HRC Clips | 1.30.15

From:nmerrill@hrcoffice.com To: nmerrill@hrcoffice.com Date: 2015-01-30 12:49 Subject: HRC Clips | 1.30.15

HRC Clips January 30, 2015 HRC Hillary Clinton’s ever-changing presidential timeline is changing. Again. (WAPO) 2 Clinton camp split on when to launch campaign (CNN) 4 Benghazi Hearing: A Prelude to Clinton 2016? (WSJ) 5 Shut-out Dems longing for Hillary - and Bill (Politico) 7 The moment Obama knew he would beat Hillary Clinton for the 2008 nomination (WAPO) 10 Hillary Clinton Faces Scrutiny for Use of Private Jets (Bloomberg) 11 Clinton took taxpayer-funded private jet flights as senator (Hill) 15 Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton ‘probably not’ bold enough for 2016 (WAPO) 16 Democrats Facing 2016 Debate Dilemma (National Journal) 18 What to Wear? First Ladies Are Steeped in Protocol (NYT) 20 Hillary Clinton’s ever-changing presidential timeline is changing. Again. (WAPO) By Chris Cillizza January 30, 2015 Washington Post The news out of Politico this morning is that Hillary Clinton is likely to push her formal presidential announcement all the way back to July, a three-month delay from the original plan and one born of a desire to make sure the candidate and the campaign are fully ready to go when things are made official. Here’s Mike Allen: The delay from the original April target will give her more time to develop her message, policy and organization, without the chaos and spotlight of a public campaign.The thinking goes like this: Clinton does best -- in the eyes of the public -- when she is seen as above or removed from politics. Her numbers, which were damaged by the 2008 presidential race, soared during and after her time as secretary of state. The less political she looks -- and you always look less political when you aren’t running for something -- the more people like her. Here’s Gallup’s long-term trend on Clinton’s favorability ratings. The peaks (and valleys) tend to correspond with her times out -- and in -- campaign mode. That reality is, of course, not new. So, what changed that has Clintonworld at least contemplating a slowdown in her announcement timetable? Elizabeth Warren or, more accurately the lack of Elizabeth Warren. The senator from Massachusetts and the buzz around her as a possible Democratic candidate has gone dormant -- or gotten quieter -- over the past month. There isn’t the daily drumbeat of stories about the left’s unrest with Clinton (and pining for Warren) that was seen a few months back. And, more important, Warren and her people continue to insist -- publicly and privately -- that she has no interest in running, and she has not built a team to suggest that she does. Without Warren, the primary is of no real threat to Clinton, as people such as Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb and even Martin O’Malley can’t raise the money or generate the sort of generic excitement needed to topple her. It makes all the sense in the world. But, waiting so long does carry some disadvantages. The biggest one is financial -- you need to be a candidate to raise the tens of millions of dollars to run a top-tier presidential race. Clinton, at least according to Allen, may form an exploratory committee in early April -- the start of the second quarter -- that would allow her to raise money without making a formal ”I’m in” speech until the summer. (By comparison, Clinton entered the 2008 presidential race on Jan. 20, 2007 via web video.) It would also give her two bites at the “I’m running” apple; scads of press coverage for the formation of the exploratory committee and scads-plus for the formal announcement speech. Then there is the fact that politics abhors a vacuum. It was that vacuum theory that led me to write that Clinton should get in sooner rather than later back in mid December. Clinton appears to have weathered the initial burst of Warren chatter but it’s hard to imagine that the left, elements of which remain deeply unhappy with her coronation as the Democratic nominee, doesn’t start to agitate to know what she’s doing sooner than Clinton’s preferred timetable. (To be clear: She may not care at all about those voices. But those voices, quiet now, will re-emerge.) That agitation doesn’t seem likely to change Warren’s mind about running or to make Sanders or Webb or O’Malley any stronger. What it will do, however, is drive some media coverage focused around the idea that Democrats still aren’t sold on her. Finally, there’s the symbolism of it all. “Hillary Clinton clearly feels she’s entitled to the presidency and is taking the race for granted like she did in 2008,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement Thursday morning. “Instead of hiding from voters waiting for her coronation, she should be out there making her case as to why she wants to continue President Obama’s agenda four more years.” Now, Republicans are going to find less-than-flattering things to say about Clinton no matter what she does or when she announces her candidacy. But, that word “coronation” doesn’t sit well with people -- whether they are Democrats or Republicans. And that goes double when your last name is “Clinton” and your husband spent eight years as president. Part of Clinton’s problem in the last race was the sense that, at least in the early stages of the race, she wasn’t all that interested in doing the hard work it takes to win -- a sort of “to the manor born” sentiment. What Clinton does not want to happen is for that narrative to take hold again; while it might not matter in a primary due to the lack of any serious challenge, that perception could be corrosive in a general election. So, we wait. And Clinton waits. We probably won’t know for quite some time whether all of this waiting got her anywhere. Clinton camp split on when to launch campaign (CNN) By Brianna Keilar and Dan Merica January 29, 2015 CNN Washington (CNN)An internal debate among Hillary Clinton supporters about the timing of when she should launch her expected campaign for the presidency has erupted once again. Several Democrats have told CNN that there is a desire on the part of Clinton and her innermost circle to go as late as possible. But the potential for a summer start to the official Clinton 2016 campaign, first reported this morning by Politico, is only one of the options on the table. The spring launch plan is still seen by most Clinton watchers as the most likely timing scenario. Under the spring scenario, Clinton could form an exploratory committee or other official vehicle, which has FEC-regulated restrictions for potential candidates, but would enable Clinton to publicly indicate her intentions and begin a new phase of the process without formally launching a full blown campaign until later in 2015. There is some concern among Clinton loyalists that as the increasingly crowded Republican race heats up, the attacks on Clinton could begin to stick without an apparatus in place to answer them. Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee who is pondering another run, invoked Clinton numerous times during recent speeches. The liberal superPAC American Bridge has been countering Republican attacks on Clinton’s behalf but the cover has not necessarily been to the satisfaction of all in Clinton’s orbit. The Democratic National Committee is beginning to take on a larger role in an effort to protect Clinton and the party brand but many Democrats are concerned even that won’t be enough. Some Democrats have also expressed concern that a later start to Clinton’s campaign will appear like the nomination is shaping up to be more of a coronation and a race - something Clinton and her advisers are looking to avoid. However, those pushing for a later start argue that the more Hillary Clinton can stay out of the daily to and fro of presidential politics, the better that is for Hillary Clinton. No top Democrats have made serious moves to challenging Clinton’s informal and all but certain campaign. In addition, with the uptick of Obama’s approval ratings and easing of economic pessimism among the voters, some supporters of a later start argue that Clinton might want to continue to benefit from those environmental conditions before jumping into the daily presidential campaign mix. Last fall an internal debate emerged about whether a campaign should form in January or February of 2015 or if it would be better to wait for Spring. Those arguing for a Spring start won that debate at the time, but it clearly did not stand as the final word on the matter. Benghazi Hearing: A Prelude to Clinton 2016? (WSJ) By Peter Nicholas January 30, 2015 Wall Street Journal Congress’s investigation into the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans seems certain to spill into the 2016 presidential race, with Republicans moving to question Hillary Clinton at a politically opportune moment when her likely presidential campaign is up and running. Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state, has agreed to testify before a House select committee that is examining the September 2012 attacks at a U.S. diplomatic mission, lawmakers say. She took questions from Congress about Benghazi in January 2013, but Republicans wouldn’t mind seeing her back on the hot seat. The key question: When will she appear? Two scenarios present themselves. The first is advantageous to Republican opponents of Mrs. Clinton; the other, not so much. A Clinton appearance that comes in the thick of the presidential race could prove perilous, drawing more public scrutiny and leaving her less time to recover from any gaffes. That’s the anti-Clinton time frame. An early appearance by Mrs. Clinton might help defuse Benghazi as a campaign issue before she enters the race and the spotlight on her intensifies. She could try to put Benghazi behind her, laying out her role in responding to the attacks and once again accepting responsibility and expressing regret over the loss of life. Should she stumble, she’d have ample time before the November 2016 election to limit the fallout. We’ll call that the pro-Clinton timetable. Republicans aren’t in any particular hurry to hear from her now, 649 days before election day. They seem to prefer option #1. For their part, Democrats wouldn’t mind getting her testimony as soon as possible. They like option #2. Whenever she appears, Mrs. Clinton will face tough questions from Republican lawmakers looking to make the point that Benghazi is an indelible stain on her record at State. But Mrs. Clinton has a chance to use the moment to her advantage. She can show herself to be a leader unafraid of scrutiny and eager to make right any security lapses that made the facility vulnerable to attack. The top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, sent a letter to committee chairman Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) on Thursday saying that he had contacted Mrs. Clinton last year and learned she was willing to testify as early as last month. Mrs. Clinton “responded without hesitation that she was willing and able to testify in a public hearing – as early as December 2014 – to answer any remaining questions,” Mr. Cummings wrote. (As an aside, it wasn’t always clear that Mrs. Clinton was prepared to testify before Congress one more time. In her book “Hard Choices,” published last year, she suggested she was done cooperating with congressional inquiries into Benghazi. “Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me,” she wrote). Republicans say they’re not ready to hear from her just yet. Mr. Gowdy, in a reply to Mr. Cummings on Thursday, said the committee needs more emails, diplomatic cables and other documents from the State Department “to facilitate the most constructive conversation.” In an interview with Fox News this week, Mr. Gowdy said: “You would have me on the show citing me for legal malpractice if I examined the witness before I had the documents.” Investigative committees tend to work best when they operate in bipartisan fashion. This one is having trouble meeting that standard. As of now, the Benghazi committee has split along partisan lines over the timing of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony. “I’m not sure in addition to what Secretary Clinton already testified to on the subject she can really add,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), a member of the panel. “But there’s obviously great political value for the Republicans in bringing her back before the committee. And they can maximize that benefit by delaying it as long as possible in the presidential cycle.” Shut-out Dems longing for Hillary - and Bill (Politico) By Anna Palmer and Lauren French January 29, 2015 Politico Congressional Democrats for the past six years have lamented their chilly relationship with President Barack Obama. He doesn’t schmooze enough, they say. He is missing the glad-handing gene that makes politics fun. He just doesn’t get it. But they are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel: the prospect of a Clinton back in the White House. Hillary Clinton’s all-but-certain 2016 bid has perked up Democrats, as they once again dream of invites to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, rowdy late-night dinners, overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom and, not least, consultation on policy and politics. While Hillary is certainly different than her husband, former President Bill Clinton, Democrats have seen her in action on the Hill, where she was adept at developing relationships. And more recently, she’s shown she isn’t afraid to tangle with Congress on Benghazi. “There was a very close connection between House Democrats and the Clinton presidency,” California Rep. Zoe Lofgren said. “Usually I would be over at the White House at least once a week doing something, and I thought that built a lot of goodwill. I think if [Hillary] does run, she will become president, and there is a lot of excitement on that. He was a very collegial person, and she is her own person but she knows her way around.” Of course, Bill and Hillary Clinton come with baggage. Bill had a sexual tryst in the Oval Office, was impeached by the Republican House and Hillary faced an endless barrage of questions about her own business dealings. Those memories are faint. Philadelphia Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah, who was elected in 1994, described Bill Clinton’s relationships on the Hill as “extraordinary.” “I don’t think this is just looking at it through rose-colored glasses,” Fattah said, noting that when Clinton came to Philadelphia, he would meet the president at the airport, ride in the limo and take him to play golf. After one of Fattah’s first legislative victories for an educational program called Gear Up, Clinton traveled to a middle school in Pennsylvania and credited him for getting the bill signed into law. “There was a lot of personalized interaction and they were engaged in this political effort, but it was also substantive,” Fattah said. Clinton, who served from 1993 until 2001, led House Democrats into the minority for the first time in 40 years. Still, what lawmakers focus on aren’t his stumbles but differences between his and the Obama administration’s interactions with Capitol Hill. “He did something that this president doesn’t do at all. Every time the 747 lifted off the ground, it was filled with members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats. I went to India with him, I went to South America with him, I went to Asia … and I went to Africa,” said Rep. Jim McDermott. “He was inclusive.” The Clintons were so close to the Washington state lawmaker that Bill Clinton helped raise money for him when the House Ethics Committee investigated him over leaking a recorded telephone conversation during the 1997 investigation of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich. When asked to compare Clinton and Obama’s Hill interactions, Rep. Jerry Nadler said there was a big difference. “There is much less contact, no question about it,” Nadler responded. The New York Democrat said that even though he was a freshman when Clinton arrived at the White House, there was a dialogue with his congressional liaisons on major issues like free trade. Clinton spent time with members at the annual picnics and other social events, he said. “You got the feeling he knew you,” Nadler said, remembering how Clinton stopped him in a receiving line soon after his election to chat about his six-way primary contest after his predecessor unexpectedly died. “How the hell did he know?” Nadler said. “I’ll never forget the Marine guards were saying ‘move on, move on,’ and he wanted to talk to me.” Other lawmakers agreed that despite serving one term as an Illinois senator, Obama hasn’t worked to make allies on Capitol Hill. “He can connect, but many times he doesn’t give himself the time,” said New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell, who was elected in 1997 during Clinton’s second term. “I don’t know whether it’s inborn or it’s learned. It’s not schmultz. It’s not glad handing, or massaging and patting on the back. It has a lot more to do with your empathy toward other human beings. That’s natural to some people and others it’s forced.” It’s not just lawmakers who have been impacted by the Obama administration’s aversion to personal politicking. Democratic lobbyists have griped privately for years, and some have even complained publicly over Obama’s disdain for their profession. That wasn’t the case during the Clinton administration, according to several lobbyists. “The Clinton administration had a different view of lobbyists from the Obama administration,” said Tony Podesta, a veteran Washington powerbroker. “More important to being invited to parties, friends of the president, friends of the administration were frequently called upon to provide thoughts, advice, suggestions and be an echo chamber for what the White House was trying to do.” “It was not only effective, but it was so much fun too,” said veteran lobbyist Tom Quinn. “The social events at the White House were fun. He would have a DNC event followed up with a state dinner.” Quinn, who was special observer to Ireland during the Clinton administration, said that personal relationships go a long way in persuading lawmakers to support legislation. Of course, building personal relationships with the executive branch is not important to everyone. “I’ve got plenty of things I need to do other than be schmoozed,” said Rick Larsen (D-Wash.). “It doesn’t get me votes and gives me more unwanted attention than I need. It takes me off message.” Still, several Democrats said they look forward to working with a potential Hillary Clinton administration and believe better cooperation between the White House and Congress would benefit the party. “I think people always feel better when they feel they are included in the team and that their views are valued, and I think that’s smart politics too,” said REp. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). And Democrats say Hillary Clinton is no stranger to her former Capitol Hill colleagues. “We had good contact. Now, it was one state with 29 members in those days, but you knew her. You knew her staff well,” Nadler said. And, if Clinton’s time as first lady and as a New York senator illustrates how she’ll operate, several Democrats said it would be a good thing. “I talked with and worked with Mrs. Clinton a lot when she was putting together her health care plan because I had 95 votes in the caucus for single payer and she needed some votes,” said McDermott, who remembered her coming to his office two or three times a month to discuss the issue. “Since I know her, I expect I would have some opportunity to be involved.” The moment Obama knew he would beat Hillary Clinton for the 2008 nomination (WAPO) By Carlos Lozada January 29, 2015 Washington Post It was December 2007, and the Democratic race for the presidential nomination had taken a bit of a nasty turn. Billy Shaheen, then co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire campaign, had speculated to The Washington Post that Republicans would attack Sen. Barack Obama on the drug use the candidate had admitted to on the trail and in “Dreams From My Father,” his 1995 memoir. As Shaheen put it: “It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’ There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks.” The next day, Obama and Clinton were both at Reagan National Airport on their way to Iowa for a debate, and the candidates met on the tarmac for what became a brief but heated conversation. Then-Obama personal aide Reggie Love witnessed the event and describes it in his new memoir: “I want to apologize for the whole Shaheen thing,” Clinton said. “I want you to know I had nothing to do with it.” And yes, Shaheen resigned from his campaign post that day, too. “I made a mistake and in light of what happened, I have made the personal decision that I will step down,” he said in a statement. Hillary Clinton Faces Scrutiny for Use of Private Jets (Bloomberg) By Jonathan Allen January 29, 2015 Bloomberg Hillary Clinton took more than 200 privately chartered flights at taxpayer expense during her eight years in the U.S. Senate, sometimes using the jets of corporations and major campaign donors as she racked up $225,756 in flight costs. Clinton, 67, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, reported the travel in official filings with the Senate. The records were provided to Bloomberg News by a Republican operative. Some of the companies whose planes she used included Coca-Cola Co., Citigroup Inc. and Saban Capital Group Inc. While the flights fell within congressional rules and were not out of the ordinary for senators at the time, they could play into the emerging Republican line of attack that Clinton’s wealth and years in government office have left her out of touch with the voters she’ll court on the campaign trail. Republican Mitt Romney, who is considering another bid for president, took a swipe at Clinton’s suggestion to voters that “corporations and businesses” don’t create jobs when he spoke in Starkville, Mississippi, last night. “How can Secretary Clinton provide opportunity for all if she doesn’t know where jobs come from in the first place?” said Romney, who battled similar charges due to his wealth in his earlier campaigns. Clinton later revised her remarks by saying she meant that tax breaks that reward businesses for moving operations overseas don’t create jobs in the U.S. An unnamed aide to Romney told multiple news outlets this week that Clinton would have a hard time portraying Romney as out of touch in a 2016 campaign when she owns multimillion dollar houses and seldom flies commercial. Nick Merrill, a Clinton spokesman, said she flew on chartered planes to make it easier to visit her constituents, one reason the Senate allows lawmakers to use private jets. ‘Tireless Work’ “As a cornerstone of her tireless work on behalf of New York, she constantly crisscrossed the state to meet with the people she represented,” Merrill said in a statement. “As anyone in the Senate representing a large state knows -- and as reported down to the penny in public filings -- that means going to hard-to-reach places, not just those conveniently located near major airports.” Clinton took all forms of transportation to get around the state and her constituents rewarded her for it, Merrill said. “She did whatever it took to get to where the people of New York actually lived and worked,” he said. “Based on her resounding re-election, that’s exactly what her constituents expected of her.” Taxpayer Money Members of the Senate spent $1 million in taxpayer money on privately chartered flights in 2013, according to a report in USA Today. The practice became a political issue last year for Democratic Senate candidates, including Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, who lost, and Virginia’s Mark Warner, who won a closer-than-expected battle for re-election. Landrieu spent $47,000 on charter flights in 2013 and Warner spent $8,500 on a tour around his state that year, USA Today reported. While some senators don’t charter flights at all, Clinton’s eight-year average of $28,125 per year falls within the range of other lawmakers. Still, Clinton is facing criticism from Republicans for flights she took more than six years ago. “The examples of how out of touch Hillary is continue to rack up,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. “Hillary’s love of private jet travel doesn’t even stop at taxpayer dollars.” Company Jets In Clinton’s case, private air travel involved jets owned by companies including Coca-Cola, Citigroup and Abbott Laboratories. There is no evidence her Senate trips, which ranged in cost from less than $200 to upwards of $3,000 per flight, ran afoul of Senate rules, which were tightened by a 2007 ethics law. Before the law was changed, senators were required to pay the cost of a first-class ticket to ride aboard a private jet -- or, in some cases, even less. In Clinton’s final two years in the Senate, lawmakers who flew on private or chartered planes had to pay their proportional share of the cost of the flight based on the number of passengers. The figures don’t include money spent for aides who accompanied her, which are also a public record. Private Companies Clinton also reported traveling on jets owned by a handful of private companies and investment groups, including InfoUSA, now known as InfoGroup Inc., Avenue Capital Group LLC and Saban Capital Group. The latter firm was founded by longtime Clinton campaign financier Haim Saban, who, along with his wife and their family foundation, contributed between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation through 2013. Last year, he told Bloomberg Television that he will spend “as much as needed” to help elect Clinton president in 2016. Clinton turned to friends and donors for help getting from place to place as she campaigned for re-election to the Senate in 2006, and for the presidency in 2007 and 2008. When she criticized President George W. Bush’s use of the powers of the presidency at a women’s leadership forum in Providence, Rhode Island, on April 8, 2006, she flew round trip on Avenue Capital Group’s plane at a cost of $408. The firm, run by Clinton campaign benefactor Marc Lasry, later hired Chelsea Clinton, Hillary’s daughter. Chelsea Clinton worked there until 2013, when she turned her focus to the Clinton Foundation. Abbott Plane Three days after the trip to Providence, Clinton told the Economic Club of Chicago that the public and private sectors must work together to build a stronger economy. She flew back to Washington on an Abbott Laboratories plane at a cost of $475.93. “We do have a choice about how we deal with globalization and the competitive threat that it poses,” she said. “We can choose to unleash the power of innovation and enterprise in ways that promote our economic growth and our values so that all Americans share in the prosperity.” Clinton flew from White Plains, New York, to Washington to pick up top aide Huma Abedin on the way to Charleston, South Carolina, on December 30, 2005, according to records kept by the Senate. They rode aboard InfoUSA’s jet, which company founder Vinod Gupta, a close family friend, often used to transport and entertain the Clintons and other recognizable figures, according to court filings. Hillary Clinton billed the Senate for $858 to fly on his company’s plane. Bill Clinton made more than $3 million as an adviser to InfoUSA after leaving the White House in January 2001 and also was given options on 100,000 shares of stock, which were never exercised. In 2010, Gupta paid a $7.4 million settlement after the Securities and Exchange Commission charged him with misappropriating company funds, and he later paid a larger sum to settle a shareholder suit. Lecture Circuit As first lady and as secretary of state, Clinton traveled mostly on government-owned planes, including Air Force One and a Boeing 757 used by the nation’s top diplomat. With few exceptions, they weren’t available to her when she was a senator from 2001 through early 2009 or on the paid-lecture circuit after she left the State Department in February 2013. After her tour as the nation’s top diplomat, Clinton required groups to pay for private air travel when they booked her to speak. And fellow Democrats paid $1.5 million from political accounts to fly Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to campaign events in the 2014 election cycle, according to Politico. Clinton Donor The bulk of Clinton’s Senate flights were chartered through Aircraft Services Group Inc., which boasts two Gulstream IV jets and a 16-seat Embraer Legacy among its managed fleet. The president and chief executive officer of Aircraft Services Group, George Reenstra, donated $500 apiece to Clinton’s Senate and presidential campaigns in 2006 and 2007, according to Federal Election Commission records. Clinton charged taxpayers $14,801.86 for 11 privately chartered trips she took between the time she announced her first presidential bid in early 2007 through the end of the Democratic primary in June 2008. In each case, she flew between Washington and New York or between cities within her home state. The issue isn’t so much whether Clinton added to government spending, said Steve Ellis, vice president at the Washington nonprofit Taxpayers for Common Sense. The money came out of her Senate office budget, which is a fixed sum. Rather, Ellis said, it’s a question of how her use of that budget reflects on the way she would allocate the larger federal spending pie. “It’s important to see where lawmakers think they should be spending their resources,” he said. Clinton took taxpayer-funded private jet flights as senator (Hill) By Peter Sullivan January 29, 2015 The Hill Hillary Clinton took more than 200 flights on private jets that were charged to taxpayers as a senator, Bloomberg reports, further opening the former secretary of State to attacks that she is wealthy and out of touch. The flights racked up $225,756 in costs during Clinton’s time in the Senate, from 2001 to early 2009, according to Bloomberg. The charges are noted on Clinton’s official Senate filings, which were provided to Bloomberg by a Republican operative. Some of the planes used by Clinton were owned by companies including Coca-Cola and Citigroup, according to the report. Bloomberg found no evidence that Clinton had violated ethics rules; senators frequently use privately chartered planes for travel. USA Today reports that two-dozen senators rode on private jets to, from or around their home states for a total of almost $1 million in charges in 2013. The news, however, may help feed the Republican narrative that Clinton, expected to make a bid for the White House in 2016, is out of touch. The Republican National Committee has already labeled Clinton “High-flying Hillary” over her more recent travel expenses on her way to paid speeches. RNC spokesman Sean Spicer tweeted a link to the story on Thursday along with the question, “Out of touch?” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill defended the travel to Bloomberg as a mark of Clinton’s hard work ethic, traveling around the state to visit constituents. “As a cornerstone of her tireless work on behalf of New York, she constantly crisscrossed the state to meet with the people she represented,” Merrill said. “As anyone in the Senate representing a large state knows — and as reported down to the penny in public filings — that means going to hard-to-reach places, not just those conveniently located near major airports.” “She did whatever it took to get to where the people of New York actually lived and worked,” he added. “Based on her resounding re-election, that’s exactly what her constituents expected of her.” In the 2012 campaign, Democrats were able to portray as out of touch then-nominee Mitt Romney, who is considering running again. Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton ‘probably not’ bold enough for 2016 (WAPO) By Sean Sullivan January 29, 2015 Washington Post Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a potential candidate for president, on Thursday expressed little faith that Hillary Clinton would be an acceptable standard-bearer in the 2016 presidential election. “Based on her history, do I think she is going to be as bold as needs to be in addressing the major crises that we face? Probably not. I may be surprised,” Sanders said in an interview with The Washington Post. Sanders, a self-described “socialist,” is considering running for president as either Democrat or an independent. Asked repeatedly about Clinton’s record, he mostly declined to weigh in on specifics. “I have no assessment,” he said. But it was clear that Sanders is not convinced Clinton, the presumed Democratic frontrunner for president, has made a forceful enough argument about how to combat income inequality, a central focus of the Vermont senator. “Not much,” responded Sanders when asked about what he has heard from Clinton on income inequality and related issues. Pro-Clinton group Correct the Record pushed back on the former secretary of state’s economic record. “Hillary Clinton has fought all her life to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to succeed — championing equal pay for equal work, advocating for middle-class tax cuts, and pushing for a raise in the minimum wage,” said spokesperson Adrienne Watson. Sanders focused deep concern on the gap between rich and poor, an issue both Democrats and Republicans are speaking about with more frequency, and sharply criticized the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, whose vast political network said this week it was prepared to spend nearly $1 billion in advance of the 2016 election. “You’re looking at the undermining of American democracy,” said Sanders. A Kochs spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. As he weighs a bid, Sanders has been traveling to the early nominating states. He is headed to New Hampshire again this weekend and will return to Iowa in the coming weeks. He said he will not run unless he thinks he “can do it well,” so he does not undermine the issues he cares about. “‘Can you bring people out on the streets? Can you mobilize people? Can you tap the anger that’s out there?’“ said Sanders of the questions facing him as he weighs a potential presidential bid. “And the answer is, you know what, at this moment, I don’t exactly know that you can.” Sanders said he plans to decide “reasonably soon” whether to run, likely before the summer. “You can’t wait indefinitely, that’s for sure,” he added. Democrats Facing 2016 Debate Dilemma (National Journal) By Emily Schultheis January 29, 2015 National Journal Democrats are facing a growing logistical dilemma as their planning for the next presidential election gets underway: They need to start organizing a process for presidential primary debates, but there aren’t any candidates to invite. And with Hillary Clinton likely to clear the field of serious competition, she may want to avoid debating her opposition altogether. National Democrats have begun the process of planning for primary debates, but they stress that everything is in the very early stages. Top Democratic National Committee aides are in touch with interested TV networks and potential cosponsoring groups to discuss dates and formats, as well as with representatives of all prospective 2016 Democratic candidates. But how many debates, where and when they’re held, and what they look like depend entirely on which Democrats end up getting into the race—and if Clinton faces second-tier opposition, there’s a chance there won’t be any debates. Unlike with Republicans, who have long known the likelihood of a big field and could plan their debates accordingly, the Democrats’ process has always been more uncertain. Initial conversations about the next year’s debate schedule have taken place, but party officials acknowledge the details won’t be ironed out until it’s clear who’s running and who isn’t. “We’ve met with [the DNC], I know others have as well—but they just don’t know what the field is going to look like,” said one TV network source. “There’s a scenario where Hillary is the only kind of serious credible candidate, in which case they might want zero debates or very, very few.” A few things are certain: There will be fewer Democratic debates than in 2008 and they’ll start considerably later in the cycle. Obama and Clinton debated 27 times during the 2008 primary, a staggering number that party officials have no desire to repeat. And instead of a spring start for those debates—the first one of the 2008 cycle was held in late April 2007—networks and the DNC anticipate the earliest a debate could start is the fall. But if the field is small and Clinton is far ahead in polling, insiders expect her to have a lot of sway over the debate process and schedule—which may mean a much trimmer debate schedule than in years past. “In a prospective Clinton candidacy … there’s a very strong chance she’ll start off with a very strong lead,” said veteran Democratic strategist Chris Lehane. “That would give her a little bit of a stronger hand to play in terms of both determining how many debates are actually proposed and which ones she actually agrees to.” Hillary Clinton’s candidacy looks to be a near-certainty at this point, but what’s less clear is which of her potential opponents will actually decide to run. Vice President Joe Biden, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont have all expressed interest in the race; progressive supporters of Elizabeth Warren are hoping to pull the first-term senator from Massachusetts into the race as well, but thus far she’s shown no interest. Republicans announced a tentative debate schedule earlier this month for the 2016 primary, beginning with an August event in Ohio. Depending on how the field shapes up, Clinton could be in a tough spot either way when it comes to debates. On one hand, if she faces a field with minimal opposition—with only one lesser-known candidate, such as Sanders or Webb—her campaign, and the TV networks, might be less interested in organizing that face-off than they would with a bigger field. Observers likened 2016 to the race between Al Gore and former Sen. Bill Bradley in the 2000 Democratic primary: Gore, as the sitting vice president, was the favorite for the nomination, but Bradley put up a legitimate challenge and even outraised Gore at points along the way. The two faced off in a total of nine debates between October 1999 and March 2000. But Lehane, who worked for Gore that year, said that Clinton, in 2016, could have the option not to debate if she didn’t want to—a luxury neither Gore nor Bradley had in 2000. That primary “wasn’t a situation where Al Gore was at 80 percent [in the polls] and Bill Bradley was in single digits and Gore could just ignore debates,” he said. Still, many Democrats feel that not debating could be just as dangerous. The challenging debates between Obama and Clinton in 2007 and 2008 made them both better candidates, according to several top Democratic officials. Many Democrats feel that Clinton, whose presidential bid began eight years ago, could use the practice to sharpen her skills ahead of the general election. Holding no debates would be a public relations challenge for the Democratic Party, too. They’re media events, and they help bring visibility to the party’s eventual nominee. Without debates, Republicans would get all the highly publicized, televised face-offs to themselves. “Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (as well as Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and more) had at least two dozen debates in 2008. From that clash, Barack Obama emerged stronger, tougher, smarter— and the Democratic Party quickly united around him,” longtime Democratic strategist and Clinton ally Paul Begala said in an e-mail. “So while I am for Hillary, big-time … I think some good, challenging debates would be good for her and good for the party,” he said. What to Wear? First Ladies Are Steeped in Protocol (NYT) By Julie Hirschfeld David January 30, 2015 New York Times WASHINGTON -- The first lady, Michelle Obama, bared her head in Saudi Arabia, but covered it at the Vatican and at an Indonesian mosque. Laura Bush wore a head scarf only briefly in Saudi Arabia and to tour the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Hillary Rodham Clinton covered her head in Eritrea, the West Bank and Pakistan, but did not in Saudi Arabia. Mrs. Obama inspired headlines and Internet chatter this week when she was photographed without headgear during a visit with President Obama to Riyadh, the capital of a conservative Muslim kingdom where women are compelled to cover their heads. But her attire was in keeping with diplomatic protocol and longstanding custom for Western women visiting Saudi Arabia. And that is no accident. There are dozens of rules and customs that govern what an American first lady should wear and what she should not while visiting other countries, and first ladies have to follow them all. ‘‘Mrs. Obama always wanted to be briefed completely on all the cultural traditions, from food to greetings to attire, and we would prepare a detailed memo before each trip,’’ said Capricia Penavic Marshall, who, as the chief of protocol for the United States from 2009 to 2013, oversaw protocol matters for the president and first lady abroad. ‘‘These are not unilateral decisions she is making,’’ Ms. Marshall said. ‘‘No one just decides one day that this is what I’m going to wear. It is very carefully planned.’’ Mrs. Obama in particular, she added, ‘‘likes to be well-informed.’’ Adhering to the rules is an elaborate business for first ladies, whose every outfit and accessory is scrutinized for political significance and cultural import, particularly when traveling to countries where customs bear little resemblance to Western practice. When Mrs. Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia as first lady in 2007, she went bareheaded in public almost the entire time. But when a group of breast cancer survivors she met with surprised her with a handmade black hijab, or head scarf, with tinges of pink that signify breast cancer awareness, she immediately put it on in solidarity with the women. ‘‘It was a very organic moment,’’ said Anita McBride, Mrs. Bush’s chief of staff at the time. ‘‘Anyone would have done it. But there was a little bit of a flap about it.’’ The hijab was a rare spontaneous episode in what are otherwise meticulously planned sartorial strategies on trips by first ladies. White House aides always prepare a ‘‘wardrobe memo’’ that accounts for cultural norms (head scarf or no?), climate and terrain (short sleeves or long? high heels or flats?), and the nature of the events (gown or suit?). ‘‘When you’re in the White House, you always tend to err on the side of being prepared,’’ Ms. McBride said. ‘‘The wardrobe memo was a very key ingredient and component of that.’’ In Mrs. Obama’s case, the stop in Saudi Arabia was a late addition to her itinerary for a trip that was initially planned only as a visit to India. When King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia died on Jan. 23, President Obama hastily changed his plans and diverted to Riyadh to pay respects. It is not clear whether Mrs. Obama knew in advance to pack for a visit to the kingdom, and the White House refused on Thursday to comment on any aspect of how Mrs. Obama chose what to wear. The first lady dressed modestly, in loose-fitting black pants and a blue tunic-length blouse, with her arms covered by a three-quarter-length coat in a matching print. Some Saudi bloggers criticized her on Twitter, using an Arabic hashtag that roughly translates to #MichelleObamaUnveiled. Many Westerners, including Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, praised her for making a stand in defiance of Muslim law. ‘‘It turned out to be much ado about nothing,’’ said Melanne Verveer, who as a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton traveled extensively with her when Mrs. Clinton was the first lady. ‘‘Yes, your clothes do matter. Yes, they can be interpreted, but if you dress appropriately to the society you are visiting, you make sure that no one makes news with something not intended to make news.’’ Like Mrs. Obama in Indonesia in 2010 and Mrs. Bush in Jerusalem, Mrs. Clinton would cover her head when visiting a mosque, but not when meeting with officials in Muslim countries. The same is true for an audience with the pope at the Vatican, where women are expected to cover their knees and shoulders as well as their heads. ‘‘There may not be a code per se, but there was guidance from the State Department, and it was to be respectful, to be accommodating in conservative societies,’’ said Ms. Verveer, now the director of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. ‘‘Don’t wear your sundress.’’ Even the best-laid wardrobe plans can go awry for a first lady, so Ms. McBride said she would often take head coverings for unforeseen events when traveling in the Middle East. She slipped a few extra scarves into her luggage during a trip to Afghanistan with Mrs. Bush, and each woman grabbed one when they disembarked from Air Force One. ‘‘We put them around our shoulders just in case we might need to pull them on for any reason when we arrived,’’ Ms. McBride said. ‘‘You never know.’’