Correct The Record Friday December 19, 2014 Morning Roundup

From:burns.strider@americanbridge.org To: CTRFriendsFamily@americanbridge.org Date: 2014-12-19 11:23 Subject: Correct The Record Friday December 19, 2014 Morning Roundup

*​**Correct The Record Friday December 19, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Reuters: “With Cuba Decision, Obama Hands Hillary Clinton A 2016 Gift” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/obama-hillary-clinton_n_6351860.html>* “Democrats argue that Clinton's embrace of Obama on Cuba could help her with Latino voters, especially younger ones in the key state of Florida, who are less inclined than their elders to be virulently opposed to the Cuban government.” *Bloomberg View: Josh Rogin: “Hillary Clinton Secretly Pushed Cuba Deal for Years” <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-18/hillary-clinton-secretly-pushed-cuba-deal-for-years>* “Although President Barack Obama is taking the credit for Wednesday’s historic deal to reverse decades of U.S. policy toward Cuba, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she was the main architect of the new policy and pushed far harder for a deal than the Obama White House. *Politico: “The tortoise and the hare” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-2016-113682.html>* “On one level, the distraction of another big name receiving the 2016 media klieg light treatment was a welcome development for Clinton. But Bush’s decision to plow ahead also highlights Clinton’s comparatively slow walk and relative caution as she approaches the starting line.” *Bloomberg Businessweek: “Clinton, Democrats Can’t Find Consensus to Beat Jeb Bush” <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-18/clinton-democrats-can-t-find-consensus-to-beat-jeb-bush#p1>* "Yet at the same time, the Democratic super-PAC American Bridge released a Web video replete with clips of Republican commentators and news reporters saying Bush will struggle to win over conservatives." *The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Clinton spokesman: '16 campaign would be 'different' than '08” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/227575-clinton-spokesman-16-campaign-would-be-different-than-08>* “A Hillary Clinton spokesman says that if the former secretary of State launches a presidential bid, her campaign will be different than it was in 2008, when many criticized the way it was run.” *Wall Street Journal: “Amid Warren’s Rise, a Democratic Split Becomes Apparent” <http://www.wsj.com/articles/amid-warrens-rise-a-democratic-split-becomes-apparent-1418936408>* “One question hanging over the party is what economic policy Mrs. Clinton would propose should she run for president, and whether she would cast herself in Mrs. Warren’s populist mode or adopt a more centrist, business-friendly stance. Much of Mrs. Clinton’s career suggests she would take the latter course.” *Bloomberg: “Is the Draft Warren Campaign a Piece of Progressive Performance Art?” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-12-18/is-the-draft-warren-campaign-a-piece-of-progressive-performance-art>* “Tweets sent, mission accomplished–whatever the mission might be.” *MSNBC: “Keith Ellison: ‘I would love to see Elizabeth Warren’ run” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/keith-ellison-i-would-love-see-elizabeth-warren-run>* “Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Thursday night that he hopes Sen. Elizabeth Warren runs for president in 2016.” *National Journal: “Carly Fiorina Hiring for Presidential Campaign” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/carly-fiorina-hiring-for-presidential-campaign-20141218>* “The former Hewlett-Packard CEO, who raised her political profile with a failed run against Sen. Barbara Boxer of California in 2010, has frequently been mentioned as a long-shot contender to seek the Republican presidential nomination.” *Articles:* *Reuters: “With Cuba Decision, Obama Hands Hillary Clinton A 2016 Gift” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/obama-hillary-clinton_n_6351860.html>* By Steve Holland December 18, 2014, 9:06 p.m. EST WASHINGTON, Dec 18 (Reuters) - Potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton knows a political gift when she sees one. She was quick to embrace the step this week when President Barack Obama, a fellow Democrat no longer having to face an electorate, relaxed U.S. policy toward Cuba. While assailed by Republicans opposed to restoring ties with the communist-led island, the action has the power to solidify support for Democrats among increasingly influential Latino voters and appeal to voters in farm states like Iowa eager to do business in Havana. Obama's unilateral move has gently shaken up the 2016 race to succeed him, exposing divisions among Republicans and possibly helping Democrats already buoyed by his decision to liberalize immigration policy. Potential contenders Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio adhered to the traditional Republican hard line on Cuba and sharply criticized Obama. But Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who has a libertarian streak, backed the new policy. A likely White House candidate, Paul told a West Virginia radio station that the 50-year-old embargo with Cuba "just hasn't worked." Clinton, Obama's former secretary of state, also had asserted the previous policy was not working. In her memoir, "Hard Choices," she wrote that she urged Obama to shift. She welcomed the change in a statement on Wednesday. Democrats argue that Clinton's embrace of Obama on Cuba could help her with Latino voters, especially younger ones in the key state of Florida, who are less inclined than their elders to be virulently opposed to the Cuban government. Of America's 1.5-million-strong Cuban-American population, about 80 percent live in Florida. "I think it'll help her with the younger folks," Democratic strategist Bud Jackson said of Clinton. Latinos already like what they see in Clinton. A Telemundo/NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found on Thursday that 61 percent of Latinos see themselves supporting Clinton in 2016, 11 points more than the general population. MORE OF A PLUS The Cuba shift could also prove popular among those dependent on America's agricultural businesses, major hotels and even sports fans who enjoy watching the best Cuban players make it to Major League Baseball. "The political calculation has to be that this is more of a plus for a candidate for president than a minus," said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. A Reuters/Ipsos poll of more than 31,000 adults between July and October showed Americans largely open to forging diplomatic relations with Cuba. About one-fifth opposed such a move, while 43 percent backed it and around 37 percent were unsure. But there are potential pitfalls for Clinton. She will need to stake out some positions of her own or risk criticism that she simply represents the third term of a president who is saddled with a 40 percent approval rating. In their 2008 battle for the Democratic presidential nomination that Obama won, Clinton accused him of being "naive" for offering to meet leaders of such renegade nations as Cuba without conditions. Since flirting with a presidential race, Clinton for the most part has chosen not to separate herself from Obama other than to question his decision not to arm Syrian rebels, as her memoir reveals. Lanhee Chen, a Hoover Institution scholar who advised Republican Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential bid, said if Clinton is "trying to draw some distance from the president's foreign policy in some ways, it was not useful to have something where she's perfectly aligned with him." There are also risks for Jeb Bush, a former Florida governor, and Rubio, a Florida senator. In their criticisms of Obama's policy, the two Republicans are aligning themselves with their party's conservative base but their views could appear outdated to moderate voters. "I think it's kind of a blind cul-de-sac for people like Rubio and Bush to get pushed into," said Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, who was Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's campaign manager in 2004. "It reflects a Florida that doesn't exist anymore." (Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Caren Bohan and Howard Goller) *Bloomberg View: Josh Rogin: “Hillary Clinton Secretly Pushed Cuba Deal for Years” <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-18/hillary-clinton-secretly-pushed-cuba-deal-for-years>* By Josh Rogin December 18, 2014, 12:28 p.m. EST Although President Barack Obama is taking the credit for Wednesday’s historic deal to reverse decades of U.S. policy toward Cuba, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she was the main architect of the new policy and pushed far harder for a deal than the Obama White House. From 2009 until her departure in early 2013, Clinton and her top aides took the lead on the sometimes public, often private interactions with the Cuban government. According to current and former White House and State Department officials and several Cuba policy experts who were involved in the discussions, Clinton was also the top advocate inside the government for ending travel and trade restrictions on Cuba and reversing 50 years of U.S. policy to isolate the Communist island nation. Repeatedly, she pressed the White House to move faster and faced opposition from cautious high-ranking White House officials. After Obama announced the deal Wednesday, which included the release of aid contractor Alan Gross, Clinton issued a supportive statement distributed by the National Security Council press team. “As Secretary of State, I pushed for his release, stayed in touch with Alan’s wife Judy and their daughters, and called for a new direction in Cuba," she said. "Despite good intentions, our decades-long policy of isolation has only strengthened the Castro regime's grip on power.” Yet Clinton played down her own role in the issue, which will surely become important if she decides to run for president. Top prospective Republican candidates, including Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have all come out against the president’s policy shift. Clinton’s advocacy on behalf of opening a new relationship with Cuba began almost as soon as she came into office. Obama had campaigned on a promise to engage enemies, but the White House initially was slow to make good on that pledge, and on the Cuba front enacted only a modest relaxation of travel rules. From the start, Clinton pushed to hold Obama to his promise with regard to Cuba. “Hillary Clinton played a very large role,” said Steve Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation who advocated for changes to U.S.-Cuba policy. “The president, when he ran for office and when he came in, thought that doing something on Cuba front would be smart. But as soon as he got into office, though, every other priority hit him.” Obama first met Cuban President Raul Castro in April 2009 at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago and announced he wanted to discuss changes in U.S. policy toward the Havana government. But the president faced criticism when he got back to Washington, also because he had shaken hands with then-Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. “After that experience at the Summit of the Americas, the White House feet had been burned, they basically didn’t do much. The National Security Council didn’t do anything, but the State Department continued to try hard,” Clemons said. After the initial easing of the travel ban, the administration had prepared a second batch of measures to expand travel and trade licenses. But shortly before an expected announcement, the White House got cold feet and shelved the initiative, according to people briefed by the White House. Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee had persuaded White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett to intervene at the last moment. Clinton was displeased but undeterred. “Cuba was on her mind. I know that she raised it a number of times. The White House wasn’t ready to move but she kept that in play,” said Clemons. Arturo Valenzuela was assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs and Clinton’s point man on Cuba at the time. He worked with Ricardo Zuniga, who was the head of the department’s Office of Cuba Affairs, behind the scenes to meet with Cuban officials in 2009, 2010 and 2011 to explore ways to move forward. “There was no question that there was strong support in the State Department for liberalizing some of the restrictions and Secretary Clinton was quite clear about that,” Valenzuela told me. “I asked Zuniga, with the secretary of state’s blessing, to draft some further liberalizations of the travel ban, and that led to a significant shift of the opening up of general licenses.” Clinton also directed Valenzuela to talk personally with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez in New York in October 2010, the highest-level diplomatic meeting of U.S. and Cuban officials ever. But one serious impediment to a grand bargain with the Cuban government remained: the Cubans refused to consider releasing Gross, whom they accused of spying. Nevertheless, throughout 2011, Clinton and her team continued to press the White House to take further steps on Cuba. In early 2011, frustrated by what she saw as resistance from the Obama political advisers as well as the NSC staff, Clinton met personally with the president and nudged him to keep going. “The pushback was coming from the White House staff. The issue was for Hillary to say to Obama, ‘Hey listen, your folks are going too slow on this and we need to move forward on this,’ ” said a former administration official who was involved in those discussions. “There was a lot of reluctance in the White House to do that at the time because of various kinds of domestic problems. If it hadn’t been for the State Department and her leadership, then these reforms might not have happened.” Finally, in 2012, Clinton made one more big push for faster movement to overhaul the relationship. At the Summit of the Americas that April in Cartagena, Colombia, Clinton was repeatedly harangued by Latin Americans leaders about Washington’s insistence that Cuba not be allowed to participate. Clinton was blindsided by the unanimity of this criticism, including such staunch U.S. allies a Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, who had personally pressed Obama on the issue. “It’s evident to me that Cartagena was a wake-up call for then-Secretary Clinton,” said Julia Sweig, a Cuba scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. “She had a head-snapping experience there and came to see the unanimity of the Latin American view such that recovery of American standing in the region really ran through Havana.” After returning to Washington, Clinton directed her head of policy planning, Jake Sullivan, to work up several options to lay out a policy approach and present it to the president. The result was, in essence, what Obama announced Wednesday, a source close to the process said. In June, 2013, after his re-election, Obama made the personal decision to pursue a grand bargain with the Cubans. Talks moved to Canada and were placed in the hands of White House staffers, including Zuniga, who had moved over to the NSC from the State Department. Clinton was gone, but Obama picked up her ball and ran with it. In her book “Hard Choices,” Clinton wrote that she asked Obama to “take another look” at the U.S. embargo on Cuba, which she described as ineffective and harmful to America’s standing across the region. In that sense, she owned up to the position she held while she was in office, even if she didn’t reveal the extent of her involvement. Nobody knows if Cuba will follow the path of countries like Vietnam, where economic engagement has been followed by a degree of political opening, or China, which reaps the benefits of capitalism while maintaining strict domestic repression. Clinton is betting on the former. Either way, if she does run for president in 2016, Republicans can cast the new policy as her policy, not Obama’s. She was a major author of the effort and will rightly be the recipient of the credit, or the blame, depending on what happens in Cuba between now and then. *Politico: “The tortoise and the hare” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-2016-113682.html>* By Maggie Haberman December 18, 2014, 3:51 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] Bush’s bold jump catches Clinton backers by surprise. For months, Hillary Clinton’s allies viewed one Republican as posing a bigger threat to her in a 2016 presidential general election matchup than any other: Jeb Bush. But they believed Bush wouldn’t ultimately take the plunge. Over the last three weeks, however, it’s become clear to people in Clinton’s extended orbit that Bush is not only likely to run but that he’s taking the stage in unabashedly aggressive fashion. On one level, the distraction of another big name receiving the 2016 media klieg light treatment was a welcome development for Clinton. But Bush’s decision to plow ahead also highlights Clinton’s comparatively slow walk and relative caution as she approaches the starting line. It also underscores their vastly different circumstances. Bush needed to send an early signal about his intentions: His party’s primary is shaping up as a crowded parade of sitting and former governors who are approaching donors. Questions persisted about whether Bush wanted to run, but supporters of the former Florida governor say he’s always wanted to; it was just a matter of him and his family reaching a comfort level. As the prohibitive frontrunner in the Democratic field, Clinton has the luxury of taking more time. But some former advisers to President Barack Obama have been vocal about their concerns that she is risking the same mistake she made in 2008 in creating an aura of an “inevitable” candidacy. Bush’s declaration that he’s prepared to stick to his principles at the risk of offending base voters – to “lose the primary to win the general,” as he put it recently – has further heightened the contrast with Clinton. While she continues to weigh whether she wants to launch a second campaign, the risk is that voters could see him as authentic — particularly if holds to his “I won’t bend” approach — as private polling shows Clinton still faces questions about whether she is politically calculating. “What you’re going to get from Jeb is, ‘This is who I am, take it or leave it,’” said Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist who knows Bush. “And that’s what we say we want in our politicians.” He predicted that would be a contrast with Clinton, who is buffeted by backers of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the economic populist calling for reining in big banks. Clinton got tangled up during the midterms in an apparent effort to emulate Warren’s populism during a Massachusetts campaign stop. “We’ve already seen Hillary trying to transform herself into Elizabeth Warren Lite,” Castellanos said. “She is what Republican candidates tried to do last time, which is [practice] finger in the wind, follow the primary voter” politics. Bush is by no means a lock on his party’s nomination in the way Clinton is perceived to be on hers. Few Republicans were openly pledging deference to Bush the way many Democrats have to Clinton. Conservatives have been unswayed by his record while in office and insist he’s a squish who represents the elite. Even some of his supporters privately have wondered whether he will be like his brother or like former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, the media darling of 2011 who flamed out soon after declaring. Beyond policy questions, Bush hasn’t run a campaign since 2002 and faces challenges surviving in the Twitter era. For instance, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who says he’s still thinking of running for president, responded to Obama’s plans to normalize U.S. relations with Cuba well before Bush on Wednesday. Bush’s recent investment activity also suggests a potential candidate who believes the usual laws of political gravity won’t apply to him. Yet Bush seems confident he has something to offer the general electorate. “This is the way he was when he was governor of Florida,” said former Missisippi Gov. Haley Barbour. “He was very policy-oriented, he was a straight shooter, and he was tolerant of people who disagreed with him, but he didn’t pander to them.” Bush has shown little of the slash-and-burn instinct toward Hillary Clinton that other Republicans have. He was on hand in Philadelphia as she was presented with an award last year at the National Constitution Center. And his main criticism of her this year came after her fiery remarks at a campaign rally in Massachusetts: “Don’t let anyone tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs.” In a clear sign of his own growing interest in a campaign, Bush, as he campaigned for Republicans that week, did not name Clinton but referenced her “breathtaking” statement. How hard he will hit Clinton remains to be seen. He frowned on Bill Clinton’s scandal involving Monica Lewinsky, according to people who’ve spoken with him since the former president left office, but unlike other Republicans has not attacked Clinton over it. His father has forged a deep bond with Bill Clinton through their shared worked on international relief efforts. Bush also faces a tough balancing act in trying to convince voters whose views he shuns to support him. “I think there’s a very fine line between standing up for what you think is right and poking your finger in every primary voter’s eye, and we’re about to find out how fine that line is,” said Castellanos. If he does it successfully, “he’s eating up that moderate space” that Clinton also will need in the general election, said former President Obama adviser Stephanie Cutter. However, she noted, no one has been able to avoid being pulled too far to the right in a GOP primary since George W. Bush ran in 2000. When Bush was governor of Florida in 2000 — watching as his brother was trying to stop Al Gore from keeping the White House under Democratic control for a third straight term — he told an interviewer that Republicans of different stripes had coalesced around George W. Bush. “Eight years in the wilderness brings a higher tolerance for diversity,” he was quoted saying at the time. Whether that holds true now remains to be seen. As for Clinton, several Democratic supporters said Wednesday, one issue is whether she can avoid falling prey to responding to whatever Bush says during any given news cycle and getting dragged into the race sooner than she is ready. “That’s the worst thing that could happen,” said one Democratic ally. Bush’s emergence has also increased concern among Democrats about the party’s prospects of keeping the White House in the unlikely, but not impossible, scenario that Clinton decides not to run. There are other questions about how Bush’s move toward a run will effect Clinton. Some have questioned whether she will now speed up her own time frame for deciding, after her allies made clear she was not moving to make her intentions known until next year. Some potential staffers are already being reviewed, according to people familiar with the discussions. But Clinton is not generally diving into the political conversation. She is making statements when she has public appearances and there’s a heavy attention surrounding a specific issue, or if she has a particular point she wants to make. Several Democrats close to Clinton and some former Obama aides predicted that she will not start speeding up her own efforts. And some argued that Bush has the some problem she does right now. “Despite the pundit salivation calling for an immediate ideological confrontation between Clinton and Bush, they are, in many ways, in a similar place in their prospective candidacies — months away from that sort of positioning,” said Ben LaBolt, a former Obama campaign adviser. “Now is instead the time to measure how they align, both with respect to their party base but also the general electorate, gaming out the strategies of the other players likely to enter the field, and reconnecting with their donor and grassroots networks. The popcorn shall be saved for another day.” Other Democrats argued Clinton and Bush are similar in that many years have passed since they’ve interacted with voters, and neither has a clear, broad rationale for a candidacy. Several Democrats privately predicated that Bush could blow up on the launch pad, and his allies have insisted he hasn’t definitively decided on a campaign. He has the first few months of 2015 to figure out whether he can be an effective candidate. They expect that Clinton will watch and see how he performs, and appreciate the fact that someone else is now getting as much and maybe more media attention, and criticism, than she is. In the meantime, the Clinton-allied Media Matters and the Democratic National Committee have been aggressively going after Bush. Those attacks show just how seriously Democrats are taking him. “To quote his brother, do not misunderestmate Jeb Bush,” said Paul Begala, a former Bill Clinton adviser. “He’s a terrific fundraiser, he was twice elected a governor of the largest swing state — he just brings a lot to the race… he maybe has more assets and more liabilities than anybody in the race. *Bloomberg Businessweek: “Clinton, Democrats Can’t Find Consensus to Beat Jeb Bush” <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-18/clinton-democrats-can-t-find-consensus-to-beat-jeb-bush#p1>* By Jonathan Allen December 18, 2014 Hillary Clinton’s circle wants to be quoted yawning at Jeb Bush, a sure sign of concern that he could beat her in 2016. “He’s got his own party to run in, and I will be very impressed if he makes it through that primary system,” Paul Begala, a longtime adviser to Clinton and her husband, said after Bush announced this week that he is “actively exploring” a presidential run. Make no mistake. Clinton’s team and other Democrats already are trying to figure out how to take on Bush, and there’s no early consensus. They could portray him as a shadow of his brother, President George W. Bush, as a moderate who can’t make it through his own party’s primary, or as a candidate who is too conservative to win a general election. A Bush-centric e-mail that EMILY’s List sent to its donors on Wednesday took the latter approach. “Jeb Bush made it official. He’s exploring a run for president,” reads the graphic embedded in the fundraising pitch from the group that supports women candidates who back abortion rights. “As governor, he called himself the ‘most pro-life governor in modern times.’...Imagine what he’d do as president.” A button at the bottom of the e-mail says “Help us get ready to hold Jeb Bush accountable. Donate.” Stephanie Schriock, the president of EMILY’s list, is often mentioned as a possible campaign manager for the former First Lady. Jess McIntosh, a spokeswoman for the group, sought to portray Bush as too conservative for the American electorate. ‘Their Side’ “Jeb Bush is going to spend a long time reminding everyone how conservative he is on these issues,” she said. “Voters are going to see that he’s not on their side.” Yet at the same time, the Democratic super-PAC American Bridge released a Web video replete with clips of Republican commentators and news reporters saying Bush will struggle to win over conservatives. The group counts high-profile Clinton donors among its benefactors. Jaime Harrison, the chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said that if Bush runs and wins the Republican nomination, he’ll struggle to galvanize the conservative base because he’s endorsed the Common Core education standards reviled by many in the Republican Party and speaks warmly of undocumented immigrants. Harrison said that while it’s important to appeal to independent voters, a modern presidential campaign has to energize its party’s grassroots to win. Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill declined to comment on Bush, following her team’s protocol when it comes to discussing potential 2016 rivals. ‘Too Conservative’ Candidates are always trying to define their rivals for the voting public, and Democrats often pick the tag “too conservative” for Republicans. President Barack Obama’s aides believed they had a choice in running against Mitt Romney in 2012, between calling him a flip-flopper or a far-right conservative. It was former President Bill Clinton who said the flip-flop tag wouldn’t stick. Romney’s the other Republican, besides George W. Bush, to whom Democrats would like to compare Jeb Bush. Democrats were able to use Romney’s wealth, and the ways in which he attained it, to argue that he was out of touch with the needs of most voters. And the one anti-Bush theme that is a common refrain among Clinton-aligned groups and longtime advisers is that his business ventures will hurt him. He started two private equity funds this year, including one, BH Global Aviation, that’s incorporated in the U.K. and Wales, allowing foreign investors to avoid taxation in the U.S. ‘Benedict Arnolds’ “He would be the first president who organized overseas tax havens for billionaire Benedict Arnolds,” Begala said. Bush will give up his role as a senior adviser at Barclays Plc (BARC), according to a person familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly. Whatever approach Democrats choose, it’s clear they’re wary of Bush. One veteran Clinton adviser said that he is probably the strongest Republican nominee, citing his moderate positions on education and immigration that don’t sit well with conservatives but hit home with independent voters. The adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Bush would benefit in a general election if he can survive the primary without pandering to the Republican base on those issues -- both because his positions appeal outside the Republican Party and because it would show him to be a candidate of conviction. Bush Fatigue? “As I look at the Republican side, he’s an adult in the room that commands respect and the kind of conservative that Wall Street and other Republican establishment types can get behind,” said Democratic strategist Rodell Mollineau. “The one downside is his last name’s Bush and there’s still fatigue in this country.” Like Mollineau, Begala acknowledged Bush could be a strong candidate, if he makes it to a general election. “Since he’s likely to run as a Republican, I think it’s more of a question for potential Republican candidates than potential Democratic candidates,” he said. “The guy is formidable. He’s impressive.” If some Democrats try to sound more blase, it’s rooted in other reasons. Clinton’s political allies don’t want to feed the Bush-Clinton throwback hype that has tantalized cable-news producers. The battle of the dynasties talk isn’t helpful to her if she ends up winning the Democratic nomination and facing someone not named Bush. And there’s no reason to elevate a potential heavyweight. ‘Act of Love’ Part of the challenge for Democrats is that Jeb Bush himself has staked out varying positions on issues, such as illegal immigration. In April, he described families that decided to come to the U.S. as breaking the law. “But it’s not a felony,” he said. “It’s an act of love.” By last month, he moved closer to his fellow Republican hopefuls when he criticized President Barack Obama for using executive powers to protect as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants from being deported. And on Wednesday, he described Obama’s decision to begin normalizing relations with Cuba after a five-decade embargo a “foreign policy misstep.” His recent moves toward a run, including a forthcoming e-book on his years as governor and yesterday’s Facebook announcement about his decision-making process, have been greeted warmly by veteran Republican Party political operatives and coolly by a younger generation that identifies more closely with the Tea Party. Paul, Cruz Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and Texas Senator Ted Cruz are leaders among the latter set and could be part of a large field of Republican candidates vying for conservative votes. For the first time in decades, there could be multiple candidates fighting for the middle-of-the-road mantle in the Republican primary, including Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. Mike Duncan, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the expansion of the Republican field is a sign of strength. “Historically, we have not had as level a playing field with as many entrants in a long time,” Duncan said. “This is relatively new territory for us.” Duncan pegged 1964 as the last time the Republican Party offered such a strong set of contenders across the ideological spectrum. That year, the party nominated Barry Goldwater, who won the support of a young Hillary Rodham Clinton but lost the election to President Lyndon Johnson. His opponents included New York governor and future vice president Nelson Rockefeller, Governor James Rhodes of Ohio, UN Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., and former Governor Harold Stassen of Minnesota. *The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Clinton spokesman: '16 campaign would be 'different' than '08” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/227575-clinton-spokesman-16-campaign-would-be-different-than-08>* By Peter Sullivan December 18, 2014, 2:08 p.m. EST A Hillary Clinton spokesman says that if the former secretary of State launches a presidential bid, her campaign will be different than it was in 2008, when many criticized the way it was run. “If she runs, it will be different,” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told The New York Times. Clinton's 2008 campaign, which saw Barack Obama come from behind to beat her in a drawn out primary battle, was filled with staffing problems. Clinton fired her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, and chief strategist Mark Penn was widely blamed for the campaign's failed course. The Times reports that Clinton is seeking out a wider range of opinions as she attends parties and events this year. The talk about a new campaign strategy comes as the The Washington Post reported earlier this month that Clinton is involved in talks about how to handle the transition from the campaign-in-waiting and whether to set up an exploratory committee before announcing. That report suggested the formal announcement would come in the spring. At events this year, Clinton has been speaking out on women's rights issues such as paid leave and equal pay, and repeatedly mentioning being a new grandmother. Still, there are doubts about whether Clinton is plotting the right course this time around. "What happened in 2008 was that Hillary’s candidacy got out in front of any rationale for it, and the danger is that that’s happening again," David Axelrod, the former Obama adviser who helped defeat Clinton in 2008, said earlier this week on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." Clinton now has a range of former Obama staffers on her side. Obama's 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina is co-chairman of the pro-Clinton super-PAC Priorities USA Action, and top Obama campaign aides Jeremy Bird and Mitch Stewart have joined the group Ready for Hillary. *Wall Street Journal: “Amid Warren’s Rise, a Democratic Split Becomes Apparent” <http://www.wsj.com/articles/amid-warrens-rise-a-democratic-split-becomes-apparent-1418936408>* By Peter Nicholas December 18, 2014, 4:00 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] Liberals Embrace Senator’s Populist Themes, While Moderates Prefer a Message With Broader Appeal Democrats looking for a way forward after their election losses this year have wound up in a debate over how best to frame the party’s economic message, with the most liberal members rallying behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and her calls for a focus on income inequality. Ms. Warren had gained new prominence on the national stage—and drawn increasing calls for her to run for the White House—with her attempt last week to scuttle a compromise budget bill because of concessions to Wall Street, as well as her opposition to President Barack Obama ’s choice for a top Treasury post due to his Wall Street ties. Those moves have reinforced Ms. Warren’s long-standing message that Democrats should fight to reduce corporate influence and the share of wealth controlled by the nation’s richest households. Other Democrats say Ms. Warren’s message will lead only to more electoral defeats, as many voters will reject the focus on income inequality and instead want policies aimed at broad economic growth. While all Democrats say they want to foster a growing economy, the two wings of the party are at odds over which points should be most central to their message. “In a world where there are more self-described conservatives than there are self-described liberals, is having a campaign that only tries to win by appealing to your base the right strategy?’’ asked Jack Markell, the Democratic governor of Delaware. “I would argue it’s not.” Mr. Markell, who hasn’t yet endorsed a candidate for the 2016 election, said the next Democratic nominee has to reach independents and “some Republicans, as well. In my mind, an agenda around [economic] growth is the most likely message to do that.” At the same time, Ms. Warren’s populist message has made her a focal point of a vocal wing within the party. The liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org hosted an event in Iowa on Wednesday night aimed at showcasing support for Ms. Warren in the state that holds the nation’s first presidential contest. MoveOn also plans to spend $1 million on its “Draft Warren” effort and is hiring staff in Iowa, New Hampshire and possibly other states that hold early primaries. So far, Ms. Warren has said only that she is backing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , telling National Public Radio earlier this week, “I am not running for president.” Yet in sticking to the present tense, as NPR’s Steve Inskeep pointed out, she suggested she hasn’t entirely ruled it out. One question hanging over the party is what economic policy Mrs. Clinton would propose should she run for president, and whether she would cast herself in Mrs. Warren’s populist mode or adopt a more centrist, business-friendly stance. Much of Mrs. Clinton’s career suggests she would take the latter course. For years, the liberal and moderate strands of the party largely minimized differences and kept a united front amid Republican resistance to President Barack Obama’s agenda. But the uneasy alliance has become strained after the midterm elections, in which the party suffered deep losses. A sign of the split is stepped-up calls for Ms. Warren to jump in the presidential race. Some 300 lower-level former Obama campaign aides are lining up behind the Massachusetts senator, signing a recent letter describing her as someone who would “take on the Wall Street banks and special interests” and tackle “rising inequality,” which they called the “challenge of our times.” A liberal advocacy group called Democracy for America is putting $250,000 into the effort to draft Ms. Warren. Yet the group’s founder, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, has endorsed Mrs. Clinton. Ms. Warren gained fresh attention in recent weeks. She played a leading role in opposing Mr. Obama’s choice for a top Treasury post, Antonio Weiss, due to his Wall Street ties, and also mounted an unsuccessful campaign in the Senate to scuttle a provision in a $1.1 trillion spending bill that will loosen parts of the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law. In her attempt to do away with the provision, she employed the sort of language that leaves liberals enthralled and centrists unnerved. Taking aim at Citigroup Inc., a recipient of taxpayer-financed bailout money during the financial crisis, Ms. Warren said in a speech on the Senate floor: “Washington already works really well for the billionaires and the big corporations and the lawyers and the lobbyists.…What about the families who are living paycheck to paycheck and saw their tax dollars go to bail out Citi just six years ago?” *Bloomberg: “Is the Draft Warren Campaign a Piece of Progressive Performance Art?” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-12-18/is-the-draft-warren-campaign-a-piece-of-progressive-performance-art>* By David Weigel December 18, 2014, 4:05 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] The grassroots may not want to draft her, and she may not want to be drafted—but other than that, what a splendid movement. DES MOINES, Iowa—The two women stood under a Kinko’s worth of merchandise promoting Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, and they compared their ardors. “I listened to her and I thought, ‘She’s my hero,’” said Lorna Hall, 51. “Oh my gosh.” “I saw her speak for Bruce Braley,” said O’Leary, 53, referring to the Democrats’ amazing self-destructing 2014 candidate for U.S. Senate. “I said to myself, ‘She should run for president.’ And then I turned around, and there was this girl with a sign, saying ‘Draft Warren.’” It was Wednesday evening in Des Moines, and Hall and O’Leary had beaten the rush to find prime standing room at the Run Warren Run kickoff at Java Joe’s, a café that typically hosts NBC News and MSNBC during campaign seasons. The “girl” who had informed O’Leary of the draft campaign was there, too–Erica Sagrans, an Obama campaign veteran who had founded Ready for Warren. Sagrans’s group was technically independent of the Wednesday meeting, organized by MoveOn.org, but she was co-sponsoring it. MoveOn was collecting its own signatures from possible volunteers; she was doing the same, snapping photos with the people wearing plastic hats branded with a Warren campaign logo, some of the “hundreds” left over from her group’s buzzy summer launch. This party was even buzzier, with reporters from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal braving a Des Moines December to meet a hundred or so Democratic activists. Copies of the full-page ad that MoveOn put in the Des Moines Register were splayed across tables. A posterboard quickly filled up with reasons why people backed Warren. I don’t want corporations buying our politicians. * She has common sense!* * Hillary doesn’t represent me!* * I’m sick of the male oligarchy.* Warren’s adherents were so busy talking that they hardly touched the free cookies and coffee near the entrance of the room. O’Leary had caucused for Barack Obama six years earlier; Hall had caucused for a pre-scandal, pre-trial John Edwards. Neither really resented or opposed Hillary Cinton. “I happen to agree with her politics,” said O’Leary. “I just think we need fresh blood. We don’t need another Clinton. We don’t need another Bush.” The progressive organizers, who had flown in from New York and Chicago, were beaming at what they’d created. “Draft Warren,” in all its forms, is not a campaign with a candidate so much as an exercise in culture-jamming. It’s something for progressives to do. O’Leary, for example, said she was “done with politics” until being enticed to spend an evening with fellow Warrenophiles. Shortly after 5:30, they all heard the MoveOn campaign’s national field organizer Victoria Kaplan tell them how to summon Warren into the race. “Iowans have the ability to introduce, to the rest of the country, candidates who inspire us to be more active citizens, to fight for ourselves, and to fight for the middle class,” she said. “I invite all of you to take out your phones, to tweet, to take photos, with the hashtag RunWarrenRun. That’s #RunWarrenRun.” Tweets sent, mission accomplished–whatever the mission might be. Des Moines’s Polk County had offered fertile soil for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign against Hillary Clinton. Obama won 39 percent of the vote from the sort of voters who crowded Java Joe’s, 12 points ahead of Clinton, who came in third in the county (and in the state overall). When Kaplan asked what the Warren campaign achieved, one voice cried out “to do it again,” and no one mistook what that meant. But Java Joe’s had seen bigger crowds. Ready for Hillary, the facsimile campaign created by supporters of the heavy favorite to “freeze” the field, had held bigger events in Iowa. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who had just buzzed through Iowa, drew more than twice as many people to a lecture in Ames as showed up to the Draft Warren party. True, had Warren herself parachuted in, she could packed every café and bar on Fourth Street. She was not parachuting in. “I don’t understand this alleged Draft Warren movement,” said Brad Anderson, the Democrats’ narrowly unsuccessful candidate for Iowa secretary of state. In 2004 he’d organized for John Edwards; in 2012 he was President Obama’s state director. “I view this 'Draft Warren' movement as something that is much more D.C. and media driven than Iowa grassroots driven,” said Anderson. “Most people are enthusiastic about the options that we have–and she’s not running! If you look at Hillary’s messaging, and her positions on issues, they really aren’t different from Elizabeth Warren’s.” The “options” consist of Clinton, Sanders, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb. (Few Iowans expect Vice President Joe Biden to run if Clinton does.) Democrats here expect some kind of contested caucus. Few see the makings of a dogfight like 2004 or 2008. Clinton, whose third-place finish in Iowa led to Obama’s eventual nomination, leads the field handily in most polls. The difficulty of breaking that was brought out when Pam Jochum, the president of the Iowa state senate–still Democratic, after 2014–gave a speech to the crowd. It was the only address from any elected official, and it fell wide of a Warren endorsement. “I have no doubt in my mind that someone like Elizabeth Warren is a woman who is articulate, she is brilliant, and she is courageous,” Jochum said. “And this is a moment in history when we need elected officials who have courage. This is our chance to show America what it's like to have a marketplace of ideas, to have Elizabeth Warren or anyone else who might jump into this race articulate a vision for America.” When Jochum left the stage, reporters followed to ask why she’d quasi-stumped for Warren. Did she think Warren was more in touch with Democrats than Hillary Clinton? “I don’t know if I’m in a position to say whether that’s true or false right now,” she said. “Whoever comes out of that primary season ends up being a much stronger general election candidate.” It fell short of her 2007 Obama endorsement, when she compared the future president to Robert F. Kennedy. This was because it wasn’t an endorsement. Back in the café, activists watched a short promotional video–ending with Warren giving a longish, Sopranos-finale kind of pause to a 2016 question–and watched as the screen was replaced by MoveOn activists and locals. They told their personal stories as MoveOn’s executive director, Ilya Sheyman, roamed the stage. Only when he opened the even to questions was there a scintilla of static. “I’m asking this because we need to get this stuff done early on,” said Craig Maltby, a 55-year old communications adviser, standing near the exit. “I hear Senator Warren has a very significant net worth. Can you tell us how that net worth was created? And do we know that she has not taken PAC money from Wall Street firms?” Sheyman took a second to gather his thoughts, which formed into the standard Warren pitch. “So, Senator Warren, as folks know, never intended to run for public office, right?” he said. “Before serving in the Senate, she was a lecturer at Harvard. She’d been a lawyer, previously.” When he finished with the Warren biography, he reassured Maltby that “her wealth is a matter of public information. Everyone in the Senate reports that.” Arms folded, Maltby sounded unimpressed. “That’s a good non-answer,” he grumbled. “Do we have any information about her PAC contributors?” “Yeah, it’s all online,” said Sheyman. “Happy to talk it through with you. But in terms of who she’s fighting for…” “That all goes up six months down the road if we find out that Goldman Sachs was contributing to her political fortunes,” snarked Maltby. “Do your own research!” snapped a woman on the other side of the coffee carafe. “The campaign should know,” said Maltby. “It should be an easy question to answer.” “Go to the website,” said an older man closer to Maltby. As Sheyman kept talking–“Elizabeth Warren won a race against Scott Brown, a Wall Street favorite”–Maltby ducked out. He informed me that he was most excited about Jim Webb’s campaign, and that Obama’s own support from Goldman Sachs did not hurt his 2008 campaign because he didn’t make the campaign about purity. Yet nobody else left early. For them, Warren could remain an ideal, unsullied by caucus campaign attacks or smears or questions. The people who stuck around were divided into four groups, for brainstorming sessions facilitated by MoveOn organizers or Sagrans. At a “visibility” breakout, the largely middle-aged activists started by thinking up letters to editors. A younger activist, joining the circle late, said that the best visibilities she’d seen were the “die-ins” that shamed police departments after the killing of Ferguson, Missouri teenager Michael Brown. No one knew where to take that. The winning idea, after a hurried discussion, was announced back on the main stage: Warren-drafters were encouraged to wear red, white, and blue colors to New Year's and Christmas parties, and start conversations about their would-be, mortal savior. “I saw the postcards being passed around your group,” said Kaplan, pointing to MoveOn-provided cards that left room for the name and address of potential Warren fans. “Maybe, bring a few of those to your New Year's party.” The work was going to continue long past New Year's, anyway. MoveOn would hold another launch event in New Hampshire. The people inspired at Java Joe’s would have house parties, if they could. This would not end just because Warren claimed (and claimed, and claimed) not to be running. “As long as there is enough time for her to get in the race and win–and she is uniquely positioned to do that later than other folks, by having a message, by having an infrastructure that raised $42 million in Massachusetts–as long as we think there’s ample time for her to build a winning campaign, we think there’s time to keep making the case to her,” said Sheyman. “Can it go through summer? Absolutely. Can it go later? Potentially. There’s plenty of time.” *MSNBC: “Keith Ellison: ‘I would love to see Elizabeth Warren’ run” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/keith-ellison-i-would-love-see-elizabeth-warren-run>* By Alex Seitz-Wald December 18, 2014, 10:22 p.m. EST Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Thursday night that he hopes Sen. Elizabeth Warren runs for president in 2016. “I would love to see Elizabeth Warren in this race. I think it would be fantastic. I think that it would help the quality of the debate and she may win,” he said on a conference call with members of Democracy for America (DFA), a progressive group that is trying to draft Warren. “But even if she doesn’t, I think she’ll make Hillary Clinton a better candidate.” That’s the closest any major elected official has come to endorsing the Massachusetts Democrat, who has said repeatedly that she is not going to run for president. Ellison added that he feared Clinton, the presumed frontrunner for the nominee, “could just walk into the general [election] without having committed to some important real, real economic populism.” “So, I’m supportive of what [DFA] is doing, I’m supportive of what MoveOn is doing, and I think Elizabeth Warren is one of the great, bright lights of our time,” he added. MoveOn.org and DFA, which grew out of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign, officially kicked off their campaign to draft Warren Wednesday in Iowa, and have together committed $1.25 million to the effort. Earlier in the call, Ellison offered warning to moderate Democrats. “We also want to let our weak-kneed Democratic friends know that we’re watching, and if they’re standing with the corporatocracy and the big banks, we’ll find some other people who will stand with the people,” he said. In an interview a few months ago with the liberal AmericaBlog, Ellison called for pushing Democratic presidential candidates through activism. ” We will get the candidate we’re looking if we are in the streets and set forth an agenda they then need to adopt,” he said. “When politicians feel the heat, they tend to see the light.” Ellison endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. DFA is now run by Dean’s brother Jim, and even though they’re supporting Warren, Howard Dean is backing Clinton. ”That’s just fine, not withstanding the enormous number of phone calls I’ve been getting from fam therapists offering their help,” Jim Dean said on the call. *National Journal: “Carly Fiorina Hiring for Presidential Campaign” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/carly-fiorina-hiring-for-presidential-campaign-20141218>* By Tim Alberta December 18, 2014 [Subtitle:] Despite her improving political skills, the California businesswoman would be an underdog in a likely all-male GOP field. Carly Fiorina is laying the groundwork for what one ally says is an "imminent" presidential campaign—one that could launch as early as next month. The former Hewlett-Packard CEO, who raised her political profile with a failed run against Sen. Barbara Boxer of California in 2010, has frequently been mentioned as a long-shot contender to seek the Republican presidential nomination. The speculation is driven by equal parts novelty and activity: Fiorina, who paid several high-profile visits to early-nominating states in 2014, acknowledged that she would likely be the only woman in the GOP field. "Look, I think it would be great if we had female candidates—or candidate," Fiorina told National Journal earlier this year. Fiorina is now poised to become that candidate. According to three sources with direct knowledge of the situation, she has authorized members of her inner circle to seek out and interview candidates for two key positions on her presidential campaign: political director and communications director. Notably, the sources said, her associates are aiming to fill both positions with women. The search, sources say, is being spearheaded by Amy Noone Frederick, a Republican consultant who sits with Fiorina on the American Conservative Union Foundation's board of directors. One Republican operative was recently approached about a position with the Unlocking Potential Project, Fiorina's super PAC. The operative, who asked not to be named, said that in the course of the interview one of Fiorina's allies began gauging interest in a separate position "for a certain presidential candidate who is gearing up for a run." It's unclear if any hires have been made, and emails to officials with Fiorina's PAC were not returned. Still, people familiar with Fiorina's camp say the organizational outreach proves that she's serious about getting a campaign off the ground—and quickly. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is already effectively in the race and consuming other contenders' oxygen. If Fiorina wants to jump in and make a media splash, she probably can't afford to wait much longer. "It appears that they want to move fast, which is smart," said Jason Cabel Roe, a Republican consultant in California. "Carly getting in as the 10th candidate is not nearly as interesting as Carly getting in as the first or second candidate." Meanwhile, as she seeks to make significant personnel moves, Fiorina has also maneuvered to promote herself in front of influential conservative audiences in the early part of next year—a key set of auditions that could very well coincide with the launch of a campaign. Fiorina, who chairs the ACU Foundation board, is said to have already secured a prime speaking slot at the ACU's 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference. That event will be held in the D.C. suburbs on the last weekend of February. But the bigger prize is one weekend earlier. Fiorina, sources say, has accepted a coveted invitation to deliver the keynote address to the Council for National Policy—home to many of the conservative movement's biggest donors—at its private gathering in southern California. "February's going to be a big month for her, with two signature events where she's going to have a big role," said one prominent conservative activist leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of his involvement with both the ACU and CNP. "One speech in front of movement leadership, then one speech in front of grassroots activists—those are going to be big moments for her." If her message stays consistent with appearances of late, Fiorina will hope to appeal to these audiences as a political outsider. But she is hardly without political connections. While serving as an adviser to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, Fiorina was named chairwoman of a Republican National Committee fundraising initiative. She parlayed that role into a speaking slot at that year's GOP convention, and had even generated some buzz as a dark-horse vice-presidential pick. Though she could not overcome California's liberal electorate in her 2010 Senate race, Fiorina showed significant improvement on the stump over the life of the campaign. Her 10-point loss did not tarnish her stature as a rising star among Republican women; in fact, her opportunities and exposure have steadily increased. She served as a vice chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2012. Her successful takeover of the ACU Foundation board last year was the clearest indication yet of her political chops—and ambition. That said, if and when Fiorina pulls the trigger on a presidential run, she will enter the contest a decided underdog. She enjoys little national name recognition, lacks a top-notch political team, and has never won a major race for public office. Not only did she lose by double digits in 2010, she left the campaign with a significant amount of debt, some of which remains unretired more than four years later. (This fact is not lost on Republicans who have examined her viability as a sleeper candidate.) But none of that may matter. Several people familiar with Fiorina's operation suspect that her ultimate goal is not winning the nomination, but rather breaking through what is expected to be an all-male Republican field and positioning herself for the second spot on the GOP ticket. "I don't think Carly's running for president. I think Carly's running for vice president," said Roe, the California Republican. "If Hillary Clinton's the nominee, Republicans need a woman front and center—probably on the ticket. And Carly knows that." *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · January 21 – Saskatchewan, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce’s “Global Perspectives” series (MarketWired <http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/former-us-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-address-saskatoon-1972651.htm> ) · January 21 – Winnipeg, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Global Perspectives series (Winnipeg Free Press <http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Clinton-coming-to-Winnipeg--284282491.html> ) · 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 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>)