex in Libya should bar her from the White House. An appearance before the select committee would be Clinton's third Capitol Hill appearance on the attacks that left four Americans dead, and it could provide fresh ammunition for Republicans just as the race for the White House begins. Republicans mock Hillary Clinton for avoiding the press (Business Insider) By Hunter Walker February 6, 2015 Business Insider The Republican National Committee responded to reports Hillary Clinton hired a new communications director in order to "seek warmer relations with the press than during her last presidential bid" with an email statement mocking the likely 2016 Democratic frontrunner for avoiding the media. On Tuesday, the White House confirmed the departure of communications director Jennifer Palmieri. She is expected to take a similar position in Clinton's campaign, which has reportedly been seeking a "good cop" to improve its rapport with the press. The RNC's email, which was sent by GOP spokesman Michael Short, was titled "OFF THE RECORD: no comment." It included the headline from an article about Palmieri's new position as well as links to 28 stories from multiple media outlets where a spokesperson for Clinton did not comment. "Well, when the bar is set this low ..." quipped Short. Spokespeople for Clinton did not respond to a request for comment on this story. Read Short's full email, which he confirmed was actually on the record in spite of its title, below. Well, when the bar is set this low ... MSNBC Headline: Hillary Clinton signals desire for fresh start with press 02/04/15: "A Clinton spokesman did not respond to a request for comment." 02/04/15: "Neither Ready for Hillary nor Hillary Clinton's office returned a request for comment." 02/04/15: "Mrs. Clinton's office didn't respond to a request for comment." 02/03/15: "Clinton's spokesman declined to comment in response to BuzzFeed News's questions on Monday, but Clinton did tweet the following ..." 02/02/15: "A Clinton spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment." 01/30/15: "The incident is reminiscent of the Clinton Global Initiative conference in September, where reporters were being escorted by staff right up to the bathroom stall." 01/29/14: "A spokesman for Clinton did not immediately return a request for comment." 01/27/15: "A spokesman for Clinton has not yet responded to a request for comment." 01/22/15: "A request for comment to the Clinton Foundation regarding Kane's case went unanswered. 12/19/14: "Aides to Clinton declined comment." 12/18/14: "A Clinton spokesman ... declined comment and would not provide details." 12/13/14: "A representative for Clinton didn't respond to a request for comment for this story." 12/11/14: "...Clinton's team has not responded to request for comment..." 12/08/14: "Clinton's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment." 12/08/14: "A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment." 12/03/14: "A Clinton aide declined comment." 11/27/14: "A Clinton spokesman refused to comment on the demands." 11/26/14: "A Clinton spokesman declined to comment on the speaking arrangements." 11/23/14: "Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill declined comment on the ABC interview." 11/20/14: "A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton declined comment." 11/16/14: "...her aides did not respond to requests for comment..." 09/24/14: "The Clinton team is following reporters to the bathroom. Here's why that matters." 08/19/14: "A Clinton spokesperson did not respond to a HuffPost request for comment Tuesday." 08/18/14: "A spokesperson for Clinton declined to comment again on Monday." 07/16/14: "Clinton aides declined to comment." 06/27/14: "Her office declined to comment on the UNLV speech." 06/20/14: "A spokesperson for Clinton did not respond to a request for comment." 05/21/14: "A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to multiple requests for comment." Report: Pakistan aid plans hit snag after political promise by Hillary Clinton (Washington Examiner) By Sarah Westwood February 6, 2015 The Washington Examiner Officials with a State Department agency scrapped plans to renovate a failing Pakistani hospital after a political promise from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton forced the agency to build an entirely new facility instead, according to USAID's watchdog. The resulting hospital, which cost the U.S. $17 million, was so poorly planned that it faces the risk of falling into the same state of disrepair as the crumbling facility USAID declined to rehabilitate, the inspector general said in a report made public Jan. 29. But an agency official told the Washington Examiner that USAID only abandoned plans to revamp the hospital in Jacobabad - an impoverished, crime-ridden city 300 miles north of Karachi - after finding its conditions so deplorable that building an entirely new facility emerged as the more economic option. "The U.S. government made a commitment to renovate the hospital in Jacobabad in July 2010. However, after an assessment of the condition of the existing hospital, our engineers determined that it was in such poor condition that it would be more cost effective and practical to build a new hospital instead," said the USAID official spoke to the Examiner on condition they would not be named. Under pressure "to fulfill a commitment that a senior Department of State official made in 2010," USAID initially ignored the fact that the institute would one day depend on faulty infrastructure and would struggle to attract qualified staff due to its remote location, the inspector general's report said. The document did not identify the senior official, but a USAID spokesman confirmed it was Clinton. The Pakistani government and USAID "focused instead on building the institute" because the agency "felt compelled to fulfill that commitment," the report said. "Details other than facility design and construction, including funding, were ironed out piecemeal," the report continued. In remarks at the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue in July 2010, Clinton announced she was "pleased to announce we will either renovate or build three medical facilities" in the country. She also mentioned the ultimately foregone plans to renovate the hospital in Jacobabad. Water and sewage systems in Jacobabad are "substandard," yet the new facility, the Jacobabad Institute of Medical Sciences, must rely on them to operate. The water supply there is so unclean that it must be treated for "biological impurities" before it can be used, and the district doesn't even have a functioning sewage system. USAID is funding an effort to improve the water systems there, but the watchdog said the project isn't slated for completion until this September - a full year after construction on the institute ended. Among other problems was the fact that "excessive political influence" has threatened to derail the hiring of competent staff. What's more, Pakistani operators were incapable of running the backup solar power systems USAID purchased because the technology was unfamiliar and, even if they did have the ability to maintain the systems, the country's atmosphere is too "dusty" to allow efficient use of solar energy. The need for a backup system is made dire by the widespread and prolonged power outages that plague the district. "The institute may struggle to remain financially and operationally viable and may devolve into the same condition as the Jacobabad hospital," the watchdog said. USAID officials called conditions at that hospital "horrific" in a 2011 report. The inspector general's findings raised questions as to why USAID would abandon a struggling hospital in order to build a new one that could soon devolve into the same conditions as the first. "If the institute degenerates into a facility that cannot provide the quality of health care planned, the U.S. Government's image will be damaged, and a large U.S. Government investment will be wasted," the watchdog said in its report. The Jacobabad construction project was part of a $180.5 million five-year contract to build schools and healthcare facilities in Pakistan's earthquake zones, although the medical facilities discussed in the watchdog report had no earthquake damage. RNC Hits Hillary Clinton's Press Team For Not Answering Reporter Q's (Daily Caller) By Betsy Rothstein February 6, 2015 The Daily Caller The RNC lobbed a hand grenade at Hillary Clinton's press camp Thursday over reporter access. The attack was in direct response to a MSNBC.com story that claims that Clinton wants a "fresh start" with the press, whom she despises. The byline on the MSNBC.com story is Alex Seitz-Wald, who, when he dons his glasses, could pass for a nerdy younger brother to WaPo's Chris Cillizza. He announced that Clinton is seeking "warmer relations" with the press. An anonymous source told Seitz-Wald, "There's been a collective sigh of relief from flacks and reporters alike," said one Democratic communications operative, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. "It is clear they're ready to turn the page." The reporter wrote that the sentiment was reflected by Democratic operatives who spoke with the ultra-lefty MSNBC Wednesday night. Is this a JOKE? MSNBC, which is largely made up of ex-Obama White House aides and a slew of other liberals gets calls returned by Clintonland and somehow that's considered "warmer relations?" Come the hell on. Last May, Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman wrote a lengthy piece for Politico Magazine on Clinton's potential run for the White House. They wrote in no uncertain terms that the media was the biggest impediment to her getting in. "If she doesn't run, the single biggest factor holding her back will be the media, according to an informal survey of three dozen friends, allies and former aides interviewed for this article. As much as anything else, her ambivalence about the race, they told us, reflects her distaste for and apprehension of a rapacious, shallow and sometimes outright sexist national political press corps acting as enablers for her enemies on the right." Their headline blared: "What's Hillary Clinton Afraid Of?" RNC spokesman Michael Short prefaced 28 examples of how Clinton is still closed to the press: "Well, when the bar is set this low..." And with that, he listed 28 examples of how Clinton's aides have stonewalled press questions, the most recent example from Wednesday's press cycle. 02/04/15: "A Clinton spokesman did not respond to a request for comment." 02/04/15: "Neither Ready for Hillary nor Hillary Clinton's office returned a request for comment." 02/04/15: "Mrs. Clinton's office didn't respond to a request for comment." 02/03/15: "Clinton's spokesman declined to comment in response to BuzzFeed News's questions on Monday, but Clinton did tweet the following ..." 02/02/15: "A Clinton spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment." 01/30/15: "The incident is reminiscent of the Clinton Global Initiative conference in September, where reporters were being escorted by staff right up to the bathroom stall." 01/29/14: "A spokesman for Clinton did not immediately return a request for comment." 01/27/15: "A spokesman for Clinton has not yet responded to a request for comment." 01/22/15: "A request for comment to the Clinton Foundation regarding Kane's case went unanswered. 12/19/14: "Aides to Clinton declined comment." 12/18/14: "A Clinton spokesman ... declined comment and would not provide details." 12/13/14: "A representative for Clinton didn't respond to a request for comment for this story." 12/11/14: "...Clinton's team has not responded to request for comment..." 12/08/14: "Clinton's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment." 12/08/14: "A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment." 12/03/14: "A Clinton aide declined comment." 11/27/14: "A Clinton spokesman refused to comment on the demands." 11/26/14: "A Clinton spokesman declined to comment on the speaking arrangements." 11/23/14: "Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill declined comment on the ABC interview." 11/20/14: "A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton declined comment." 11/16/14: "...her aides did not respond to requests for comment..." 09/24/14: "The Clinton team is following reporters to the bathroom. Here's why that matters." 08/19/14: "A Clinton spokesperson did not respond to a HuffPost request for comment Tuesday." 08/18/14: "A spokesperson for Clinton declined to comment again on Monday." 07/16/14: "Clinton aides declined to comment." 06/27/14: "Her office declined to comment on the UNLV speech." 06/20/14: "A spokesperson for Clinton did not respond to a request for comment." 05/21/14: "A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to multiple requests for comment." Short's subject line reads: "OFF THE RECORD: no comment." In bold black. Considering he blasted it out and I never agreed to off-the-record anything, I'm running with it. Clarification: And yes, Short was joking. Embattled Brian Williams, Hillary Clinton should swap war stories (Chicago Tribune) By John Kass February 6, 2015 The Chicago Tribune If this NBC news anchor thing doesn't work out for Brian Williams, I've got the perfect job for the guy: Hillary Clinton's press secretary. Or better yet, as the New Commander McBragg. The problem is that Commander McBragg is a cartoon character from the old Tennessee Tuxedo cartoon show that no one remembers. Tennessee was a penguin. Chumley was the big, fat, stupid walrus. And McBragg was a British colonel, who would brag and brag about his war exploits, making this a perfect character for Williams to play, except, again, this business about McBragg being a cartoon. Williams is only turning into a cartoon. He isn't a full-fledged cartoon, yet. So Hillary's press secretary it is. Can't you just picture them, Hill and Bri, holding court in a hotel bar on the campaign trail, regaling reporters with their crazy (yet completely untrue) war stories? Clinton can retell her lie about how she braved snipers in Bosnia, perhaps throwing in a fake laugh or two, the devil-may-care laugh of beret-wearing French resistance fighters in bad movies. Her eyes crinkle just so and the high-pitched cackle is released and you just know it's sincere. And Williams could tell his lie about being in that helicopter in Iraq that was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, the way he's been telling it on his newscasts and elsewhere for years now until he was caught and saw his career begin to circle the drain of life. If you don't like that Brian Williams War Story, you can find many more on Twitter under #BrianWilliamsWarStories or #BrianWilliamsMisremembers. For example: @oldpathsguide: "I will never forget the look on the faces of the citizens of Troy when we jumped out of the horse." #BrianWilliamsWarStories @AustinCSmith1: "So there I was, tensions were high but it was an honor to cover the Surrender at Appomattox." #BrianWilliamsWarStories. A mild-mannered newspaper columnist from Chicago even joined in. @John_Kass "Then I turned to my 300 Spartans & said: If Xerxes' arrows darken the sun, then we shall fight in the shade." #BrianWilliamsWarStories. Then I wrote another, "Remember that time King Leonidas turned to me at Thermopylae & said, 'Thanks Brian, for saving my life?'" Or Reagan who claimed a couple times to have "liberated" Nazi death camps (from the comfort of Hollywood, apparently). Or Dubya, who "flew for several years with his unit" (when he was actually suspended). I agree with your premise, Kass, but you cherry pick your examples. The lie that will haunt Williams forever is a simple one. He was in a military helicopter in Iraq. And years ago, reported correctly, that a helicopter in front of his - how far in front we still don't know - was hit by an RPG. But that began to morph over time into a story that Williams was in the helicopter hit by the RPG, and a harrowing tale of survival and courage by the soldiers who protected him on the ground. When he told it, the heroic Brian Williams in the company of other heroes, his voice sounded desperate to believe it. Whether this is madness or merely a childlike yearning to be big and tall and brave, it is not an acceptable character flaw in newspeople. If you're a parent, you've seen 5-year-olds tell stories. They begin cautiously, and then somehow a demon or a giant enters the picture, and suddenly, they're desperate to believe their own saga. They're no longer telling a story. They're there, sword in hand, confronting that giant face to face. That's fine for kindergartners; they haven't reached the age of reason. But news anchors? Even worse was Williams' ridiculous apology the other day. Ideally, a straight-talking person apologizes this way: I'm a fool. I'm sorry. There is no excuse. I'll go for a long walk now. In the woods. Please forgive me. Then they go. But Williams is a smoothie, like a politician, like a lawyer with a supple tongue. He doesn't want to go. He wants to stay and survive, and he turned his apology into yet another story about his virtue. "On this broadcast last week in an effort to honor and thank a veteran who protected me and so many others following a ground-fire incident in the desert during the Iraq War, I made a mistake in recalling the events of 12 years ago. It didn't take long to hear from some brave men and women in the air crews who were also in the desert ..." Blah, blah, blah. It was just so perfect, so oily, so self-serving, and now it is also being investigated. But what should be investigated as well is this: Why is Williams so desperate to be considered a hero? Is it a function of personality or a symptom of culture? Perhaps it's both. The American elite - and Clinton and Williams are definitely part of that class - have developed an infuriating habit once common to the ancient Romans: They feel compelled to heap virtue on themselves and their peers whether deserved or not. Most of it is practiced, thoroughly insincere, thoroughly expected. And the liars are pronounced most virtuous of all. Politicians are often encouraged to look us right in the eye and lie their socks off. So we'll read their lips when they say no new taxes. We'll listen as he shakes that finger and declares he never had sex with that woman. Or that if we want to keep our health care, we can keep our health care, period. But liars aren't celebrated in journalism, and TV network anchors - for all their great hair and teeth - call themselves journalists. Goodbye, Mr. Williams. And good night. Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court nod would have been unusual, in modern times (Constitution Daily) By Scott Bomboy February 6, 2015 National Constitution Center Daily Blog Former Obama adviser David Axelrod raised a few eyebrows with his recent comments that Hillary Clinton was briefly considered for the Supreme Court. But a look at recent appointees shows the move would have been highly unusual, at least in the modern era. Axelrod says in his new book that President Obama briefly thought about then-Senator Clinton as a potential Supreme Court nominee after he bested Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton was asked about her interest in the Court later in 2008 and she said she had no desire to be on it. But Secretary of State Clinton's name also surfaced in 2010 after Justice John Paul Stevens announced his resignation. The Constitution doesn't have any prerequisites for serving on the Supreme Court, so a nominee doesn't have to be a lawyer, a former judge, or even an American citizen. In reality, there are a few basic unspoken requirements. Almost all Supreme Court Justices have been lawyers at one time, and have had legal training. So the American Bar Association's opinion is important in the consideration of any nominee. The approval of the Senate is mandatory, since a majority of the Senate needs to approve a nominee offered by the President. And since 1972, almost every nominee approved by the Senate has had some experience as a judge. Back then, President Richard Nixon had nominated William Rehnquist as an Associate Justice; Rehnquist had clerked at the Supreme Court and had worked in the Justice Department. But Rehnquist had never served on a judicial bench. Since then, every successful Justice nominee had some experience as a judge -with one exception. The most recent successful nominee to the Court, Elena Kagan, was Dean of Harvard Law School and the United States Solicitor General, but she had never served as a judge. In 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers, his legal counsel, to the Supreme Court. Miers didn't have experience on the bench, and she took her name out of consideration after a bipartisan backlash occurred in the Senate. In all, of the 12 nominees since Rehnquist, 10 were former judges and 9 were former federal judges. Hillary Clinton did meet one unofficial prerequisite as a Yale Law School graduate. (All nine of the current Justices have connections to Harvard or Yale.) She also taught law and was a successful lawyer before becoming First Lady in 1993, and serving in the national political arena until 2009. Clinton then served as Secretary of State for four years. In the pre-1972 era, those jobs would have made Clinton a more-than-viable Supreme Court candidate. Two chief justices, Charles Evans Hughes and John Marshall, had served as Secretary of State before assuming the bench. Louis Brandeis came from a private law practice to the Supreme Court. Four other Justices served in the United States Senate before their nominations, while three governors, including Earl Warren, won Supreme Court nominations. Warren also was the 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, and Hughes narrowly lost to Woodrow Wilson in the 1916 presidential race. But in the modern era, Clinton's background as a non-judicial, non-law school academic nominee by President Obama would have been one of many factors discussed in any hypothetical nomination. Opinion: Ohio has always been Clinton Country: Tim Ryan (Clevland.com) By Tim Ryan February 6, 2015 Clevand.com Secretary Clinton understands our working class values, and that Ohio is a state that is deeply proud of its work ethic and history of innovation. We vote for candidates who understand our principles and believe in our future. In the next few years, we must continue to focus on creating good-paying jobs and building economic opportunity for every citizen. To help make this goal a reality, I'm joining millions of Democrats across Ohio in my excitement for a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy and the values she represents. She knows that when you support middle class workers and families, you help strengthen the economy and give our citizens the chance to succeed. Secretary Clinton has the experience and leadership on the issues that matter most to Ohioans. In Arkansas, she expanded childhood education throughout the state. As First Lady, Hillary worked to increase access to health care for every American. As a senator, she repeatedly fought to increase the minimum wage and extend unemployment benefits and job-retraining programs. As secretary of state, Hillary worked to strengthen our country's global standing and gained valuable experience that will help her eliminate unfair trade practices that could create thousands of jobs in Ohio alone. Most recently, through the Clinton Foundation, Hillary has developed initiatives to help children and low-income families. Simply put, Hillary understands the importance of investing in the fundamental building blocks that make America great. After all, being a leader is about assuring the safety of our citizens and creating an environment that enables our economy to grow and thrive. That is what I have spent more than a decade fighting for on behalf of Ohioans in Congress. I believe that one of the best ways to achieve this is by doubling down on our already strong manufacturing base, including old-line manufacturing and the newer field of advanced manufacturing. We must re-establish the United States of America as the world's leading innovator in manufacturing, and Ohio should lead the way. Youngstown is home to America Makes, the national additive manufacturing center and the number one ranked university incubator in the world. In Akron we have the Bits and Atoms Innovation Center, which gives entrepreneurs a creative space to build and develop new technologies. In Kent, a federal investment of $20 million led to over $120 million in other investments that have transformed their downtown. These types of ideas and innovations are happening in places like Youngstown, Kent and Akron largely thanks to the type of long-term vision and public-private partnerships that Secretary Clinton has spent a lifetime forging. Hillary Clinton has consistently been on the frontline of the battles to put more money in the pockets of middle-class workers, ensuring that all Americans have the means to support their families. I believe that Hillary would be the best person to continue the fight and to strongly and boldly lead Ohio and our country forward. Tim Ryan is a member of Congress from the 13th Congressional District. John Kerry considered least effective secretary of state in past five decades, poll shows (Washington Times) By Cheryl Chumley February 6, 2015 The Washington Times The most effective secretary of state of the past five decades? Not John Kerry, who came in last - behind Condoleeza Rice, Hillary Clinton and James Baker. Foreign Policy's 2014 Ivory Tower survey of 1,615 international relations scholars from 1,375 colleges in the United States posed the question: "Who was the most effective U.S. secretary of state of the past 50 years?" And the clear winner, with more than 32 percent of the vote, was Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger, The Washington Post reported. The second most common answer was "Don't Know," the box checked by a little more than 18 percent of the respondents. But third? James Baker, with almost 18 percent of the vote, The Post reported. Mr. Baker was followed by Madeleine Albright and Mrs. Clinton, who tied for fourth, with 8.7 percent of the vote; George Schultz, with 5.7 percent; Dean Rusk, at 3.5 percent; Warren Christopher and Cyrus Vance, both with 1.5 percent; Colin Power, with a little more than 1 percent; Ms. Rice, with about half a percent; and Lawrence Eagleburger, with .3 percent. Mr. Kerry was dead last, with only two votes. He technically tied Mr. Eagleburger at .3 percent, but Foreign Policy listed him last nonetheless. As The Post noted: "This is all truly odd ... [R]ecall Eagleburger was only secretary of state for six weeks, from Dec. 8, 1992, to Jan. 20, 1993. To be sure, he was acting secretary for three months before that, but it's hard to say he left a huge diplomatic footprint." Will Brian Williams Get Away With 'Misremembering' a War Story? Well, Hillary Clinton Did (Reason) By Jesse Walker February 6, 2015 Reason Blog Will NBC anchor Brian Williams survive the scandal of "misremembering"-that is, making up-a story about being aboard a helicopter hit by enemy fire in Iraq? Perhaps he won't. Then again, when's the last time before today that you thought about this? Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on [March 25, 2008, that] she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady. In a speech in Washington and in several interviews last week Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia. Several news outlets disputed the claim, and a video of the trip showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger. "I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently," Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania where she was campaigning before the state's April 22 primary. She said she had a "different memory" about the landing. In her speech, Clinton had claimed: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." And with that, her political career came to an end. Making Money Raising Funds for Politicians (NYT) By Nicholas Confessore February 6, 2015 The New York Times A constellation of left-leaning nonprofits and ''super PACs'' are raising tens of millions of dollars to pave the way for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign -- and nearly all of them have paid Mary Pat Bonner a cut. Over the past several years, the groups, which include American Bridge 21st Century, Media Matters for America and the super PAC Ready for Hillary, have paid Ms. Bonner's consulting firm in excess of $6 million to help them cultivate wealthy donors and raise money, according to tax filings and campaign disclosures. Ms. Bonner's contracts give her firm a commission, typically 12.5 percent, on any money she brings in. Her tenacity, ties to wealthy givers and mastery of making donors happy have made Ms. Bonner, 48, among the most successful practitioners of a trade that is virtually invisible to voters but has taken on immense power and influence in the post-Citizens United world. Almost every candidate for high office must now court ultrarich donors to finance super PACs. And with each party more reliant than ever on networks of outside groups to supplement its advertising and opposition research, fund-raisers like Ms. Bonner hold the keys to the big-money kingdom. ''The Bonner Group gets us the best fund-raising product for the lowest cost,'' said David Brock, the founder of the monitoring group Media Matters and the super PAC American Bridge. ''In my experience, the commission incentivizes the fund-raiser to meet the ambitious goals we set.'' But the growing influence of paid fund-raisers has angered donors in both parties, who are skeptical of Washington's consultant class and the secret, often lucrative deals they reach with campaigns. Some organizations, like Freedom Partners, overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch, emphasize their reliance on salaried staff members to raise money. ''I want my money to go to the candidate, to get them elected; I don't want it to go to middlemen,'' said Andrew Sabin, a prominent Republican donor. Several Republican presidential contenders are now courting Spencer J. Zwick, Mitt Romney's finance chairman in 2012. But some former donors grumble about the fund-raising fees paid by Mr. Romney's campaign committees to limited liability companies established by Mr. Zwick: about $34 million, according to campaign disclosure reports. In an interview, Mr. Zwick declined to describe his own fee. But he said that the bulk of the payments collected by the companies were in turn paid out to more than 50 other fund-raisers employed by the campaign. ''We raised more money than has ever been raised before at a better cost of fund-raising than has ever been done before,'' Mr. Zwick said. But few fund-raisers seem to command commissions as generous as Ms. Bonner's. Political fund-raisers are typically paid monthly retainers, which can reach $25,000 a month during campaigns. The Bonner Group is paid almost exclusively on commission, a practice that is legal but frowned upon by some fund-raising consultants, who say it leads to fights with clients and other consultants over credit. It is considered unethical by the Association of Fundraising Professionals, partly because it can encourage abuses and, in the charity world, places self-gain over philanthropy. ''I think it's a breach of fiduciary responsibility to pay fund-raisers on commission,'' said Cindy Darrison, a professor at the George H. Heyman Jr. Center for Philanthropy and Fundraising at New York University. Allies say Ms. Bonner and her 20-member firm are worth the expense. The Bonner Group maintains a database of 70,000 donors and collects detailed information on their past giving, their families and their political relationships. Many praise her energy and personal touch: thank-you notes, for example, or tickets to Broadway shows. ''Without Mary Pat, we would never be where we are today,'' said Craig T. Smith, a senior adviser to Ready for Hillary. Mr. Smith said the group had paid Ms. Bonner and some other fund-raisers a single-digit percentage of money raised. Ms. Bonner, who cut her teeth as a campaign aide and fund-raiser for former Vice President Al Gore, is also known among colleagues for her aggressive tactics. During the 2012 campaign, Ms. Bonner, who was raising money for American Bridge, clashed repeatedly with other Democratic super PACs over joint fund-raising efforts. Early in the cycle, American Bridge wanted a larger portion of shared fund-raising so it could begin tracking and researching Republican candidates. The other groups thought that Ms. Bonner was seeking to establish her client as a central financial clearinghouse for other Democratic groups. Several recalled attending a meeting at American Bridge where they glimpsed a half-erased whiteboard diagram, showing money flowing into American Bridge and then back out to their super PACs. Opacity surrounds political fund-raising. Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC that is now preparing to back Mrs. Clinton, employed several consultants to bolster its fund-raising efforts in 2012. But a scan of the group's disclosure reports shows mostly regular, round-number payments to them. After The New York Times asked about payments to several specific fund-raisers, a spokesman confirmed that the payments constituted commissions to three of them. One, Andrew Korge, a Florida fund-raiser, was paid a 10 percent commission on a single million-dollar check. Another, Janet Keller, based in California, was paid a 5 percent commission on checks from a few wealthy donors totaling more than $2 million. Irwin M. Jacobs, the billionaire co-founder of Qualcomm, said in an email that Ms. Keller had merely helped arrange for him to meet with two Priorities officials. ''I was not aware that consultants might be paid a percentage of the political contributions that they raise,'' Mr. Jacobs wrote. In an email, Ms. Bonner said she routinely disclosed to donors that she was being paid on commission. ''We charge all of our clients the same way, so there is no incentive for anyone in the firm to focus on one client more than another,'' Ms. Bonner said. But there is little question who her biggest client is. Mr. Brock's growing empire, now composed of about 10 interlocking PACs and nonprofits, uses the Bonner Group for all of its development efforts. Two years ago, reflecting her expanding role in Mr. Brock's enterprises, Ms. Bonner moved her company and staff into his headquarters, though she continues to serve other clients. She and Mr. Brock have adjoining offices and even share a summer rental in the Hamptons. Mr. Brock credits Ms. Bonner with helping persuade donors that news media monitoring and opposition research deserve large-scale financial support. His groups brought in more than $28 million in 2014, entitling Ms. Bonner's firm to about $3.5 million in fees. Her commission represented his entire fund-raising overhead, Mr. Brock said, which compared favorably with that of other nonprofit groups. He also emailed a statement from 40 donors attesting to the value her firm provided. Not everyone seems convinced. Ms. Bonner's fees have been a perennial source of controversy in the Democracy Alliance, a club of wealthy progressive donors, each obligated to contribute money to a select roster of liberal research and advocacy organizations. Ms. Bonner originally worked there as a consultant, helping recruit new members. Later, when she moved to take on some of the funded organizations as clients, the alliance asked that contributions earmarked by its donors be exempt from Ms. Bonner's commission. Eventually, the Alliance ended her consulting arrangement. But an Alliance official said that there was no formal policy in place and that its staff had no way of tracking Ms. Bonner's commissions. Ms. Bonner said in an email that she abided by the request. She continues to attend the alliance's private donor conferences, however, as an unpaid ''donor adviser'' to Marcy Carsey, a prominent Hollywood producer. Current and former executives at liberal nonprofits complain about a perception that hiring Ms. Bonner would improve their chances of being included in the Alliance's investment portfolio. One Alliance donor, the billionaire Boston investor Vin Ryan, said that he had not been informed of Ms. Bonner's commission before donating to Media Matters and later demanded a written guarantee from the group that his contributions would be exempt. ''I don't know what her role in the D.A. is at this point, nor do I know who she actually is a donor adviser to, nor do I know what organizations she represents within the group of organizations who we are supporting,'' Mr. Ryan said. ''I think it's outrageous.'' Mandy Grunwald to Join Clinton Team (NYT) By Jonathan Martin February 5, 2015 The New York Times Mandy Grunwald, an adviser to the Clintons for over two decades and a top strategist to Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, is expected to serve as a senior adviser for communications to Hillary Rodham Clinton's all-but-certain presidential bid. Ms. Grunwald will advise Mrs. Clinton on strategy and make some of the television ads along with Jim Margolis, whose firm, GMMB, is expected to take the lead on producing and buying the commercials. The pollster Joel Benenson is another senior adviser poised to work for Mrs. Clinton on her second White House run. Ms. Grunwald, an original member of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign team who also worked on Mrs. Clinton's 2008 White House bid, represents a nod to continuity after a stream of recent stories about Mrs. Clinton's plans to hire advisers close to her one-time rival for the White House, President Obama. Mrs. Clinton's camp has put out word that she will look to Mr. Margolis, Mr. Benenson, Robby Mook, John D. Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri - each of whom has worked or now works for Mr. Obama - to build her campaign. (Some of them, it should be noted, also have ties to the Clintons.) The move to bring Ms. Grunwald onto the nascent campaign also underscores how unlikely it is that Ms. Warren will run for president. Ms. Grunwald produced Ms. Warren's TV ads in her 2012 Senate campaign, and the two remain close; Ms. Grunwald hosted a book party last year to celebrate the release of Ms. Warren's autobiography. The decision to tap Ms. Grunwald, as well as Ms. Palmieri as communications director, could also address questions about gender diversity in Mrs. Clinton's still-developing campaign team. Mrs. Clinton has a number of women in her inner circle, including Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, but grumbles have been growing louder in recent weeks from some female Democratic operatives about the number of men who appear bound to take senior roles on Mrs. Clinton's likely campaign. Ms. Grunwald counts a number of Democratic senators as her clients and is particularly close to several women in the Senate, including Senators Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, who was one of the only Democratic senators last year to fend off a Republican challenge. Mandy Grunwald to join Hillary Clinton's team (Politico) By Gabriel DeBenedetti February 5, 2015 Politico Longtime Democratic operative Mandy Grunwald will join Hillary Clinton's probable presidential campaign as a top adviser, a Democrat familiar with the Clinton campaign structure confirmed to POLITICO on Thursday. Grunwald is a veteran of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign and Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful 2008 bid. She had recently been working for Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has often been mentioned as a challenger to Clinton but who insists she will not run in 2016. The move, which was first reported by The New York Times, is "totally expected," the Democrat who confirmed it said. It also serves as further evidence that Warren is serious about not running. Grunwald is expected to work with Jim Margolis on media strategy. Margolis was a top campaign aide for President Barack Obama and also served on Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. The news of Grunwald's hiring comes one day after it emerged that White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri will leave the West Wing to help direct the likely Clinton campaign's communications team. Grunwald also will join Robby Mook, the expected campaign manager, and John Podesta, a former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton and adviser to Obama who will likely serve as campaign chairman. Can Jennifer Palmieri Keep Hillary Clinton On Message? (Bloomberg) By Margaret Talev February 6, 2015 Bloomberg Among watchers of Barack Obama's presidency and Hillary Clinton's expected 2016 campaign launch, the coming departures of two top White House aides got lots of attention: senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, because he's been with Obama since before his 2008 win, and counselor John Podesta, because he's a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton whose move is all but proof of what everyone already assumed was true about Hillary's plans to run again. But a more telling figure in the second-term White House departure lounge may actually be Jennifer Palmieri, Obama's affable but battle-tested communications director. Palmieri is leaving this spring to become the communications director for what doesn't yet exist as but will become the Clinton 2016 campaign. Palmieri, 48, is viewed in the White House and national political press corps as accessible and an honest broker whose loyalty to politicians comes with expectations of professionalism and propriety by the candidate, but has its limits (see: John Edwards). Her hiring suggests that Clinton, a former first lady, U.S. senator, failed 2008 presidential candidate and secretary of state, either really is serious about wanting to reset her own infamously antagonistic relationship with the media or at least wants to send that signal. Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist and former spokesman for presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said Palmieri is "as formidable an opponent as I've ever come across in political campaigns" and is someone so organized that "everyone in Palmieri's line of sight will know exactly what the campaign plan is and what they need to do to execute." She also has the credentials, Madden said, to push back when she thinks the candidate or eager-to-please aides are making a mistake. "She knows her stuff," Madden said. "That's critical when you're the staffer that has to stare down the sycophants inside every campaign and offer the candidate unvarnished truths. It's important when you're developing the message and strategy privately and when you're executing it publicly." Palmieri declined to comment for the story. While Palmieri hasn't worked directly for Hillary Clinton before, the two women have gotten to know one another over the course of the last two decades because Palmieri worked for the Bill Clinton White House both terms and during a six-month transition period after he left office. She and Podesta also are close with a long history of working well, even between the Clinton and the Obama administrations. Podesta founded the Center for American Progress, where Palmieri, during her time there from 2005-2011, built a reputation among Democrats for her ability to stand up a progressive war room of sorts, with a communications operation of about 50 people. Obama pollster Joel Benenson and Jim Margolis, a media consultant who has advised the Obama campaign as well as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, are among the other cross-over advisers expected to join the Clinton effort. In the world of presidential runs, Palmieri was John Edwards' 2004 campaign press secretary and in a less formal capacity an adviser in 2008. Before Edwards' reputation was felled by an extramarital scandal and a trial, the 2004 vice presidential nominee was known for his "two Americas" speech in which he addressed the gulf between the wealthy and Americans living to paycheck to paycheck. With Obama and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren prodding for income inequality to be a rallying cry for Democrats in 2016, Hillary Clinton must consider how she wants to address the issue. Perhaps even more important for the Clintons is the value of Palmieri's experience with scandal. A large part of her battle-testing was during the extended drama surrounding Edwards' affair with videographer Rielle Hunter, his trial on charges related to allegations of illegal campaign contributions, and the death from cancer of his embattled wife Elizabeth Edwards, to whom Palmieri was a devoted friend. "There's an old saying in campaign world, you learn more from the losing ones than the winning ones and there's some truth in that," said Mike Feldman, a former top adviser to Vice President Al Gore. "You don't control all the variables." "If you're looking to establish trust and credibility from the beginning," he said of Palmieri, "you couldn't do any better." Democrat strategist Bill Burton, a former Obama spokesman, said Palmieri "is one of the greatest communicators in the Democratic Party and a huge get" for Clinton. "She will help to bridge the White House and the Clinton campaign in a way that few people could," and be "instrumental to Secretary Clinton's success." Clinton widens her circle (Hill) By Amie Parnes February 6, 2015 The Hill Hillary Clinton is widenening her circle for her second White House bid, adding key staffers more associated with other Democratic heavyweights to her tight-knit camp. The new additions to Team Hillary suggest she is casting a wider net for help, and has become more open to relying on officials associated with President Obama who haven't been members of Clinton Inc. Those joining Team Hillary includes former staffers from her East Wing days in the White House - including Karen Finney and Clinton West Winger Jennifer Palmieri,who announced this week that she's leaving the White House as Obama's communications director to join Team Hillary. They also reportedly include Teddy Goff, who ran the president's digital operation and Andrew Bleeker, who handled online advertising. Obama's 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina has already committed to supporting her candidacy through Priorities USA, the superPAC. "We want Hillary Clinton to be the next president of the United States," Messina said in an interview with MSNBC's Ronan Farrow earlier this week. "It's her turn. I think it's her time. And she has brought on Jim Margolis, who served as a senior adviser to Obama in both presidential elections along with Joel Benenson, who was Obama's chief strategist and pollster. Other political operatives, notably Brian Fallon, a longtime aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), have also entered Hillaryland. The changes are drawing praise from longtime Democratic operatives. "I'm encouraged by it," said Jim Manley, the Democratic strategist. "I think it signifies that she's figuring out that she needs a different structure going forward. It seems like she's internalized some of what happened in 2008 and they're looking at a different approach." One Clinton ally added: "It seems like she's taking more of a hands on approach and figuring out who'd be best for each job." Clinton has been criticized time and again for relying on the same key group of people, particularly during her 2008 presidential campaign. Back then, many of her advisers, loyal to the core, had been with her since her days as first lady and senator. Some felt she was limiting herself by not bringing in fresh faces. After losing the Democratic primary in 2008 to Obama, she began to change that approach. She started to rely not just on her own people but career types and even a couple of Obama people like Alec Ross, who ended up serving as Clinton's senior adviser for innovation at the State Department. Clinton elevated people who impressed her, including Jake Sullivan, who served on her 2008 campaign but was a relative newcomer to Clinton's inner circle. Some allies say she has applied that approach to a greater extent during this upcoming campaign. Those close to Clinton say she's not in any rush to announce a candidacy and is taking her time to choose the right staff and nail the right tone and message. But others say the final structure of a Clinton campaign is in question. "I think a lot still needs to play out," one staunch Clinton ally said. "She needs to be clear on what he organization looks like, the chain of command, who reports to who, and what responsibilities each individual has. A lot of that was missing in the last campaign." "And almost more than anything, is there a collaboration among the staff?" the ally added. "Because in 2008 that just didn't exist." Other Clinton supporters are unimpressed by the lineup so far, saying it is anything but out of the ordinary. "It's not thinking outside the box, it's essentially using the same class of political operatives," said the supporter who worked on the 2008 campaign. "Why is there not one new face from Austin, Texas or one person who hails from Silicon Valley?" "It's tired and predictable," the supporter said. One thing is clear, however. With so many Obama staffers joining her operation, Clinton cannot run from the president's policies. "I just don't expect her to spend a lot of time running away from his agenda," Manley said. Republican operatives agree. "What's noteworthy is Secretary Clinton is bring on top level Obama policy hands-not just political hacks," said Tim Miller, the executive director of America Rising, the superPAC that is targeting Clinton. "Any thought that she will able to distance herself from him effectively is completely wrong." And as Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee added, "Resets are not Hillary's strong suit." Are men afraid to run against Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she's a woman? (WAPO) By Nia-Malika Henderson February 5, 2015 The Washington Post Hillary Clinton is on the glide path to the Democratic nomination, with few credible challengers stepping forward. And Ross Baker, a political scientist professor at Rutgers University, thinks he knows why. Clinton and the political "colossus" that is Nancy Pelosi are scaring away all the good male rivals, Nurse Ratched-style. They are "towering and intimidating figures, who have sucked the oxygen out of the spheres they dominate." He writes more in USA Today: While the Democratic bench isn't as full as it has been, there is still no shortage of qualified male candidates who will probably not step forward in 2016. In the Senate there are potential hopefuls who could win the hearts of the very people who consider Clinton too middle-of-the-road: Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon. There are well-regarded governors such as Jack Markell of Delaware and Andrew Cuomo of New York or former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. None of them has given the slightest hint that they might consider a run. First off, if I was to make a list of who would mount a run for the White House if Clinton didn't, I'm not sure many of these people would make it (s0rry, Sen. Merkley). Which leads to this: If these candidates were so formidable, wouldn't they just run against Clinton? If they thought they could amass the millions and millions of dollars it would take to mount a run for the White House -- against Clinton or anyone else -- wouldn't they do it? She's a clear favorite, yes, but an open primary doesn't come around every four years. To Baker, it is Clinton's gender that is a big, big stop sign. He doesn't seem to see a failure on the part of any of these potential male candidates to do the years and years of work it requires to become a contender. Nope, all of them are just afraid to run against Clinton because she is a woman -- not because she has a much higher profile, much better presidential resume and political network. He calls this failure or fear of going "toe-to-toe with a powerful woman is, in the final analysis, a form of patronizing that ill-becomes a party that has stood so steadfastly for women." But haven't male Democrats run against women before, you might ask? Yes, they most certainly have. Like in 2008, for instance. That contest was rough and tumble early on, with none of the candidates shaking in their boots at the thought of challenging Clinton, who after all was a powerful woman back then, too. (Baker argues that Obama's race gave him a special angle. He was also a much better candidate and reshaped the electorate as a result, but never mind that). So what to make of Baker's argument, one that doesn't account for the fact that men dominate every single level of politics and nearly every other powerful industry you can think of? I have never thought of Clinton scaring away all the good men because of her gender. In fact, she is "scaring away" women candidates too: Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.). Clinton, like her or not, has done what many countless men have done before her. She has plotted a course to the White House, clearing a path not because of her gender, but because of her strength and her power. To suggest otherwise is to deny her proper credit and gives too much to those who haven't "manned up." Election campaign will debate troops to stop Islamic State David Lightman; Mcclatchy Washington Bureau (TNS) February 5, 2015 Grand Forks Herald Copyright 2015, NewsBank. All Rights Reserved. WASHINGTON - The horrifying murder this week of a Jordanian pilot suggests that U.S. efforts to stop the Islamic State extremist group are ineffective, making it more likely that the 2016 election campaign will become a debate about ground troops. President Barack Obama has launched waves of airstrikes at Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria, but he steadfastly rules out sending ground troops into combat. At least six potential Republican presidential candidates won't dismiss that option. Others, though, hedge when asked how they'd proceed beyond criticizing Obama's airstrikes-only strategy as ineffective. Dealing with the Islamic State is risky political business. Politicians have to be careful that they don't appear to be taking advantage of fear and outrage over the group's brutality. And they know that ground troops are not a crowd-pleasing idea, since a war-weary public has vivid memories of the lengthy U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans are increasingly worried about terrorist threats and want heightened readiness and a tough response. A recent Pew Research Center survey found combating terrorism inching ahead of the economy as Americans' top priority for Obama and Congress. Twothirds were concerned the Islamic State was a major threat to this country. The drumbeat of horrors keeps the apprehension fresh. The beheadings of hostages, the killings at the offices of satirical Paris-based magazine Charlie Hebdo and the burning alive of Jordanian Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh intensify the concern. Republicans, far more than Democrats, have for months sensed an opportunity to use terrorism policies to their advantage, and aren't relenting. "There is a Democrat in the White House, so it's a little easier (for Republicans) to be hawkish," said Craig Robinson, editor of TheIowa Republican.com, a partisan website. Add to that the prospect of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, even though she was in office in 2011, when American forces killed terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. As a U.S. senator, Clinton voted in 2002 to authorize President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq, a vote she later said she regretted. "Republicans likely view her as being weak on foreign policy," said Robinson. Clinton said last month that military action against Islamic terrorists was "critical." She did not get more specific about U.S. ground troops. Ground troops, many suggest, could or should be an option. Among their views: * Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry "believes we shouldn't take options off the table when it comes to protecting America's interests," said spokeswoman Lucy Nashed. * Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. "If you need ground troops to take them out, you put in ground troops," he told McClatchy in a recent interview. * Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told ABC on Sunday, "We have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that's what it takes." * Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida told CNN last fall the fight against the Islamic State "might require some element of U.S. ground power in order to finish the job." He continues to think the U.S. shouldn't take options off the table. * Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina suggested "ground troops on the American side to supplement a regional force with large enough numbers to defeat" the Islamic State. He called for about 10,000 American support personnel "to make sure that we win not only in Syria but in Iraq." * Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has been a supporter of U.S. airstrikes, though he said Obama had acted improperly by not seeking congressional authorization first. In December, he introduced a resolution providing that consent, which hasn't been taken up for a vote. It included a section limiting how ground forces could be used. Attention Hillary staffers: Here are directions to all the big donors in New York City (WAPO) By Phillip Bump February 5, 2015 Washington Post Reports this week that Hillary Clinton may have settled on a location for her presidential campaign* have focused on an area of Brooklyn Heights, just across the East River from Lower Manhattan in New York City. According to the New York Daily News, Clinton's looking at a spot just off the Brooklyn Bridge, in a part of the borough that would be considered hip only by the standards of staid Manhattan types. In the long-running spirit of offering helpful tips to political newcomers to New York City, we thought we'd offer the Clinton campaign* the most useful service we could provide: instructions on how to easily get from the proposed campaign* headquarters to the most lucrative donors. New York City, as it always is for everyone, was a gigantic ATM for Clinton in year prior to her 2008 bid. The top five most generous ZIP codes for her that year were all in New York, all in Manhattan. We've mapped them, relative to the possible headquarters location. The very good news for Clinton is that there are two subway stops just a few blocks from the proposed headquarters, which link to the two most important subway lines: the 4/5/6 and the 1/2/3. The former run up the east side of Manhattan; the latter, up the west side. Now, we understand that the likelihood of candidate* Clinton swiping a MetroCard and hopping onto a rush-hour 5 train is low (although -- remember this prediction -- she would certainly ride the train at least once for a photo op), but it will certainly be handy for low-to-mid-level staffers tasked with doing set-up or warming up the room before Clinton pops in to point to the check-collection basket. So, to aid them in their efforts: How to get to donors on the Upper West Side 1. Head south to the Borough Hall 2/3 stop. 2. Take the 2/3 toward Manhattan to W. 72nd. 3. Walk two blocks east to Central Park West. 4. Ask the doorman for the location of the service elevator. How to get to donors on the Upper East Side 1. Head south to the Borough Hall 4/5 stop. 2. Take the 4/5 toward Manhattan to 59th Street. 3. Transfer to the uptown 6. 4. Exit at 77th Street. 5. Walk two blocks west to Madison Avenue. 6. Ask the gallery owner where you are allowed to hang the signs. How to get to the big donors in Brooklyn 1. Walk outside. 2. Loudly say, "Who wants to get in good with the next president?" 3. Point at the box labeled "MONEY GOES HERE" at your feet. How to get to the Democratic Convention If it is in Brooklyn: 1. Walk south to Atlantic Avenue. 2. Turn left onto Atlantic, follow it until the word "BARCLAYS" fills your field of vision. If it is in Philadelphia or Columbus: 1. Skip it. We hope that helps. NBC's Bad Memory (Slate) By Alec MacGillis February 5, 2015 Slate Questions are swirling about NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams' guarded acknowledgment Wednesday night that he had, over the years, falsely claimed to have been in a helicopter that came under rocket-propelled grenade fire in Iraq in 2003. But NBC itself has been mostly mum about the matter, and MSNBC has given it only the briefest of mentions. This is in stark contrast to the network's coverage of a quite similar matter in 2008: Hillary Clinton's false claim to have arrived in Tuzla, Bosnia under sniper fire in 1996, when coverage of her visit at the time showed her being greeted leisurely by an 8-year-old with a welcoming poem. From what I can tell from the transcripts at the time, Williams did not directly address Clinton's exaggerations on the air when they were covered by NBC Nightly News. But his colleagues at NBC and MSNBC hammered away at Clinton repeatedly over several weeks for her dishonesty and carelessness. Some examples, with some especially tart comments highlighted: Meet the Press, March 23, 2008: Tim Russert: Yesterday in the column called "Fact Checker" by Michael Dobbs in the Washington Post, Dobbs wrote this, "Clinton's tale of landing at the Tuzla Airport under sniper fire and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony combined with contemporaneous news reports tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios," which is the highest you can get, which means a whopper in terms of exaggeration. ... It's a credibility issue, truth-telling-is this a problem for Sen. Clinton? Chuck Todd: Well, it's been the nagging things about this whole campaign. When you ask that question of honest and trustworthy, she has always consistently scored lower than Obama. ... But, I, for the life of me, haven't understood why they have pushed this story. They knew that somebody went after and re-interviewed Sinbad, who was on that trip, the former "comedian," and I put comedian in quotes. That he was on that trip and doesn't remember it being that harried or anything like that, and yet she went out and retold the story. ... They didn't need to retell the story because if they had not, then they wouldn't have gotten this four Pinocchio thing out of the Washington Post and given the Obama campaign something to hit them with. Today Show, March 25, 2008: Matt Lauer: So let's talk about this trip to Bosnia March of 1996. Here's how Hillary Clinton described it last week: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles and get to our base." Now, I still remember winning a Little League championship single-handedly when I was 10, probably didn't happen. But this isn't the Little League, this is someone running for president. There were reporters on this trip and she's using her experience as a deciding factor. How could this happen? Chuck Todd: Well, and it's worse than that, Matt. There had been reporters questioning her story on this a few weeks ago. One even reached out to the comedian Sinbad, who was also on this trip, to get his recollection of it and it differed from the first lady. So somebody didn't scrub that speech. It was in prepared remarks last week, and not only did she say it with certitude, but it was in her prepared text. So this was a real sort of bone-headed mistake on the campaign's part at a time when everybody is looking at everything so carefully. Lauer: Right, and does it make people now go back and start to question everything she said? Countdown, March 27, 2008: Keith Olbermann: Forgetting about Bosnia. The March 17 misspeak was just she said, sleep deprivation or something. But now, two other Bosnia misspeaks have turned up. Were they sleep deprivation, too? Speaking of Bosnia, it turns out Sen. Clinton was speaking of Bosnia and gunfire and danger last December. Is that sleep deprivation chronic? Hardball, April 7, 2008: Chris Matthews: That said, [for Obama to run ads about] Tuzla doesn't require any nastiness toward Sen. Clinton. It requires playing over and over again a fish story that she was under enemy fire, a very elaborate kind of story about wartime and risk and courage and survival that turned out not to be at all true. Who would hold that against Barack? I can imagine Mark Penn running series of ads over and over again. I can imagine a saturation campaign. Why doesn't he do what Hillary would do? What's especially striking about the comparison of the scandal over Clinton's Tuzla's claims-which unquestionably wounded her already listing campaign against Barack Obama-was that Williams made some of his false claims about the Iraq helicopter attack directly after Clinton was slammed over Tuzla. In a May 12, 2008 blog post, he wrote: A young soldier, who is, like me, from the Jersey Shore, reads my blog entry last week during a break while on active duty in Iraq. The last time I saw him, I was with my friend and NBC News Military Analyst Wayne Downing, a retired 4-Star Army General. Wayne and I were riding along as part of an Army mission to deliver bridge components to the Euphrates River, so that the invading forces of the 3rd Infantry could cross the river on their way to Bagdhad. We came under fire by what appeared to be Iraqi farmers with RPG's and AK-47's. The Chinook helicopter flying in front of ours (from the 101st Airborne) took an RPG to the rear rotor, as all four of our low-flying Chinooks took fire. We were forced down and stayed down-for the better (or worse) part of 3 days and 2 nights. Williams had seen what happened to Clinton just weeks earlier, yet kept telling his own fish tale. To paraphrase one of his own NBC colleagues, this isn't Little League, it's a nightly news anchor with an audience of millions. Will he be held to the same standards to which NBC and the rest of the media held Clinton? Hillary Clinton's consolation prize for Brooklyn (WaPo) By Jonathan Capehart February 5, 2015 Washington Post Amie Parnes of the Hill reports that the as-yet-announced presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton will likely be headquartered in Brooklyn. One knowledgeable Democratic strategist told me that the consultants prefer the Big Apple's largest borough to someplace in Westchester because it would be easier to get to and out of. But putting the campaign in Brooklyn would have another benefit: consolation prize. Any day now, the Democratic National Committee will announce its choice for its 2016 presidential nominating convention. Brooklyn, Philadelphia and Columbus, Ohio, are the finalists. By now, you know I think Philadelphia should get the quadrennial jamboree. I recognize the power of having Clinton officially accept the nomination (assuming she runs and secures the required delegates) in her home state 24 years after her ex-president husband did the same in the Big Apple. Still, there are significant issues with hosting the convention in Brooklyn, which is why the money is on the City of Brotherly Love. That's why the leak about Clinton considering Brooklyn for her campaign headquarters is so intriguing. The borough could lose the convention but gain the campaign. It could dodge the bullet of the four-day convention (and the headaches for all concerned that would entail) but bask in the glow of a 16-month presidential operation. There are issues with putting the campaign there, too. Being the capital of hyper-expensive Hipstervania is one. Actually, that might be its biggest knock. That, and being the center of action for HBO's "Girls." But in touting Brooklyn for the convention, New York City Council Member Vincent Gentile gave a rationale for why Clinton should make the borough her HQ. "One in seven Americans can trace their roots to Brooklyn so history shows Brooklyn is at the crossroads of our country," he said last year. "We are a true mosaic of our country and of the world. Clearly Brooklyn is America and America is Brooklyn." Can't argue with that. 'Talking is Teaching' event focuses on early childhood literacy (Tulsa World) By Mike Averill February 5, 2015 Tulsa World Find ideas for talking to young children at the Talking is Teaching website. The importance of early childhood literacy and providing caregivers with the tools to enhance a child's development was the focus of a "Talking is Teaching" event Wednesday night. Talking is Teaching is a new effort to empower parents and caregivers to boost young children's brain development and build their vocabularies by increasing the number of words they hear spoken to them every day. "It might seem strange to have an adult conversation with a 10-month-old or 2-year-old child, but it's our role. We can help children grow and be ready for school simply by talking, singing and reading with them," said Kujanga Jackson, pastor at New Beginnings Community Church, 1401 Charles Page Blvd., where the event was held. Researchers say an average child from a low-income family usually knows 500 words by age 4, while a child from a working-class family generally knows 700 and a child from a professional family knows 1,100. The goal of the initiative is to close that word gap. Talking is Teaching is a partnership between the George Kaiser Family Foundation, the Community Action Project of Tulsa County, Tulsa Educare and Too Small to Fail - a joint initiative of Next Generation and the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Caleb Gayle, program officer with the Kaiser Foundation, said a poll of low-income parents determined that their most trusted messengers on raising their children are those in the medical and education professions, as well as the ministry. New Beginnings is one of several area churches that are partners in the initiative, delivering messages on the importance of talking, reading and singing in child development and by hosting events to model good parenting and child interaction, Gayle said. Other components of the initiative include a partnership with the Parent Child Center of Tulsa to provide the parents of every newborn a guide with materials to prompt caregiver-child engagement and a partnership with Tulsa Transit, where encouraging posters are placed inside buses. "Our overall effort is to demonstrate that every opportunity, whether in a car, bus or church, every one of those is an opportunity to learn for your child," Gayle said. "Cooking dinner, eating food or when a child is on your lap - that is an opportunity to attach with a child and enhance that child's learning experience." Sandie Stewart, a member of New Beginnings Community Church, attended the meeting with her granddaughter, Jordan Stewart, to help increase her interest in reading. She said she plans to share what she learns with the girl's parents so they can reinforce the same skills at their home. "Learning to love reading, writing and singing is something that will help them their whole life," Stewart said. "Reading together is a very special bonding time that makes us slow down and take it easy and not be so rushed in our lives."