​Correct The Record Monday February 13, 2015 Morning Roundup

From:burns.strider@americanbridge.org To: CTRFriendsFamily@americanbridge.org Date: 2015-02-13 12:48 Subject: ​Correct The Record Monday February 13, 2015 Morning Roundup

*​**Correct The Record Monday February 13, 2015 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *New York Times opinion: Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Bill Frist: “Save the Children’s Insurance” <http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/opinion/hillary-clinton-and-bill-frist-on-health-care-for-americas-kids.html?referrer=>* “No child in America should be denied the chance to see a doctor when he or she needs one — but if Congress doesn’t act soon, that’s exactly what might happen.” *The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Hillary calls for extending CHIP funding” <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/232730-hillary-calls-for-extending-chip-funding>* “The op-ed also marks the second time in as many weeks that Clinton has jumped into a healthcare debate.” *Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Clinton Consults Experts to Chart Foreign-Policy Agenda” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/13/clinton-consults-experts-to-chart-foreign-policy-agenda/>* “The major takeaway from these private talks is that she wants a strategy more suited to shaping conditions overseas, as opposed to reacting to events as they arise, people familiar with the meetings said.” *National Journal: “Hillary Clinton's Play for Pennsylvania” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/hillary-clinton-s-play-for-pennsylvania-20150212>* “Pennsylvania is a geographically and demographically diverse state—and how Clinton fares there among the state's electorate will be an indication of her ability to shape a winning national coalition.” *Politico: “Who's going to win Iowa and N.H.? Introducing The POLITICO Caucus” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/iowa-new-hampshire-the-politico-caucus-115170.html>* “The consensus across this group is that Hillary Clinton is almost guaranteed to become the Democratic nominee. Only four of 70 who answered guessed that a Democrat other than Clinton will ultimately win their state.” *The Daily Beast: “Progressives: Between Hillary and a Hard Place” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/13/progressives-between-hillary-and-a-hard-place.html>* “Without a candidate to get behind, some liberal and labor groups are focusing instead on changing the complexion of the electorate, hoping that Clinton can be pulled to the left by forces on the ground.” *BuzzFeed: “Top Latino Donors Warn Clinton: Do Better With Latinos Than Dems Did In Florida, Colorado” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/top-latino-donors-warn-clinton-do-better-with-latinos-than-d#.viaYY40B3>* “Unlike the highly competitive Republican landscape, Clinton is expected to be the Democratic nominee — the question for Democratic donors then is less whether they’ll support her, and instead, with how much money and what their priorities are. And when it comes to the growing base of Latino donors looking to make their mark, the answer is incorporating Latinos into a campaign in a real way, from the vice presidential selection to the on-the-ground outreach to voters.” *Business Insider: “Iowa Republicans are embracing Joe Biden to troll Hillary Clinton” <http://www.businessinsider.com/iowa-republicans-welcome-joe-biden-2015-2>* “Republicans are mocking Hillary Clinton's absence from the 2016 campaign trail by rolling out the red carpet for Vice President Joe Biden.” *Articles:* *New York Times opinion: Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Bill Frist: “Save the Children’s Insurance” <http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/opinion/hillary-clinton-and-bill-frist-on-health-care-for-americas-kids.html?referrer=>* By Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Bill Frist February 12, 2015 No child in America should be denied the chance to see a doctor when he or she needs one — but if Congress doesn’t act soon, that’s exactly what might happen. For the past 18 years, the Children’s Health Insurance Program has provided much-needed coverage to millions of American children. And yet, despite strong bipartisan support, we are concerned that gridlock in Washington and unrelated disputes over the Affordable Care Act could prevent an extension of the program. As parents, grandparents and former legislators, we believe that partisan politics should never stand between our kids and quality health care. We may be from different political parties, but both of us have dedicated our careers to supporting the health of children and their families. This shared commitment inspired us to work together in the late 1990s to help create CHIP to address the needs of the two million children whose families make too much money to be covered by Medicaid, but cannot afford private insurance. The resulting program, a compromise between Republicans and Democrats, disburses money to the states but gives them flexibility to tailor how they provide coverage to meet the needs of their own children and families. Some expanded Medicaid; others created separate programs. As a result, the number of uninsured children in America has dropped by half. Children miss less school because of illness or injury, and we’ve seen a significant decline in childhood mortality. Today, state governments continue to rely on the program to meet crucial health and budget priorities. It’s not surprising that every single governor who responded to a 2014 survey — 39 in all — supported saving CHIP. Of course, the American health care landscape has changed significantly since CHIP started. Under the Affordable Care Act, many families with children are now receiving financial help to enroll in private health coverage through the new health insurance marketplace. But while it is possible that private, family-wide policies offered by employers and marketplaces may one day render CHIP unnecessary, for now substantial gaps still exist — and too many children can still fall through them. One specific provision of the Affordable Care Act, often called the “family glitch,” has been interpreted to prevent many families from receiving subsidized health coverage in the new marketplace if one parent is offered “affordable coverage” through his or her job. In this case, “affordable” is defined as less than roughly 9.5 percent of household income for that parent to sign up alone — even though the actual cost of available family coverage is far higher. For families affected by this glitch, CHIP may be the only affordable option for making sure their children are covered. We already know what happens when CHIP is no longer an option for families. According to a recent report from the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute, as many as 14,000 children in Arizona lost their health insurance after 2010, when it became the only state to drop CHIP. We don’t want to see the same thing happen across the country. If CHIP is not reauthorized, more families will be hit with higher costs. As many as two million children could lose coverage altogether. Millions more will have fewer health care benefits and much higher out-of-pocket costs, threatening access to needed health services. And because families without adequate insurance often miss out on preventive care and instead receive more expensive treatment in hospital emergency rooms, all of us will be likely to end up paying part of the bill. While reauthorization is not due until the end of September, Congress needs to act now. With more than four-fifths of state legislatures adjourning by the end of June, lack of action and clarity from Washington by then will make budgeting and planning virtually impossible. Reauthorizing CHIP for the next four years would cost about $10 billion — an investment in our children that will pay off for decades to come. This is an opportunity to send a message that Washington is still capable of making common-sense progress for American families. As 2015 unfolds, we know Congress will continue to debate the future of health care reform. We most likely won’t see eye to eye about some of the more contentious questions. But one thing everyone should be able to agree on is that our most vulnerable children shouldn’t be caught in the crossfire. This isn’t about politics. It’s about our kids and our nation’s future. What could be more important than that? *The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Hillary calls for extending CHIP funding” <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/232730-hillary-calls-for-extending-chip-funding>* By Jesse Byrnes February 12, 2015, 9:29 p.m. EST Hillary Clinton is pushing for Congress to reauthorize the federal government's child healthcare program, lending her support to congressional Democrats looking to keep the program around. "[D]espite strong bipartisan support, we are concerned that gridlock in Washington and unrelated disputes over the Affordable Care Act could prevent an extension of the program," Clinton and former GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times on Thursday. "As parents, grandparents and former legislators, we believe that partisan politics should never stand between our kids and quality health care," the pair added. Clinton, the presumed 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner, is calling on Congress to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program's (CHIP) funding for the next four years, labeling the approximately $10 billion expense "an investment in our children that will pay off for decades to come." Senate Democrats have launched their own push to reauthorize the program, signing on as co-sponsors of a bill that would extend funding through 2019. Currently, the program's funding runs out at the end of September. A companion bill was also introduced in the House on Thursday. The program, which has been around for the better part of two decades, covers about 10 million children. Some Republicans have cast CHIP as duplicative given benefits under ObamaCare, and say additional subsidies and eligibility under Medicaid make the program as unnecessary. "If CHIP is not reauthorized, more families will be hit with higher costs. As many as two million children could lose coverage altogether. Millions more will have fewer health care benefits and much higher out-of-pocket costs, threatening access to needed health services," Clinton and Frist wrote. "And because families without adequate insurance often miss out on preventive care and instead receive more expensive treatment in hospital emergency rooms, all of us will be likely to end up paying part of the bill," they added. The op-ed also marks the second time in as many weeks that Clinton has jumped into a healthcare debate. Last week she tweeted that "#vaccineswork" after two possible 2016 Republican contenders, Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.) and Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) suggested that parents should have some choice on whether to immunize their children. *Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Clinton Consults Experts to Chart Foreign-Policy Agenda” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/13/clinton-consults-experts-to-chart-foreign-policy-agenda/>* By Peter Nicholas February 13, 2015, 6:59 a.m. EST Voters aren’t seeing much of Hillary Clinton these days, leading some Democrats to wonder when their front-runner will enter the 2016 contest. Behind the scenes, she is prepping carefully for the race of her life. Private meetings that she’s held with various foreign-policy experts offer some hints as to how she might part ways with President Barack Obama when it comes to crises in Ukraine, Syria and other global trouble spots. The major takeaway from these private talks is that she wants a strategy more suited to shaping conditions overseas, as opposed to reacting to events as they arise, people familiar with the meetings said. In these meetings, Mrs. Clinton’s habit is to go a round the room, asking questions and taking notes with pad and pen in hand. She has been looking for an analysis of current conditions and possible solutions – but also a more proactive posture, some familiar with the meetings say. Mr. Obama has seemed flat-footed at times in response to the Islamic State’s advances in Syria and Russian President Vladimir Putin‘s aggressive moves to gain territory in Ukraine. “There’s a degree of concern that what we’re doing oftentimes looks to be reactive in response to what the problem of the moment is — as opposed to what is the strategic approach and what might we be doing differently,” said one person familiar with her thinking who requested anonymity. As Secretary of State during Mr. Obama’s first term, Mrs. Clinton played the role of loyal adviser in a foreign-policy apparatus that was run out of the White House; Mr. Obama was the one making the decisions. It seems clear that if Mrs. Clinton wins the White House she would chart a different path than the one charted during the Obama administration. In her 2014 book, “Hard Choices,” and in various speeches, Mrs. Clinton suggested she would have been more interventionist in Syria in 2012–more willing than the president to arm moderate rebels in hopes of stopping the civil war. She has been unsparing in her criticism of Mr. Putin, likening territorial grabs in Ukraine to Adolph Hitler’s aggression before World War II. “She’s much less risk-averse” than Mr. Obama, said Aaron David Miller, vice president of the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars who has taken part in Mrs. Clinton’s foreign-policy briefings. If she becomes president, Mrs. Clinton might have some latitude to pursue a more activist foreign policy. Context is everything. Mr. Obama took office at a time when the nation was weary of the Iraq war. His caution suited an electorate that was skeptical of new military engagements. But after eight years of Mr. Obama, the public might be ready for a president who favors a more muscular approach, Mr. Miller said. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last month showed that 56% disapproved of the president’s handling of foreign policy, compared to just 37% who favored the job he’s doing. “If she becomes president, her political space on foreign policy will be a reaction to what has been criticized by many as an over-course correction [by Mr. Obama],” Mr. Miller said. “She’ll have an easier time of it, I think, than Obama had in this direction.” *National Journal: “Hillary Clinton's Play for Pennsylvania” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/hillary-clinton-s-play-for-pennsylvania-20150212>* By Emily Schultheis February 12, 2015 Democrats face two major demographic challenges in the 2016 presidential campaign. First, can Hillary Clinton, assuming she's the party's nominee, win back the white working-class voters who have drifted toward Republicans in recent years? And second, will she be able to maintain the Democratic coalition that twice elected Barack Obama president—including the sky-high turnout among African-American voters his campaign spurred? Those questions will be partly answered in Pennsylvania, where Democrats have just announced they're holding their 2016 convention. As Philadelphia's selection for the 2016 Democratic convention spurs headlines about the symbolism of Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell, the importance of the state goes far beyond that. It's a microcosm of the challenges Democrats face in putting together a winning coalition. Pennsylvania is the GOP's perennial white whale: Every four years, Republicans puts money and time into a last-minute effort to mine the state's electoral votes—and every time since 1988, they've been unsuccessful. Though it's still early, Democrats and observers in the state say that with Democrats' presidential-year electoral advantages there, there's little chance that dynamic will change this time around. "It's a state that has become solidly blue in presidential politics and now, in many ways, is a cornerstone of the Democratic electoral coalition, along with other big states—along with New York, Illinois, and California," said Chris Borick, a veteran Pennsylvania pollster at Muhlenberg College, adding that winning Pennsylvania is "almost a given for Democrats." A February Quinnipiac poll found Clinton starting out strong in Pennsylvania with high favorability ratings and double-digit leads over all her would-be GOP challengers. Fifty-five percent of the state's voters viewed her favorably, compared with 38 percent who viewed her unfavorably—far better than any of the GOP hopefuls fared. In hypothetical head-to-head matchups, Clinton bested New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 11 points (50-39), former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush by 15 points (50-35), Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky by 19 points (53-34), and both former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania by 20 points (54-34). But Pennsylvania is a geographically and demographically diverse state—and how Clinton fares there among the state's electorate will be an indication of her ability to shape a winning national coalition. Victory for Democrats now largely hinges on the southeastern part of the state, where they need to draw a strong turnout in Philadelphia proper and to win a majority in the four suburban counties (Montgomery, Bucks, Chester, and Delaware) that surround it. At the same time, a significant chunk of the state—the southwestern part near Pittsburgh and the northeastern part surrounding Scranton—is full of white, working-class voters whom Democrats have struggled with in recent years. Pennsylvania Democratic operatives and observers say Clinton has a track record of connecting better with the state's working-class electorate than Obama did in 2008 and 2012—but that African-American turnout drop-off is certainly a concern. In an interview with BuzzFeed, Obama said he didn't "think any president inherits a coalition," adding that "any candidate has to win over people based on what they stand for, what their message is, what their vision is for the future." Back in the 2008 Democratic primary, when Clinton defeated Obama by just under 10 points, the former secretary of State did well among exactly those kinds of voters. Exit polls found Clinton ahead of Obama among Pennsylvania's white voters, low- and middle-income voters, and those without a college degree. "Her father came from Scranton, so she's always had a strong base there in the same way that Joe Biden has," said Charlie Lyons, a veteran Democratic strategist in the state. "And I think she comes out of that area strong, and in the southwest I think she has the potential to come out perhaps even stronger than the president did." As a surrogate for now-Gov. Tom Wolf in Philadelphia last fall, Clinton came out swinging with what observers say is the closest indication she's given of the kind of message her campaign could have—one heavy on economic fairness, equal pay, and education funding. These are the kinds of issues that play well among both minority voters and working-class whites. As for African-American voters in Philadelphia, observers in the state say it would be tough for Clinton to match the kind of turnout Obama drew among that demographic—but that the drop-off wouldn't be enough to affect her chances in the state. In 2008, exit polling data showed Obama winning 95 percent of African-American voters in Pennsylvania, compared with just 5 percent for Republican nominee John McCain; even if turnout among that demographic decreases, the margins will likely be similar. "She clearly has room to build on voters that Obama didn't have—while being challenged to make sure she has the same or close levels of turnout in the Democrat-rich Philadelphia city limits," Borick said. Even if Pennsylvania seems unlikely to top 2016's list of presidential swing states, it will undoubtedly be home to one of the most competitive Senate campaigns on the map this cycle: the race to unseat GOP Sen. Pat Toomey, who rode into office on the Republican wave of 2010. And while party conventions rarely have an effect on the presidential electoral outcome in a state, they're known for energizing the party base and drawing attention to in-state candidates—which, for Philadelphia, could have a positive effect on turning the city's African-American voters out to the polls that fall for both Clinton and Toomey's Democratic challenger. "Pat Toomey is going to be seriously challenged," said Dan Fee, a veteran of both of former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell's gubernatorial campaigns. "This is a year, and this is a race, in which there will be significant turnout in areas that will never vote for Pat Toomey." *Politico: “Who's going to win Iowa and N.H.? Introducing The POLITICO Caucus” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/iowa-new-hampshire-the-politico-caucus-115170.html>* By James Hohmann February 13, 2015, 5:58 a.m. EST [Subtitle:] The Walker surge in Iowa, Hillary’s Obama problem and other news from Week One of our yearlong insiders’ survey from the ground in 2016’s first-in-the-nation races. Most Iowa insiders believe Scott Walker would win their state’s caucuses if they were this week. But they’re not this week, and virtually none of the most influential thought leaders in the Hawkeye State believe that the Wisconsin governor will sustain his recent bounce in polls. This is one of several intriguing findings in the debut survey of The POLITICO Caucus. More than 100 of the most plugged-in activists, operatives and elected officials in Iowa and New Hampshire have agreed to answer a weekly survey over the next year, which will be published here every Friday. It’s a diverse mix of powerful figures from across the political spectrum, including party chairmen, members of Congress, radio hosts and rising stars who command loyal followings. The insiders are immersed in the nomination battles and their views could be a leading indicator of where the polls are heading. The vast majority of those who are participating are not committed to a candidate yet, though some are playing key roles on the burgeoning campaigns. The consensus across this group is that Hillary Clinton is almost guaranteed to become the Democratic nominee. Only four of 70 who answered guessed that a Democrat other than Clinton will ultimately win their state. But there’s widespread agreement that the GOP field really is wide open. In New Hampshire, the feeling is that Jeb Bush would win the first-in-the-nation primary if it was this week but that it’s premature to call him a frontrunner. Six in 10 Iowa insiders surveyed believe Walker would win the caucuses if they were this week. But only two of the 32 Iowans who returned questionnaires believe the Wisconsin governor will ultimately prevail. “He will now go through a scrutiny that will determine how prepared he is to sustain this frontrunner status,” one Iowa Republican remarked. Here are the key takeaways from our first weekly survey: Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are fighting for frontrunner status. But neither has it. Most Republican insiders answered “no” when asked if there’s a GOP frontrunner. The field is stronger than in 2012, and any one from a handful of candidates could emerge as the nominee, they believe. Walker got a big boost from his breakout speech at an event put on last month by Iowa Rep. Steve King in Des Moines. But the insiders are keenly aware he remains untested outside Wisconsin. Bush is a bigger media draw, enjoys higher name ID and has access to more money than any other GOP candidate. For these reasons, one New Hampshire Republican said he is the frontrunner “simply by default.” Others on the right argued that none of these advantages is enough to make Bush a “real” frontrunner the way that Mitt Romney was at this stage in 2012. “It’s too early,” said one of the GOP respondents from New Hampshire. “There’s a lot of kicking of tires yet to happen.” An Iowa Republican remarked, “This is the most wide open contest I have ever seen.” The world matters. At least, a surprisingly high number of insiders think 2016 will be a national security election. Roughly half of those interviewed identified the economy – from stagnant wages to income inequality – as the defining issue of 2016. The next-most cited issue was foreign policy and/or national security, with about a quarter of those surveyed predicting it will drive the debate. Several insiders mentioned specifically the Islamic State and the Levant, or ISIL. A nonpartisan academic from Iowa said the use of force directive introduced to Congress by President Barack Obama “automatically moves foreign affairs up on this list for 2016.” Clinton, as the former Secretary of State, will likely position herself as the candidate with unrivaled foreign policy chops. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who looks increasingly serious about running, is playing up his roles on the Senate intelligence and foreign relations committees. Rand Paul is winning the GOP ground war. So far. Hillary Clinton has a built-in, years-in-the-making campaign organization that insiders from both parties agreed is unrivaled. Her 2008 supporters are still with her, and many Obama hands are ready to get on board. On the Republican side, the majority surveyed in both states said Rand Paul has the most robust organization. His father, Ron, finished third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire in 2012, giving the Kentucky senator a network to build from. “Paul probably has the best organization at this point, with good management and strong grass roots,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “Others will catch up and level this out though.” Others in Iowa mentioned retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who has benefited from an aggressive movement to draft him into the race, and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has been spending a lot of time in the state. Does being a Bush help or hurt Jeb? Insiders are split. Most Democrats think George W. Bush would be a serious drag on Jeb in a general election. But Republicans are almost evenly divided about whether the Bush name is more of an asset or a liability for the former governor. “It is a wash if Jeb gets out and shows he is his own person,” said an uncommitted Iowa Republican. Another said anyone who doesn’t think it’s a net positive is “nuts” but added, “Bush fatigue is a real issue.” A New Hampshire Republican called it a “two-edge sword” with the grass roots. Another described it as a “net asset in a primary” and a “net liability in the general.” If Rand Paul benefits from his father’s network, so does Jeb Bush, wrote another Republican respondent from the Hawkeye State. “On one hand both his Dad and Brother won here,” this person said of Bush. “A lot of activists who were a part of those camps will be a great starting point for an organization. But the name brand isn’t going to help with conservatives, tea party folks and the liberty crowd.” Clinton could be America’s first woman president. And one of its oldest. The pols think age could be a bigger potential problem. Asked whether the former First Lady’s age or gender is more of a possible liability in the campaign, six in 10 picked her age. Only a handful said gender; the rest said neither. “Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton are the same age, but that won’t stop someone like, say, Rand Paul, whose father ran for president in his mid-70s, from trying to make it a thing,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. An Iowa Democrat said that Clinton’s gender will be the bigger issue, “but that won’t manifest till the general election.” Others called the question absurd. Several Republicans worried that Clinton’s potential to break the ultimate glass ceiling is a big asset and may draw independent women to her candidacy. Yes, the inside line has Hillary Clinton walking away with the Democratic nod. Almost no one in either party thinks Clinton won’t wind up winning both early states. They may want her to spend time on the ground and insist that she’ll have to earn it, but there are few who doubt that she’ll win at the end of the day. Clinton finished third in Iowa last time and won an upset in New Hampshire. “It seems very unlikely that anyone in the primary field as of now could come near her,” said an Iowa Democrat. “Nobody sees that changing, and Iowa Democrats are equal parts bored and furious about it.” There are varying opinions about who, if anyone, will emerge as Clinton’s main Democratic challenger. Most Democrats said no one. Warren was the most mentioned, followed by former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, ex-Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Just one Democrat mentioned Vice President Joe Biden. Republicans see Ted Cruz as likeliest to emerge as the social conservative favorite. Evangelicals picked the last two winners of the Iowa caucuses: Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. Both are running again, but neither can count on the support they had in 2008 and 2012, respectively. An Iowa Republican predicted that “a firebrand” like the Texas senator is more likely to win over base voters. Among GOP insiders, twice as many picked Cruz to become the leading social conservative candidate as anyone else. But the field is scattered, with nominations for Santorum, Huckabee, Carson, Walker, Rubio, Bobby Jindal and others. “I think in the short term it will be Ted Cruz,” said an Iowa Republican. “In the long-term I think a guy like Santorum will emerge again because of his ability to weave” his moral beliefs through an array of social and pocketbook issues. A New Hampshire Republican warned against counting out Huckabee: “It depends on how well a campaign [he] runs.” Political chatter this week is all about Scott Walker not having graduated from college. Does it matter? Our insiders say no. The question of Walker’s lack of a college degree split respondents: A few more said it will hurt than help his prospects. Several of those who thought it would be a plus remarked it could enhance his “regular guy” image. But very few believe Walker’s scholastic deficit will move votes. “A surprising number of people seem to know Harry Truman pulled it off and the Democratic Party Chair here is also without a college degree and the sky has not fallen,” said one New Hampshire Democrat. “The precise circumstances of leaving college—not the fact of no degree—could be more problematic to New Hampshire voters if the circumstances are unsavory.” “I can’t wait to see this play out,” said an Iowa Democrat. “I will be terribly disappointed if one of his rivals, or a surrogate, does not put their foot in their mouth on this issue. … I think it will make him seem more populist.” Who’s a bigger help to Hillary? Both Democrats and Republicans pick Bill Clinton over Obama. The former president is viewed by both Democrats and Republicans as much more of an asset for Hillary than Obama. Only one of the Democrats surveyed think that he hurts her, although two other Democrats said there are sure to be some moments where he becomes unhelpful – just like in 2008. All but a handful of Republicans think having Bill Clinton on the campaign trail helps her. Among 31 Democrats who answered the question, 16 said Obama is an asset, while 7 said he is a liability. The rest said they’re either unsure or it depends on what happens overseas and with the economy. “The President is up and down in New Hampshire like a yo-yo,” said a Democrat there. “They should see him as an asset, but I am not sure that they do,” added an Iowa Democrat. “He will win them caucus voters and help solidify her base.” *The Daily Beast: “Progressives: Between Hillary and a Hard Place” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/13/progressives-between-hillary-and-a-hard-place.html>* By David Freedlander February 13, 2015 [Subtitle:] Between Hillary and a Hard Place Elizabeth says she’s a no. Bernie is a fighter, but he is also, you know, Bernie. O’Malley doesn’t excite, Webb used to be a Republican, and Hillary is, well, a Clinton. The 2016 presidential primaries are fast approaching. What is a good progressive to do? At a moment when a handful of issues that liberal activists have campaigned on for years, from raising the minimum wage to the growth of corporate power to climate change to criminal justice reform, are entering the mainstream debate—even within the Republican Party—progressives are facing the prospect of being rendered voiceless just as the nation is tuning in to the 2016 presidential primary. “What progressives are saying is, how are we going to get people out of bed to vote if we don’t stand up on the issues that people care about,” said Ed Ott, a longtime New York labor leader and a professor of labor studies at the City University of New York. “There is a lot of anger at the Democratic Party. People want to know where they stand.” This strange moment for progressives was crystallized over the weekend when the liberal Working Families Party, which is based in Clinton’s home state of New York and which backed her in both of her Senate runs, decided to join liberal groups such as Move On and Democracy for America in supporting a Draft Warren effort. The move dismayed some progressives. Warren has consistently maintained she isn’t running, and fantasies that she will change her mind distract from some more achievable goals, some liberals maintain. “The whole Warren thing is kind of silly,” said Howie Klein, a progressive activist who blogs at the website Down with Tyranny. “If I could pick anybody to run for president it would be her, but she is not going to do it. It started out as a not-bad idea but I think it has gone on long enough.” Without a candidate to get behind, some liberal and labor groups are focusing instead on changing the complexion of the electorate, hoping that Clinton can be pulled to the left by forces on the ground. After a summit on the issue of raising wages (headlined, it should be noted, by Elizabeth Warren) the AFL-CIO announced that they would barnstorm the first four primary states to rally voters around the issue. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, meanwhile, is trying to persuade progressive leaders in Iowa and New Hampshire to hold off announcing that they are ready for Hillary until she publicly announces where she stands on key liberal issues such as expanding Social Security and breaking up big banks. “We really have a one of a kind role at this point, which is being a grassroots force that is working to incentivize all of the Democratic presidential candidates to sound more like Elizabeth Warren,” said Adam Green, the group’s executive director. “It’s a different strategy, but we want Warren’s positions to be the mainstream Democratic position.” Although PCCC did not sign on to the Draft Warren effort, Green said that the organizing around it is helping to pull Clinton to the left even without Warren. “In many ways the prospect of Elizabeth Warren running might be more powerful than the actual candidacy of Elizabeth Warren,” Green added. “If she makes no comment about running for president for the next six months there is every incentive in the world for Hillary Clinton to co-opt her message so that Warren doesn’t jump in. If Hillary said, ‘We should cut Social Security, we don’t need to regulate the banks,’ I think you would see not just Warren but a lot of people jump in.” A dozen progressive activists, donors and operatives from around the country said much the same thing: their first choice was Warren, and despite her denials, they believe there is still time for her to get into the race, and that she would meet a groundswell of grassroots and fundraising support if she did. “We are in a conditional situation—if Hillary runs strong [Warren] won’t run,” said Bob Fertik, a progressive activist and political consultant. “But Hillary could decide not to run, or she could flame out on any given day for any reason—it could be about Bill, it could be a thousand reasons. If that happens then the entire progressive movement would rise up behind Elizabeth Warren.” Most progressives interviewed for this story did not sound particularly enthusiastic about the other Democratic challengers. On Martin O’Malley, the two-term governor of Maryland who is running cautiously to the left of Clinton, Fertik said, “Nobody has heard of him.” “He seems like someone who is running really hard to be vice president. I have no feel for the guy one way or the other,” said Klein. “I can’t imagine he is going to get traction,” said Robert Borosage, the head of the liberal Campaign for America’s Future. Bernie Sanders should be the progressive choice. The socialist senator from Vermont rails against the billionaire class, and unlike Warren, has never been wrapped up in the political money game. Which is precisely the problem. “Unlike Elizabeth, Bernie is actually running for president. What do you think it says about him that we are all trying to get Elizabeth in,” said one person involved in the Draft Warren effort. “Sanders is extremely progressive,” said Douglas Kahn, who has given more than $100,000 to liberal candidates over the last couple of election cycles. “I would love his ideas and principles to be the platform of the…Party. That is not likely to happen.” Klein has been raising money for Sanders, but now he thinks the Draft Warren effort has sucked up all of the progressive energy, and he is not certain Sanders will run. “I think the whole Elizabeth thing has been very disappointing for Bernie.” Some progressives say they remain curious about the prospect of Webb. “I think he is going to be stronger than a lot of people think,” said Borosage. “Hillary wants to be to the right of Obama on foreign policy, and that opens up space for [Virginia’s Jim] Webb, especially if we get ensnared in the Ukraine or the Middle East and things go south. There remains a huge anti-war sentiment out there.” “People have short memories,” responded Klein. “Webb is no lefty. He was to the right of Hillary Clinton on practically every vote.” Which raises the question: What about Hillary? She after all supports Dodd-Frank, favors a higher minimum wage and has long history of fighting for working families. And all the activists spoken to for this article said they would support her in a general election. But they also said that at last the public seemed interested in income inequality, and they doubted that Hillary Clinton could carry the torch, especially if she coasted in the primary. “What this election should be about is the very structure of the economy,” said Borosage. “And where is Hillary when it comes to shackling Wall Street, when it comes to CEO pay, when it comes to unions. She needs a challenge so we can hear these things out.” Zephyr Teachout, who ran a left-leaning charge against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2014 and who was a key organizer on Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign, said there was plenty of time for someone to emerge, someone perhaps who isn’t being yet discussed in the corridors of Washington D.C. “The big fear about Hillary Clinton is that she might be a very weak candidate, and that she doesn’t reflect the best interests of a lot of traditional and populists Democrats. I certainly share those fears, but there is plenty of time for a true populist to jump into the race.” So don’t despair then? “No! Despair is the ultimate strategy of the neo-liberals, and it doesn’t accomplish anything.” *BuzzFeed: “Top Latino Donors Warn Clinton: Do Better With Latinos Than Dems Did In Florida, Colorado” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/top-latino-donors-warn-clinton-do-better-with-latinos-than-d#.viaYY40B3>* By Adrian Carrasquillo February 12, 2015, 3:57 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] The donors and fundraisers tell BuzzFeed News Hillary Clinton must set up a real and meaningful operation to reach Latino voters. Other wishes? A Latino vice presidential nominee. A network of top Latino Democratic donors is warning early that Hillary Clinton must correct one of the big mistakes Democrats made in 2014: taking Latino voter turnout for granted. Unlike the highly competitive Republican landscape, Clinton is expected to be the Democratic nominee — the question for Democratic donors then is less whether they’ll support her, and instead, with how much money and what their priorities are. And when it comes to the growing base of Latino donors looking to make their mark, the answer is incorporating Latinos into a campaign in a real way, from the vice presidential selection to the on-the-ground outreach to voters. “Hillary just needs to look at Colorado and Florida,” said Andrés W. López, a lawyer from Puerto Rico and co-founder of the Futuro Fund, referencing the losses of Charlie Crist and former Sen. Mark Udall. “They’re prime examples of how you don’t succeed. It’s essentially squandering opportunity and neglecting the Latino community, doing the same basic things you did before, which is an endless source of frustration for us.” The Futuro Fund was one of the major Democratic fundraising success stories of 2012; led prominently by Eva Longoria and Henry Muñoz, the group raised $32 million for Barack Obama’s reelection effort. López, one of the first major Latino donors to join Obama in 2007, individually raised millions which was folded into the Futuro Fund. That effort then begat the Latino Victory Project, a fundraising effort to increase Latino candidates in politics. (The group says they are nonpartisan and are looking for Republicans, but have only supported Democrats.) Muñoz, meanwhile, became the DNC’s finance chairman. The mistakes of last year for Democrats are clear, the donors say, and there were plenty of missed opportunities. Ralph Patino, a Latino Victory Project board member from Miami, met then-Senator Obama in 2007 at a Marriott in Orlando. Enthralled by Obama, he immediately cut a $35,000 check. He later found out that donation put him in the top 1% of Latino donors in the country. In 2012, he bundled $1 million at his home one night for Obama. Having worked closely with the Crist campaign, Patino said its inadequate Hispanic voter operation is a reason they lost a race that was decided by a razor-thin 60,000 votes. “Charlie is a good friend,” Patino told BuzzFeed News. “I told them we need to concentrate on the I-4 corridor, from the east to the west, from Orlando all the way across to Tampa. Let’s get Eva Longoria involved, let’s have rallies. Let’s connect to Latinos.” He says the mistake was a common one: having a Latino outreach “appendage” rather than making it a fundamental part of the campaign. “The guy they put in as the Latino outreach director was very lightweight, extremely lightweight,” he said. “You have to have, from the ground up, a Latino organization within your election committee.” Sources close to the Latino Victory Project said that as the organization lays out its plans looking ahead to 2016, one major priority has emerged: pushing for a Latino vice presidential nominee. The president of the Latino Victory Project, Cristóbal Alex, declined to comment. Julián Castro, the former San Antonio mayor who Obama picked as his current Housing and Urban Development Secretary, is the one most often mentioned as someone Clinton might look at for the position after his keynote speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. It was Muñoz who pushed for Castro — whom he called the “future of the Democratic Party, the future of this country” — to give the speech. But top Latino donors say it’s about more than pushing Clinton to choose a Latino running mate. “You want to always keep your eye on what will essentially be the most high-profile position in the land,” López said. “My concern is sometimes we lose sight of the larger issue. We should spend time building a robust pipeline of people for other positions.” He said many like former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who have real power to effect change in the country, joined Obama’s administration after spending time in Bill Clinton’s administration. Frank Sánchez, who served in the Clinton and Obama administrations, and bundled $500,000 in 2008 but did not fundraise in 2012 because he was part of the administration, said a Latino running mate would be great but it’s not something he’s personally pushing for. “My sense is that if your interest is in having someone win, you don’t impose those kinds of demands,” he said. “We should give her latitude to pick who makes the most sense for the country and the ticket. Latino candidates should be in the mix though, a few should be on any shortlist.” The donors BuzzFeed News spoke with all echoed López in insisting that Clinton needs to have Latinos on staff, in her inner circle — and were she to win — in appointments and cabinet positions. “It can’t be one of these situations we’ve seen time and time again where everything is a general market strategy until some genius inside the war room figures out they should reach out to Latino voters and everybody is scurrying to translate haphazardly,” said media strategist Freddy Balsera, an early Obama supporter and 2012 bundler who raised $500,000. “It has to be part of the conversation from day one.” Balsera was named in a December New York Times report after the Obama administration overturned a ban on a politically-connected Ecuadorian national entering the country. Her family donated to Democratic campaigns and Balsera employed her and sponsored her visa. The ban was overturned by the State Department, which was under Clinton at the time. Manuel Sanchez, a Chicago lawyer, who helped raise $8 million for Obama in 2008 and was part of the Futuro Fund in 2012, said he was at the National Council of La Raza event in Obama’s first term when he promised to focus on “immigration reform in his first 100 days.” Despite Obama’s executive actions to protect millions from deportation, he said Clinton can’t make the same mistake of not making an immigration overhaul a priority. “People don’t forget that,” he said. “She needs to continue to push for some action on immigration, to say that it’s been a disappointment is a gross understatement,” Frank Sánchez added. Balsera said “for a lot of Hispanics the immigration debate is about how accepting you are of this new community.” The donors didn’t stop there, imagining a suite of positions Clinton could take along with immigration, including support for Obama’s move to normalize relations with Cuba and Puerto Rican statehood, an issue close to the heart of López, who is from the island and frames it as “equality” for Puerto Ricans, which to him, means citizenship. “I don’t want to live in a place where an American can raise millions of dollars and I can’t vote,” he said, noting that the 2020 Census may surprise many who think they know Florida’s demographics. “People are going to be in shock in about four years when it turns out Puerto Ricans outnumber Cubans in Florida,” he said. Gone are the days of 2004, Frank Sánchez says, when John Kerry and George W. Bush combined to spend only around $7 million on outreach to Hispanic voters. “In 2008, Obama spent $22 million by himself,” he said. And López pointed to the big Clinton-world news this week, when infighting between Priorities USA and other pro-Clinton groups broke out in the public eye. “There are no top-level Latino names. That’s what we notice, not what everyone else is noticing,” he said. “For the newer folks among us, it’s about how do you change this? It’s about getting inside the room with them and saying, ‘What are you doing to reach Latinos?’ That’s the adult conversation that needs to happen with Hillary’s folks, and it can’t just be all white guys.” Manuel Sanchez broke down the importance of real-live Latinos having Clinton’s ear. “At minimum they bring the issue to the fore,” he said, “it doesn’t mean its going to carry the day but if you don’t have the person in the room with the decision makers, in a tight inner circle, then it’s very likely the issue will be ignored.” *Business Insider: “Iowa Republicans are embracing Joe Biden to troll Hillary Clinton” <http://www.businessinsider.com/iowa-republicans-welcome-joe-biden-2015-2>* By Colin Campbell February 12, 2015 Republicans are mocking Hillary Clinton's absence from the 2016 campaign trail by rolling out the red carpet for Vice President Joe Biden. Biden, who hasn't ruled out running for president next year, visited Iowa on Thursday for two events on college campuses. The state's GOP reacted to the news by gleefully noting it's been some time since Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, dropped by the key presidential primary state. "We welcome Vice President Biden to Iowa and are glad he is here to give Iowa voters the time and consideration they deserve," the party's chairman, Jeff Kaufmann, said in a statement. Meanwhile, co-chair Cody Hoefert accused Clinton of expecting a "coronation" despite coming in third place in Iowa when she last ran for president in 2008. "Say what you will about Vice President Biden, but at least he’s here," Hoefert said. "While the Republican Party prepares for one of the most vibrant nomination contests in memory, the Democrats are frozen in place waiting for Hillary Clinton’s coronation. Hillary has never had a warm relationship with Iowa voters, and it’s clear she doesn’t care much to fix it now. I'm confident Iowa voters will remember this in 2016." Clinton's team insists she will fight hard for the state's votes if she launches a bid for the White House. Her campaign is widely viewed as all but certain and polls show she is well ahead of any potential rivals. "If she runs, she will take nothing for granted, and she will fight for every vote," Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill told The Des Moines Register. "Anyone who thinks otherwise should think again." However, Clinton has had almost no public appearances or media interviews so far this year. In January, she notably held two events but they were paid speaking engagements in Canada. (Clinton has been fiercely criticized for taking sums as high as $300,000 in speaking fees.) The national Republican Party also recently mocked Clinton for her lack of public events. The party bought a "Hillary's Hiding" billboard in Iowa on Wednesday and even released a fake movie trailer the next day noting she launched her 2008 campaign much earlier: [VIDEO] *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html> ) · March 3 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton honored by EMILY’s List (AP <http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=SUjRlg8K>) · March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton Foundation (WSJ <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/> ) · March 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to keynote Irish American Hall of Fame (NYT <https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/562349766731108352>) · March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>) · March 23 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton to keynote award ceremony for the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting (Syracuse <http://newhouse.syr.edu/news-events/news/former-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-newhouse-school-s> )