3.2.15 HRC Clips

From:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com To: nmerrill@hrcoffice.com Date: 2015-03-02 12:29 Subject: 3.2.15 HRC Clips

HRC Clips March 2, 2015 HRC Clinton Seen Launching 2016 Bid in April (The Wall Street Journal).................................. 2 Election 2016: Hillary Clinton Reported Ready To Announce Candidacy Next Month (International Business Times) 4 Jerry Brown's popularity as governor doesn't extend to a presidential race (LA Times)....... 5 Emily’s List is Ready for Hillary (Bloomberg)...................................................................... 8 This time, Hillary will run as a woman (CNN).................................................................. 11 No, gender wage gap is not that wide; Women need to ask for pay raises (USA Today).... 14 Will the Clinton Foundation Come to Haunt Hillary? (Bloomberg)................................... 16 Rick Perry Questions Hillary Clinton’s Ethical Judgment (Washington Post).................... 18 Rick Perry Questions Hillary’s ‘loyalty’ (MSNBC)............................................................. 19 Dem: I’m troubled by Hillary donation controversy (The Hill).......................................... 20 Hillary Clinton Already Is a Brand (Bloomberg)................................................................. 21 For Hillary and Bibi, a long and sometimes fraught relationship (Washington Post).......... 23 American right unholsters surest shot against Hillary (The Sunday Times)......................... 29 Clinton Seen Launching 2016 Bid in April (The Wall Street Journal) By Peter Nicholas and Carol E. Lee March 2, 2015 The Wall Street Journal Hillary Clinton and her close advisers are telling Democratic donors she will enter the presidential race sooner than expected, likely in April, a move that would allay uncertainties within her party and allow her to rev up fundraising. Clinton aides have spoken of the earlier timetable in private meetings, according to people engaged in recent discussions about the presumed Democratic front-runner's emerging 2016 campaign. Many within her camp have advocated her staying out of the fray until the summer. Jumping in sooner would help the Democratic field take shape, reassuring party leaders and donors that the former first lady, senator and secretary of state is running. A super PAC loyal to Mrs. Clinton has faced hesitation from donors who don't want to make big pledges until she is a candidate. Such concerns would evaporate after she announces. But Mrs. Clinton would become an even larger target for Republicans when she enters the race. She also would be pressed to opine on a raft of thorny issues in the news, including how to combat the military advances of Islamic State militants in the Middle East. One influential proponent of an earlier announcement is John Podesta, who is expected to play an important role in Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign, one person familiar with the matter said. Mr. Podesta, who in January resigned as senior adviser in the Obama White House, declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. Many Democratic activists say they would like to see the race begin in earnest -- something that won't happen until Mrs. Clinton jumps in. Mrs. Clinton "should get in right now. If she's going to run, get a campaign going," said Jason Frerichs, a county Democratic chairman in Iowa, the state that holds the first contest of the 2016 campaign. Mrs. Clinton, according to some close associates, doesn't relish the campaign trail and is in no particular hurry to announce, especially given the scant competition for her party's nomination. Most polls show Mrs. Clinton running far ahead of her nearest potential challenger, Vice President Joe Biden. "She's obviously biding her time before she gets out there," said Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, a Democrat. Mrs. Clinton, 67 years old, made known her feelings about grueling campaigns in a private meeting last month with London Mayor Boris Johnson. Mr. Johnson later said she had bemoaned the lengthy U.S. presidential campaigns. During her 2008 bid, she teared up at a campaign event in New Hampshire when describing the rigors of campaign life: lack of sleep, an overreliance on pizza and limited ability to exercise. "If I were taking this on, seeing what candidates went through last time around, I'd sure want to put it off as long as I could," said Doug Goldman, a major fundraiser for President Barack Obama who lives in San Francisco. At this point in the 2008 cycle, Mrs. Clinton already was a candidate. Mrs. Clinton's team has considered first forming an exploratory committee, a common in-between step candidates use to signal they are running while avoiding the formal launch of a campaign. But her camp now appears likely to scrap that idea. A later entrance into the race comes with certain perils. She hopes to raise more than $1 billion for the campaign, people familiar with her plans said, and some Democratic donors are concerned that if she waits until the summer, she would be hard-pressed to meet that goal. With no apparatus in place, Mrs. Clinton also has a limited capability to rapidly respond to potential threats to a campaign. Republicans and even some Democrats have questioned the foreign contributions collected by her family's charitable foundation, as recounted in a spate of recent news stories. As yet, the response from the Clinton side mostly has come in the form of prepared statements from the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Behind the scenes, the Clinton team is busy preparing for the race. Mrs. Clinton has been meeting with numerous policy experts as she crafts a message and platform. Close adviser Huma Abedin has been holding private meetings with supporters the campaign would call on for help after it is under way. Election 2016: Hillary Clinton Reported Ready To Announce Candidacy Next Month (International Business Times) By Marcy Kreiter March 1, 2015 International Business Times Hillary Clinton reportedly plans to announce her candidacy for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination in April. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday Clinton and her close advisers decided on the move to allay uncertainties and boost fundraising. News of the pending announcement comes as stories surfaced about money the Clinton Foundation has accepted from foreign and corporate donors while she was secretary of state. The reports threaten to complicate Clinton's presumed plan to focus on her foreign policy credentials in any campaign. Clinton had been expected to put off an announcement until summer, but donors had been holding back, thwarting fundraising efforts. A source told the Journal John Podesta played a big role in the decision. She is expected to skip the step of forming an exploratory committee. Money appears to be the issue. Clinton is expected to raise more than $1 billion for her campaign, topping the $716 million the Center for Responsive Politics said was collected by President Obama in 2012. Clinton, who is considered the frontrunner and faces little competition, had been reluctant to enter the fray so soon. Polls have shown her far ahead of her nearest rival, Vice President Joe Biden. Clinton has been working with policy experts to craft a message and platform, and close adviser Huma Abedin has been meeting with supporters. The Washington Post reported last week that during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation raked in millions of dollars from seven foreign governments, including one donation for earthquake relief in Haiti from Algeria that should have been cleared by the State Department first. The donation coincided with an Algerian effort to lobby the United States on human rights issues. Other questionable monies came from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Australia, Norway and the Dominican Republic. The foundation, which has raised nearly $2 billion since its inception in 2001, defended some of the gifts as multiyear grants that were awarded before Hillary Clinton joined the Obama administration. The Post also reported foreign donations made up made up a third of gifts exceeding $1 million over time. Jerry Brown's popularity as governor doesn't extend to a presidential race (LA Times) By Cathleen Decker March 1, 2015 LA Times Katherine Martinez is a Democrat from San Andreas, fiercely supportive of her state's — and party's — governor. "I have definitely followed him and definitely voted for him," she said of Jerry Brown, and she has pushed back on anyone who had "the nerve" to criticize him. But vote for him for president against that far-more-probable candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton? "Oh, man," she said, and then grappled with why. "You know, Hillary has got the international experience Jerry Brown has not — and only on that reason I would go with Hillary. I love both of you." She is not alone. In a new USC Dornsife-Los Angeles Times poll,<file://localhost/javascript/void(0)> Brown has zoomed in popularity. He is now the most popular politician on the state stage. Almost two-thirds of voters — a cosmically high proportion — approve of how he's doing his job. Almost six in 10 Californians have a positive view of him. And Hillary Clinton would clock him in his home state were the two to meet in a run for the presidency. Not that that is actually going to happen. Clinton keeps insisting that she's marking off the pros and cons of a run, all the while building a campaign organization that will be ready from Day One to clobber a few competing Democrats no one has ever heard of. People have heard of Brown, but his campaign calculus is different. He has toyed a bit with the idea of running a fourth time for president but has bowed to reality. He's 76 years old, closing in on 77 in April, meaning that he would be 78 on election day were he to thwart sanity and run. He's a sitting governor in a state that is ungovernable from afar. But, oh, how the wayback machine would spurt to life if a presidential campaign pitted Brown against a Clinton. Brown is, after all, the presidential candidate who, in 1992, called Bill Clinton a "hypocrite" and the "prince of sleaze" and "a fraud" and predicted that he'd "destroy the Democratic Party." Brown is the candidate who, that same year, took part in a debate with Clinton that resembled a roller-derby rumble, each man ending up figuratively bloodied and unkempt. It was that debate, in Chicago, in which Brown took on Hillary Clinton's financial and legal dealings in Arkansas. "Let me tell you something, Jerry," Clinton said in one finger-shaking exchange. "I don't care what you say about me.... But you ought to be ashamed of yourself for jumping on my wife." Small historical note: That exchange led Hillary Clinton to defend her career in words that, while heartfelt, gave heartburn to campaign staff members who had to explain that she hadn't meant to slight stay-at-home mothers: "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do is fulfill my profession." By the end of that campaign, feelings were so raw that Brown didn't do Clinton the traditional grudging courtesy of endorsing him. The follies continued in 2010, when Brown was running for governor against the moneyed Republican Meg Whitman. Whitman aired an ad reprising Bill Clinton's 1992 criticism of Brown, prompting Brown to defend himself in a rather unseemly way — by raising the specter of Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. "I mean Clinton's a nice guy, but who ever said he always told the truth?" Brown said during an East Los Angeles appearance. "You remember, right? There's that whole story there about did he or didn't he. OK.... I did not have taxes with this state." (The latter a not-very-transparent reference to Clinton's assertion that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman.") But politics is a transactional business, and arguably the best politicians are the most transactional. Clinton endorsed Brown two days later and campaigned for him as well. The theory has held that Brown, however tempted, would not run for president again because of the afore-mentioned complications. The poll, conducted for the USC Dornsife College of Letters Arts and Sciences and The Times, demonstrated another reality: Even in Brown's home state, there's really no demand for him. Overall, California voters sided with Hillary Clinton over Brown 49% to 26%, and 20% sided with neither. Among Democrats, it was even worse for Brown: 61% for Clinton to 25% for him. Among the Democratic Party's key voter groups, just as bad: Latinos went for Clinton 57% to 26%; women went for her 54% to 22%; and liberals sided with her 66% to 23%. This is how locked-in Clinton's vote was: Even among those who said they have a favorable view of Brown and approve of the way he's done his job, he couldn't exceed 30%. Brown's closest showing was among Republicans, who went for Clinton 29% to 26% (with a hefty 42% saying neither one, thank you.) Dan Schnur, director of USC's Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, said it made sense for Brown to be doing well in California — but falling hard before Clinton in a mock presidential run. "Voters like them for very different reasons and very different roles," he said. "She is a trailblazer. He is adult supervision. She says, 'Let's shatter the glass ceiling.' He says, 'Get off my lawn.' " Regular voters are not quite that caustic. Chuck Todd, like Katherine Martinez a poll respondent, said that he sided with Clinton not because he dislikes Brown — in fact, he thinks Brown "has done a really good job here" — but because of what Clinton would bring to a campaign. "I think she's got an awareness of international concerns," said Todd, a freelance infographics artist from Concord (and not the identically named "Meet the Press" host). "I think she's going to be a strong leader because of her background." Emily’s List is Ready for Hillary (Bloomberg) By Jennifer Epstein March 2, 2015 Bloomberg Emily’s List hasn't yet endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race, but that's just a formality. The PAC, founded in 1985, has helped Democratic women reach every level of elected office short of the White House. Now the group is focusing its resources on the one goal that has eluded it. Since soon after President Barack Obama won a second term, Emily's List has been preparing for Clinton to run, convening conversations about electing a woman president, and commissioning polling on Americans' views. But the groundwork goes back even further, to the group's founding three decades ago to support Democratic women running for Senate and to the years it's spent advocating for women in politics. On Tuesday, Clinton will return the favor, delivering the keynote speech at the group's 30th anniversary gala in Washington as she prepares to embark on what people close to her are not shying away from calling an historic campaign. Bookending the significance of her second shot at the presidency, she'll be introduced by Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, the first woman elected to the Senate in her own right, in 1986. “She has a message and we have a mission that are both clearly attuned to what this country seems to be needing right now: more women’s voices speaking for women and families,” said Emily’s List communications director Jess McIntosh. “Not on behalf of special interests. Not the ego-driven Washington dysfunction that we’ve seen.” Back in early 2013, when Clinton's 2016 campaign seemed not as certain as it does in March 2015, Emily's List launched its Madam President initiative with the goal of supporting a Democratic woman in the 2016 race. While the group mentioned then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand as possible candidates, Clinton was the top target. “Let’s be clear: they did that for Hillary,” said Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, a senior adviser to Clinton's 2008 campaign. Emily's List president Stephanie Schriock almost said as much. “I have to say there is one name that seems to be getting mentioned more than others," she told reporters nearly two years ago at the launch of Madam President. “We do not know if Hillary is going to run, but we are hopeful that she may.” Emily's List commissioned polling—conducted by one of the firms that has since signed on to work for Clinton—to make its point, finding that 86 percent of voters in nine battleground states said they believed the United States was ready to elect a woman president, while 72 percent said it was likely that a woman would be elected in 2016. Other polls have found the support to be not quite as strong—especially among Republicans, as it's become clear that Clinton is the woman most likely to get to the presidency first—but there's nonetheless evidence that public opinion has become more supportive of electing a woman just since Clinton's first attempt in 2008. Emily’s List is by no means a newcomer to the Hillary Clinton bandwagon. Clinton drew 1,000 women to the Washington Hilton—the same place where she’ll speak Tuesday—in the spring of 1996 for what the New York Times described as an Emily’s List-organized “pep rally to bolster her spirits” amid the strains of the Whitewater scandal. It endorsed Clinton’s first presidential bid on the same day that she announced the creation of an exploratory committee and backed Clinton in her 2000 Senate campaign. “And our members were fans of hers long before that,” McIntosh said. The group's staff is also deeply entangled with Clinton. Schriock was often discussed as a possible campaign manager before Clinton decided to go with Robby Mook. Instead, she’ll stay at Emily’s List and manage the group’s interactions with the campaign, a role clarified last week when she left the board of Priorities USA, the super-PAC that aims to be the largest outside group supporting Clinton. Denise Feriozzi, who is heading up independent expenditures as Emily’s List’s political director, will take Schriock’s place on the board. While Feriozzi won’t be directly working with the Clinton team to avoid running afoul of campaign-finance laws, she has deep connections in the Clinton network and is steeped in its values, since she worked for the 2008 campaign in Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Executive director Jess O’Connell knows Hillaryland well, too—she was national director of operations for Clinton in 2007 and 2008. Emily’s List founder Ellen Malcolm was a national co-chair of Clinton’s 2008 campaign and hasn't shied away from supporting the 2016 bid, throwing her support behind Ready for Hillary two years ago. “I've seen—we've all seen—how smart, tough, resilient and caring Hillary is. I've been ready for Hillary to be president for decades,” she said then. There are no official ties between Emily's List and Ready for Hillary, but the two organizations have, along with American Bridge and Priorities USA, made up much of the organized effort to prepare for Clinton to run. Ready for Hillary will dissolve once Clinton announces her candidacy and, at that point, much of the organization will be absorbed within Emily's List. “We want to make sure the assets built by Hillary's supporters, such as a robust social media presence, are not lost when Ready for Hillary shuts down,” spokesman Seth Bringman said. The group plans to cease operations as soon as Clinton enters the race. While a decision hasn’t been finalized, the group is considering transferring its social media accounts—including a Facebook page with almost 2.2 million likes and a Twitter account with 143,000 followers—to Emily's List. It also aims to go through the complex legal process of transferring its e-mail list of more than 3 million to the official Clinton apparatus. “Emily's List shares our grassroots approach and our goal of making history in 2016, so transferring our social media accounts to them would make perfect sense,” Bringman said. In the meantime, Ready for Hillary is continuing to organize and fundraise, in part by seizing on Clinton's speech to Emily's List. It’s bought tables at Tuesday night’s gala and has asked members to organize house parties to watch the speech. The group is also hosting a pre-speech call featuring former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, the co-chair of Priorities USA. This time, Hillary will run as a woman (CNN) By Donna Brazile March 1, 2015 CNN After spending much of her 2008 campaign seemingly running away from the fact that she is a woman, Hillary Clinton is showing signs that 2016 is going to be a different story. It seems that Hillary has found her outer woman, which is to say, she's found the person that she wants to present on the campaign trail, and that person is resolutely female. This time she seems to have decided to fully embrace her womanhood as an asset in her quest for the White House and to trust that the voters will do the same. Of course, Hillary hasn't officially announced that she will be running for president -- and Universal Studios has not officially announced that there will be a sequel to the blockbuster "50 Shades of Grey." But it's hard to imagine 2016 happening without both of those things, seeing as how they both have such excellent prospects of success. Hillary recently spoke at a Silicon Valley conference for women in the tech field with the theme of "Lead On." That lent itself nicely to the professional goals of the members of the audience as well as to Hillary's own leadership goals. She spoke of the dearth of women not only in the tech field, but in the ranks of Fortune 500 CEO's. In fact, one recent diversity study found that the major S&P 1500 company boards had more men with the name John, Robert, William, or James on them than women of any name combined. Left unsaid in her speech was any reference to the complete lack of a female occupant of the Oval Office thus far, but the thought could not have been far from anyone's mind, let alone Hillary's. Clinton was comfortable talking at length about her own experiences being pregnant and giving birth while working as a partner in a law firm, and using that as a launching pad to discuss the importance of women in the workforce both here and around the world. And from there she highlighted her own work on behalf of the women of the world as secretary of state. She segued into the discussion of the plight of working middle-class families that will be so central to the 2016 race, and the centrality of women's economic issues to those struggles of the middle-class. From there it was a natural progression to talking about 21st century families and the importance of things such as paid leave. And all of that dovetailed perfectly into closing remarks about the future that revolved naturally around the birth in September of Clinton's first grandchild, Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky. That brought up Hillary's new role as a grandmother, and the perspective it has given her on the future and what needs to be done to guarantee that it's the best possible future. The Silicon Valley address could serve as a template for how Clinton intends to approach her career goals from the vantage point of being a woman seeking her own place in the workforce. In the coming weeks, which serendipitously happen to be part of Women's History Month, Hillary's speaking schedule is heavy with events and gatherings that center around women. If she's not running for president, then she could be gearing up to get a talk show on the Lifetime network. All of which stands in stark contrast to Hillary's last presidential campaign. In 2008, she seemed to think that she had to reassure voters that a woman could be president, primarily by not accentuating the fact that she was a woman. This time around, there seems to be a shared assumption that, of course, a woman would make an excellent president, in part simply by virtue of being a woman. In that previous campaign, Hillary ran as the most experienced candidate, primarily to draw a distinction between herself and her relatively less experienced challenger, Barack Obama. But now, almost eight years later, Clinton can let her experience speak for itself. She has more of it -- almost too much, from one perspective: She'll be 69 by the time the 2016 election takes place. So this time instead of highlighting her experience, she's highlighting the experiences she has in common with the women, mothers and grandmothers out there. Of course, Hillary's message will have to resonate beyond female voters. Fortunately, the dynamics of the 21st century economy and the place of the family within it lend themselves to a family-friendly feminism. We live in a society where women are necessary breadwinners whose income is counted upon for families to make it. Gender pay equality and supportive work environments benefit spouses, children, extended families and entire communities. Today, feminism, family and economic issues intertwine like never before. Hillary's stressing of the importance of women's workplace issues both to the family and to the struggles of the middle-class puts the Republicans on the defensive as they try to co-opt middle-class economic issues. Potential GOP presidential candidates are already trying to position themselves to steal the thunder of the Democratic nominee when it comes to issues of wage inequality and middle-class stagnation. But how exactly do they propose to reinvigorate a middle-class that is overwhelmingly composed of families with two wage-earners if they don't fight for women's workplace issues? For instance, child care may be thought of as a woman's issue, but it's really a family issue, virtually by definition, and an economic issue on top of that. Among topics that are sometimes seen as more traditional women's issues such as family planning, access to birth control and the right to choose, Hillary has the advantage in that she can make her stance clear, based on her life experiences as a woman. It's the Republicans with extremist views on these issues who have to dance around their real beliefs and avoid making outrageous and absurd statements such as embarrassing pronouncements about rape and pregnancy. If Hillary seems more comfortable running as a woman, it's partly because society at large seems more comfortable with a populist-tinged feminism than it was in 2008. Patricia Arquette's Oscar night speech in support of equal pay for women -- although predictably dismissed by right-wing media such as Fox News -- was enthusiastically received by the public in general. In fact, far from being thought radical, Arquette's statements backstage were thoroughly deconstructed by the left for not being progressively correct enough. Women have been steadily making strides in the years since Hillary's 2008 campaign, and as they did, they smoothed the way for one of their own to run for the highest office in the land without having to play down her gender. Hillary is now wisely embracing her gender as a way of capturing the same "hope and change" historical quality of Obama's presidency. Voters always want change, and Hillary Clinton has been a constant on the political stage for decades now. She's certainly no stranger to Washington, or to the West Wing of the White House. But electing her president would still represent massive change on a fundamental level. Hillary Clinton wants 2016 to be the Year of the Woman. And she wants to be The Woman. No, gender wage gap is not that wide; Women need to ask for pay raises (USA Today) By Katrina Trinko March 2, 2015 USA Today Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that she wants equal pay for women. In lauding Patricia Arquette for using her acceptance speech as best supporting actress to advocate for women, Clinton said, "We all cheered at Patricia Arquette's speech at the Oscars because she's right. It's time to have wage equality once and for all." But look at the numbers closely and it's clear, no matter how great a talking point wage equality is, that most women and men make about the same amount, when you factor in the industries where they are employed and their years of experience, along with decisions about whether to work part-time or at all when raising children. So what is the wage gap? In 2014, Clinton tweeted, "20 years ago, women made 72 cents on the dollar to men. Today it's still just 77 cents. More work to do. #EqualPay #NoCeilings" Part-time work a factor But that statistic simply doesn't take into account that a female preschool teacher who works part-time by choice won't make anywhere near what a male scientist who works full-time does. And no one should know how these factors matter better than Hillary Clinton, who paid her own female Senate staffers 72 cents on the dollar, according to a February analysis by the conservative Washington Free Beacon. Presumably, Clinton would attribute that wage gap to the differences in the roles between the staffers, not to sexism on her part. In fact, a 2009 Labor Department report found that the real gender wage gap was about 5 cents per dollar. Of course, 5 cents on the dollar isn't acceptable. But it's not clear that it's discrimination at work or that this is a situation politicians such as Clinton should seek to involve the government in. One factor could be women's reluctance to ask for raises. Pay increase angst A 2014 survey by Glamour found that 43% of women had asked for a raise in their current job vs. 54% of men, and only 39% had asked for more than the amount offered -- again, vs. 54% of men. That's a problem. It's not easy to ask for a raise -- and I remember my first time asking for a raise as an excruciatingly stressful and unpleasant experience. I wanted my boss to just simply recognize my good work and give me a raise. I felt humiliated and weird about having to aggressively make the case for my own work's merit. But I did it -- and got a raise. Women do need to close the last of the gap. They should also continue to work toward top leadership positions, in which women are routinely significantly outnumbered by men. But personal initiative, not politicians' interference, is the way forward. Will the Clinton Foundation Come to Haunt Hillary? (Bloomberg) By David Knowles March 1, 2015 Bloomberg Hillary Clinton's political enemies believe they may have finally located her Achilles' Heel. In the days following a Washington Post report that the Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments while Clinton served as secretary of state, and that a $500,000 contribution from the government of Algeria potentially violated an ethics agreement with the Obama White House, criticism of the Democratic presidential frontrunner has been pointed, especially from her would-be Republican rivals. On Sunday, former Texas Governor Rick Perry framed the issue as one of trust. “Are you going to trust an individual who has taken that much money from a foreign source? Where’s your loyalty?” Perry told CNN’s Dana Bash. “I’m really concerned, not just going forward, but what has been received at the Clinton Foundation over the course of years and how that affects this individual’s judgment.” At last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, the Clinton Foundation donations rose to the top of the list in terms of Hillary attack lines. “Mrs. Clinton, name an accomplishment. And in the meantime, please explain why we should accept that the millions and millions of dollars that have flowed into the Clinton Global Initiative from foreign governments do not represent a conflict of interest,” prospective GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina declared. "We could have had Hillary here, but we couldn't find a foreign nation to foot the bill," joked Senator Ted Cruz. On social media, Clinton's foes have been hammering the former secretary of state over the donations. The criticism was not just from those hoping to see Clinton go down to defeat in the 2016 election. California Democratic Representative Jane Harmann called the failure to disclose the donations "troubling." “Yes, there was a process set up. All of the other contributions were reviewed, as I understand it. There was transparency. This was an unsolicited donation of $500,000 at a time when U.S. was deluged with help for Haiti,' Harman said on Fox News Sunday. "I guess it got lost in the system. I think it needs to be explained. I don’t understand why the money wasn’t returned, or after the fact, approval wasn’t sought.” In a statement released last week, the Clinton Foundation admitted its error with Algerian donation. “Immediately following the devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010, the Embassy of Algeria made an unsolicited donation of $500K to [the] Clinton Foundation Haiti Relief fund,” a foundation spokesman said in a statement issued Wednesday. “This donation was disclosed publicly on the Clinton Foundation website, however, the State Department should have also been formally informed. This was a one-time, specific donation to help Haiti and Algeria had not donated to the Clinton Foundation before and has not since.” Hillary Clinton, however, has yet to speak publicly on the matter. As to whether foreign government donations to her family foundation should preclude her from becoming president, as they might result in influence-peddling, initial investigations, including one by the Wall Street Journal, have yet to turn up any evidence of illegality. Clinton's supporters, meanwhile, are brushing the criticisms aside, citing the work the charity does. "If the biggest attack on Hillary's going to be that she raised too much money for her charity, okay, I'll take that," Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe told the Washington Post. "No one's alleging anything beyond that she raised money and people gave her money and foreign governments gave her money. At the end of the day, that's fine. It went to a charity. It helped a lot of people." On its website, the Clinton Foundation also seemed to be preparing for what seems like Clinton's inevitable White House run. "Should Secretary Clinton decide to run for office, we will continue to ensure the Foundation's policies and practices regarding support from international partners are appropriate, just as we did when she served as Secretary of State," a statement read. Rick Perry Questions Hillary Clinton’s Ethical Judgment (Washington Post) By Jose A. DelReal March 1, 2015 The Washington Post Former Texas governor Rick Perry is raising questions about Hillary Clinton’s ethical judgment after reports that her family’s foundation received millions of dollars from foreign governments during her tenure as secretary of state. “Are you going to trust an individual who has taken that much money from a foreign source? Where’s your loyalty?” Perry, who is considering a 2016 White House bid, told CNN’s Dana Bash in an interview airing Sunday. “I’m really concerned, not just going forward, but what has been received at the Clinton Foundation over the course of years and how that affects this individual’s judgment.” A Washington Post report last week revealed that the Clinton Foundation — which is a philanthropic organization — accepted donations from seven foreign governments. At least one of the donations reportedly violated an ethics agreement between Clinton and the Obama administration. “It’s not only the appearance of impropriety. It’s also the ethical side of this that, I think, most Americans really have a problem with,” Perry said. Perry also addressed a small dust-up between himself and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who appeared to compare labor protesters in the United States to Islamic State terrorists during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday. Responding to the remarks, Perryt old MSNBC that the comparison was “inappropriate.” During the CNN interview Sunday, however, the former Texas governor said he accepted Walker’s explanation. “I think the initial response when I heard that: ‘That’s not right. You don’t make that connect.’ The governor has gone back and clarified his remarks since then and clearly said that’s not what he was talking about,” Perry said. “I respect that clarification and support him on that.” Rick Perry Questions Hillary’s ‘loyalty’ (MSNBC) By Jane C. Timm March 1, 2015 MSNBC Following a weekend full of conservative attacks on Hillary Clinton at the Conservative Political Action Conference, former Texas Governor Rick Perry added to the list, questioning the former secretary of state’s “loyalty” in an interview that aired Sunday. Responding to news that the Clinton foundation had not notified the State Department when it previously accepted a donation from a foreign nation, Perry argued that Clinton was disloyal. “I think it falls flat in the face of the American people when it comes to, are you going to trust an individual who has taken that much money from a foreign source? Where’s your loyalty?” Perry said in an interview that aired on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The donation – from Algeria – was for $500,000 and came right after the Haiti earthquake. All of the funds were distributed for relief there. The Clinton Foundation is a nonprofit that focuses on issues like economic and leadership development and health security. Since 2010, they’ve raised a total of $36 million for Haiti efforts. “Are you going to trust an individual who has taken that much money from a foreign source?” Perry asked. The foundation acknowledged they should have alerted officials about the donation from the country. “As the Clinton Foundation did with all donations it received for earthquake relief, the entire amount of Algeria’s contribution was distributed as aid in Haiti,” the statement said. “This donation was disclosed publicly on the Clinton Foundation website, however, the State Department should have also been formally informed.” But Perry said Americans will question this. “I’m really concerned that – not just going forward—but what has been received at the Clinton Foundation over the course of the years and how that affects this individual’s judgment,” Perry said. Perry is actively exploring a second presidential bid; he joined the crowded Republican field and spoke at this weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference, but Perry barely registered on the event’s straw poll, earning just 1.1% of the votes. Dem: I’m troubled by Hillary donation controversy (The Hill) By Rebecca Shabad March 1, 2015 The Hill Former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said Sunday that’s she troubled by the Clinton Foundation’s failure to disclose foreign donations it accepted while Hillary Clinton was still secretary of State. On “Fox News Sunday,” Harman was asked whether the latest reports bother her. “Yes, there was a process set up. All of the other contributions were reviewed, as I understand it. There was transparency. This was an unsolicited donation of $500,000 at a time when U.S. was deluged with help for Haiti. I guess it got lost in the system. I think it needs to be explained. I don’t understand why the money wasn’t returned, or after the fact, approval wasn’t sought.” The Clinton Foundation recently admitted that it had received an unsolicited donation of $500,000 for its Haiti earthquake relief fund from the Algerian government in 2010. “I think the appearance of what is happening is poor,” said Harman, who serves as president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Harman said it’s okay for foreign governments to give limited amounts of money to groups as long as it’s disclosed. Clinton is expected to run for president next year and would be considered the Democratic frontrunner. Hillary Clinton Already Is a Brand (Bloomberg) By Albert Hunt March 1, 2015 Bloomberg View Hillary Clinton has enlisted a Coca-Cola marketing whiz to help brand her expected presidential campaign. This is quintessential Clinton. The most politically savvy couple in America has a penchant for seeking out the latest shiny toy, a magic bullet to make everything work. By many accounts, the Coca-Cola executive, Wendy Clark, is able. She has worked closely with Roy Spence, a longtime Clinton ally. But more than branding or marketing, it'll be experience, ideas, vision and character that will determine the success of Clinton's presidential quest. The Clintons usually don't do well when they lose sight of that. Their most infamous miscalculation of this kind was in late 1994, when in the depths of Bill Clinton's presidency, the couple secretly turned to a political consultant named Dick Morris to fix things. He came up with a bunch of small bore issues and then told the press Clinton would run as a moral guide for the country. This recasting had little bearing on Clinton's re-election in 1996. In any case, Morris wasn't around to enjoy that triumph: He had to step down after he was found to have hosted a call girl in a Washington hotel room paid for by the Clinton campaign, and had let his companion listen to his conversations with the president. There are plenty of other examples, though they are more benign. After a rocky start in the White House, Bill Clinton enlisted a smart veteran Republican, David Gergen, as a cure-all. It was mismatch from the get-go. The Clintons later turned to self-help promoter and motivational pitchman Tony Robbins. This time around, there are reports that Hillary Clinton was ecstatic when pollster Joel Benenson joined her probable team, believing that he would bring the secret formula that helped catapult Barack Obama. Benenson is very capable, but he didn't perform magic and he isn't any better than Geoff Garin, who was Clinton's pollster in 2008. In fact, the former secretary of state has already made her most important hire: John Podesta, the veteran Democratic operative, who will be her campaign chairman. He is the Democrats' equivalent of Jim Baker -- the legendary Republican in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations -- with unsurpassed judgment and potentially the ability to bring order to the unwieldy Clinton constellation and talk to the candidate, and her spouse, as a semi-peer. Podesta appreciates the need to bring in fresh faces such as Benenson and maybe Clark. One of the flaws of the 2008 Clinton campaign was its insularity. Another major -- and even bigger -- shortcoming was that she followed the advice of chief strategist Mark Penn for her to run as a tough commander-in-chief who supported the Iraq War. The tactic, which de-emphasized her gender, was a misreading of the times. Obama, who defeated her, understood that. There have been many reports that this time, Hillary Clinton will strongly stress women's issues and the gender angle. She's been a feminist her entire adult life; the only difficulty here would be if the effort looks too contrived. All campaigns adapt or tweak their pitch to meet political realities. In 2008, Obama didn't really oppose gay marriage, and one wonders if Jeb Bush really believes the Iraq War was such a noble undertaking, as he suggested in a recent speech in Chicago. Clinton will also adjust. But as she tries to convey a vision for governing, she's going to have to run as who she is: smart, if not especially innovative; disciplined; experienced in the ways of Washington and the world; hawkish on national security (witness her leading role in the military intervention in Libya in 2011, and her support for the Iraq War in 2002); and moderately liberal on domestic issues with a bit of a soft spot for Wall Street. No amount of rebranding will change those basics. For Hillary and Bibi, a long and sometimes fraught relationship (Washington Post) By Anne Gearan March 1, 2015 Washington Post JERUSALEM — The phone call between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lasted 45 minutes. For 43 of them, she talked and he listened. The U.S. secretary of state lectured the Israeli leader, accusing him of trying to do an end run around American opposition to settlement-building and embarrassing Vice President Biden during a visit to Israel, according to interviews with people present during the 2010 call or who were briefed on it afterward. She read from a script for part of the lecture, so as not to miss any key points. “The word ‘humiliation’ appeared very prominently,” recalled Michael Oren, then the Israeli ambassador in Washington. “As in ‘You have humiliated the United States of America.’ ” There probably aren’t many times in Netanyahu’s professional life when he has listened to anyone for 43 minutes. Netanyahu prefers to do the lecturing, as he will Tuesday when he addresses a joint meeting of Congress over the objections of the Obama administration. And there aren’t many people who could make Netanyahu sit still for a tongue-lashing. Clinton is one of them. “I was often the designated yeller,” Clinton said last year. Should Clinton win the presidency in 2016, her long and complicated history with Netanyahu will enter a new phase. If Netan­yahu survives an election this month, the same issues that cloud the U.S.-Israel relationship now — negotiations with the Palestinians and a disagreement over outreach to Iran that turned sharply bitter over Netanyahu’s Tuesday address — will almost certainly still fester. From Netanhayu’s perspective, Clinton would be an improvement over President Obama, who has all but washed his hands of an Israeli leader he finds overbearing, Israeli officials and observers said in interviews here. But there is also little doubt that Netanyahu would prefer a more hawkish Republican in the White House, these observers said. The question is how brazenly he will make that preference known, as he did in 2012 when he was widely perceived as sup­porting Obama’s GOP opponent, Mitt Romney. Clinton hosted Netanyahu at the White House as first lady, and their relationship grew more substantive when she was a reliable pro-Israel voice in the Senate and dispenser of tough love to the Israeli government during Obama’s first term. As secretary of state, Clinton defended Israeli security demands and sharply criticized settlement policies. On orders from the White House, she demanded a total freeze of settlement expansion — a demand that made Netanyahu livid. She also praised him publicly for taking “unprecedented” steps toward peace, defended Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip in 2012 and nudged Netanyahu into a cease-fire with old-fashioned shuttle diplomacy. “I learned that Bibi would fight if he felt he was being cornered, but if you connected with him as a friend, there was a chance you could get something done together,” Clinton wrote in her State Department memoir last year. The speech fracas That chance appears remote now, at the nadir of Netanyahu’s relationship with the Obama administration. The White House considers the Israeli leader’s address to Congress partisan meddling intended to sink a potential nuclear deal with Iran. Democrats complain it is another example of Netanyahu’s undisguised preference for Republicans, and many plan to boycott. Netanyahu is speaking at the invitation of the Republican-led Congress. Netanyahu says he has no choice, because the emerging deal leaves Israel exposed to a potential nuclear strike. “I respect the White House and the U.S. president. But on a serious subject, it’s my duty to do everything for Israel’s security,” Netanyahu said at a campaign rally last week. The speech reflects an utter break between Netanyahu and Obama. In bypassing the White House and scheduling Tuesday’s speech just before Israelis vote in a national election, Netanyahu had “injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate,” national security adviser Susan E. Rice said on PBS last week, “I think it’s destructive of the fabric of the relationship.” Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who succeeded Clinton as secretary of state in 2013, sought to play down any tensions Sunday, however. “We have an unparalleled close security relationship with Israel, and we will continue to,” Kerry said on ABC’s “This Week.” The U.S. critiques are being delivered indirectly now, in contrast with the 2010 Clinton phone call. Netanyahu will not see Obama, Biden or Kerry during his brief visit to Washington. The White House has offered a diplomatic fig leaf, saying it would be unseemly to host Netanyahu so close to the March 17 elections. Netanyahu is not likely to cross paths with Clinton either, although she is delivering a speech in Washington on Tuesday evening. Netanyahu is also addressing a gathering of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Monday. Clinton, a frequent speaker in years past, will not address the group. She has said nothing about the controversy surrounding Netanyahu’s congressional speech but is on the record as strongly supporting the Obama administration’s approach to negotiating with Iran. The goal of international talks now nearing a deadline this month is a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program and ensure it cannot be quickly converted to bomb-making. Clinton told an audience in Canada in January that the talks, initiated by secret contacts during her tenure as top diplomat, would be damaged by any new Iran sanctions applied by Congress. Wary respect Clinton’s tough line with Netanyahu was born of a two­-decades-old acquaintance built on wary respect and a shared sense that each can do business with the other. Their relationship did not seem to suffer from the rougher patches during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, officials said. Clinton and Netanyahu made a point of showing no hard feelings when Clinton visited Israel just two months after the March 2010 settlement debacle and telephonic dressing-down. Clinton quotes Netanyahu from his brief portion of that phone call in her 2014 State Department memoir, “Hard Choices.” “Let me assure you and the president that the timing was entirely unintentional and unfortunate,” she said Netanyahu told her. “I didn’t enjoy playing the bad cop, but it was part of the job,” Clinton wrote. The longtime Likud leader and the likely Democratic presidential contender have sparred and made up enough times to regard one another as worthy adversaries, U.S. and Israeli officials and former officials said. They are familiar with one another in public — she calls him “Bibi.” He calls her “Hillary.” But they are not close personal friends. “Her relationship with him is very bad, just not as toxic as Obama’s,” said Alon Pinkas, who was Israel’s consul general in New York when Clinton was a pro-Israel senator from New York. “As much as it is replete with dislikes and misunderstandings, the relationship has the potential to succeed” if both politicians face one another as national leaders in 2017, Pinkas added. “I suspect it won’t, because he can’t help himself.” Many other observers, including Israeli and U.S. officials who would not speak for the record, described the relationship in more optimistic terms. “They have a long relationship of mutual intellectual respect,” Oren said. “They both are very, very smart people, and people of very strong physical stamina.” Other similarities: ambition, determination and a shared declaration that the bond between their two nations may stretch thin at times but will never break. In her memoir, Clinton calls Netanyahu a “complicated figure” whose hawkish views were shaped by his military and family experiences. “Despite our policy differences, Netanyahu and I worked together as partners and friends. We argued frequently, often during phone calls that would go on for over an hour, sometimes two. But even when we disagreed, we maintained an unshakable commitment to the alliance between our countries,” Clinton wrote. When Clinton was first lady and Netanyahu was the opposition Likud leader and then prime minister, she and then-President Bill Clinton chafed at Netanyahu’s perceived cozy relationship with the Clintons’ adversaries. His Republican contacts included then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and evangelical leader Ralph Reed. For his part, Netanyahu was outraged in 1999 when Hillary Clinton sat by as Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yas­ser Arafat’s wife, Suha, accused Israel of poisoning Palestinians and then closed their joint appearance with an embrace. Clinton and Netanyahu dealt with one another occasionally during the years Clinton was in the Senate and Netanyahu held two cabinet posts. He returned as prime minister in 2009, the year that Clinton — having lost the 2008 Democratic presidential nominating contest — joined Obama’s Cabinet as secretary of state. Netanyahu has been the top Israeli leader for all but a few months of the Obama administration, and he called early elections in anticipation of keeping the job. Although opposition figure Isaac Herzog leads slightly in national polls, Netanyahu has the better chance of forming a government, Israeli and U.S. officials said. Clinton became the chief public voice for the administration’s insistence on a settlement freeze in 2009, despite her misgivings that it set too high a bar for Israel. Although viewed as friendlier to Israeli security arguments than Obama, she never wavered from the administration line in her dealings with Netanyahu, U.S. and Israeli officials said. “There was no wink and a nod, no ‘This is what we’re asking, but I really think something different,’ ” said one official who was present in many of their meetings. Netanyahu rejected the U.S. position out of hand, however, and in her book, Clinton called the U.S. position misguided. “In retrospect, our early hard line on settlements didn’t work,” she wrote. Under pressure from Clinton and U.S. envoy George J. Mitchell, Netanyahu adopted a partial, time-limited freeze to help set the tone for talks. A 10-month moratorium went into effect in late 2009, but it did not lead to productive or sustained negotiations. Clinton jawboned Netanyahu for more than five hours to extend the moratorium during a meeting in New York in September 2010. Although he eventually agreed, Netanyahu could not sell the extension to his cabinet and the moratorium expired. The Palestinian peace issue largely languished for the remainder of Obama’s first term. Kerry resumed an intensive push for a settlement that fell apart nearly a year ago despite his long association with Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Possible future partners If Netanyahu and Obama have written off hopes for their relationship during Obama’s nearly two years left in office, Netanyahu may see brighter prospects for the next president. Netanyahu’s Likud party is ideologically close to traditional Republican policy positions, and Netanyahu has not been shy about his connections to Republicans including Romney, an old friend from Netanyahu’s years living in the United States. None of the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls appears likely to try to muscle Netanyahu on the Palestinian issue, and many of them share his doubts on the potential Iran deal. Netanyahu posted a Twitter message thanking likely Republican presidential contender Jeb Bush for supporting his Iran speech. “You’re welcome Mr. Prime Minister, I’m anxious to hear what you have to say!” replied the former Florida governor. Should Clinton win the White House, however, she and Netanyahu would probably forge an efficient bond, U.S. and Israeli observers said. “I’d bet that under either a third Bush or a second Clinton, things might not be great between the United States and Netanyahu, but they would be better than they are right now,” Wilson Center Mideast scholar Aaron David Miller wrote last week in Foreign Policy. The Iran deal at issue now is likely to be resolved before the 2016 election, but not the underlying fear for Israelis that Iran remains what Netanyahu calls an “existential” threat next door. Clinton is on record voicing much the same concern, along with doubts that Iran would abide by any deal it struck. If a deal is signed, Clinton would carry it forward but would probably also find ways to reassure Netanyahu that the United States will not be hoodwinked. And unless the West Bank security and political situation deteriorates rapidly or Netanyahu severely overplays his hand on settlements, a President Hillary Clinton would be unlikely to push Netanyahu very far on a peace settlement, U.S. and Israeli observers said. A prevailing view among Mideast watchers is that the next big U.S. peace push would probably wait for a different Israeli leader. “She will keep good relations with Netanyahu if he gives her a semblance of movement, and they can all kick the can together,” said a senior Israeli official who requested anonymity because Netanyahu has not yet secured another term. “Hillary can’t afford to fight Netanyahu unless she has a smoking gun, and he’s too smart to give her a smoking gun.” American right unholsters surest shot against Hillary (The Sunday Times) By Toby Harnden March 1, 2015 The Sunday Times SHE has shattered glass ceilings throughout her career, showing herself able to rise to the top in a man's world, and now seems poised to try to win the most powerful job in the world. But the neatly dressed blonde who wowed a raucous crowd inside a convention centre outside Washington was not Hillary Clinton, the Democratic favourite for the White House in 2016, but rather Carly Fiorina, the first woman to lead a company in the Fortune 20 liist of the biggest US businesses. Fiorina has cleverly positioned herself as the "anti-Hillary", the only woman in a Republican field of more than a dozen men and the candidate most prepared to mount relentless attacks on the former US secretary of state — including a few that a male opponent might struggle to get away with. A former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina, 60, has never held political office and failed in her 2010 attempt to win a Senate seat in California. While this may make her an unlikely Republican nominee, conservative activists are tipping her as a possible vicepresidential pick, not least because she could help neutralise Clinton. Preferring skirts to her rival's trademark trouser suits, she spoke last week at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland, and served up plenty of red meat for party activists hungry for ideas about how to defeat Clinton. Presenting herself as a freemarket conservative and foreign policy hawk, Fiorina boasted of having done business in more than 80 countries and of serving for several years on the advisory board of the CIA. She spoke of knowing King Abdullah of Jordan and Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. "I have met Vladimir Putin, and I know that his ambition will not be deterred by a gimmicky red 'reset' button," she said, referring to her talks with the Russian president at an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation event in China and the ill-fated "reset" in relations with the Kremlin announced by Clinton in 2009. She also mocked Clinton — the Democrat frontrunner due to declare her candidacy by the summer— for boasting that she flew nearly 1m miles during her four years as secretary of state. "Like Mrs Clinton, I too have travelled the globe," Fiorina said. "Unlike Mrs Clinton, I know that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment." Fiorina lambasted Clinton over foreign donations to her family foundation. "Mrs Clinton, please name an accomplishment," Fiorina demanded. "And in the meantime, please explain why we should accept that the millions and millions of dollars that have flowed into the Clinton Global Initiative from foreign governments doesn't represent a conflict of interest." Fiorina, who first emerged on the political scene as an adviser to Senator John McCain when he was the Republican nominee in 2008, showed a softer side too, talking of her battle with cancer and her stepdaughter's death. She seems to have got under the skin of the Clinton camp, which has bristled at suggestions their candidate copied the title of her 2014 book Hard Choices from Fiorina's 2007 memoir Tough Choices. Last week Clinton aides were forced to deny claims she had stolen the phrase "unlock their full potential" from Fiorina, whose organisation is the Unlocking Potential Project. After Fiorina's speech the Democratic National committee sent out emails linking to articles criticising Fiorina's tenure at Hewlett-Packard. "Carly Fiorina lacks Secretary Clinton's resumé when it comes to serving and empowering working families and middle-class Americans," wrote Adrienne Elrod, of Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton group. "Hillary's resumé is one of success and this is why Ms Fiorina attacks Hillary and her work to protect children and help every American reach their potential." The CPAC was an opportunity for the full range of potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates to set out their wares. Jeb Bush, the early frontrunner, was credited with a deft performance in front of an audience containing many who viewed him as suspiciously moderate. Senator Rand Paul, a libertarian running against the party establishment, was expected to win the CPAC straw poll for the third year in a row; an outcome, his opponents groused, that was down in large part to his favouring legalising marijuana for medical use — a reform backed by the young activists who dominate the gathering.