Correct The Record Sunday February 22, 2015 Roundup

From:burns.strider@americanbridge.org To: CTRFriendsFamily@americanbridge.org Date: 2015-02-22 18:22 Subject: Correct The Record Sunday February 22, 2015 Roundup

*​**Correct The Record Sunday February 22, 2015 Roundup:* *Tweets:* *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/> established Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications to address cyber security #HRC365 <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23HRC365> correctrecord.org/11-things-you-… <http://t.co/pXFAX6lYkZ> [2/22/15, 12:11 a.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/569363742145687552>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> is "a fighter for the marginalized, a voice for the struggling, & a comforter for the overburdened." http://www.hpenews.com/opinion/x1707095788/Guest-Column-Clinton-s-message-resonates-with-millennials … <http://t.co/jClpK4mEAI>[2/21/15, 2:51 p.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/569222804287021056>] *Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: *.*@ATBarnhill <https://twitter.com/ATBarnhill/>: "Clinton’s message resonates with millennials" hpenews.com/opinion/x17070… <http://t.co/jClpK453Ja>via @hpenterprise <https://twitter.com/hpenterprise/> [2/21/15, 12:39 p.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/569189792698773504>] *Headlines:* *Washington Post: McAuliffe: ‘No need’ for Clinton to start 2016 bid right away <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/22/mcauliffe-no-need-for-clinton-to-start-2016-bid-right-away/>* “Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton family friend and political supporter, said that he sees ‘no need’ for Hillary Rodham Clinton to begin her 2016 presidential campaign right away and that she benefits by avoiding a bruising Democratic primary challenge.” *Huffington Post: Hillary Clinton And The Not Too Bitter, Not Too Smooth, Just Right Primary <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/22/hillary-clinton-primary-challenge_n_6724440.html>* “At this point, it sure looks like Hillary Clinton can grab the nomination without too much trouble. Trouble is, some trouble might be a nice thing to have.” *ABC News: One Thing That Might Surprise You About Hillary Clinton <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2015/02/one-thing-that-might-surprise-you-about-hillary-clinton/>* "5] Covering Clinton, what is one thing that has surprised you about her? Amy Chozick: Hmm. She likes to drink. We were on the campaign trail in 2008 and the press thought she was just taking shots to pander to voters in Pennsylvania. Um, no." *Politico: Bernie Sanders not eager to ‘tilt at windmills’ in 2016 <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/bernie-sanders-not-eager-to-tilt-at-windmills-in-2016-115395.html>* “Sanders didn’t mention the presumed Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, by name in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s ‘This Week,’ but said, if he decides to seek the White House, he isn’t sure he would run as a Democrat.” *Bloomberg: John Kasich Swats at Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton as He Considers 2016 <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-22/john-kasich-swats-at-rand-paul-hillary-clinton-as-he-considers-2016>* “Asked about Clinton, Kasich said, ‘You know, I like Hillary, but I'm not ever going to be for her for president.’" *NBC News opinion: Giuliani's Comments Don't Hurt the GOP, They Help Hillary <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/oped-giulianis-comments-dont-hurt-gop-they-help-hillary-n310581>* “If Republicans can't get over their Obama derangement syndrome it just makes it that much easier for Hillary to say ‘Obama isn't on the ballot!’ and define herself. It's already going to be hard to tag her with the Obama administration because everyone knows she disagrees with the President a lot.” *New York Times opinion: Hillary, Jeb and $$$$$$ <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-and-fund-raising-for-the-2016-presidential-race.html?_r=0>* “And in the income-inequality era, how does a candidate crowned with this many dollar signs put herself forward persuasively as a woman of the people and a champion of the underdog?” *Washington Post: The making of Hillary 5.0: Marketing wizards help re-imagine Clinton brand <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-making-of-hillary-50-marketing-wizards-help-reimagine-clinton-brand/2015/02/21/bfb01120-b919-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html>* "'I just want America to know the Hillary Clinton I know,' said Jerry Crawford, a friend and the Iowa chairman of Clinton’s 2008 campaign. 'I want as many people as possible to get to know the woman I’ve seen behind closed doors. She’s bright, disciplined, quick to throw her head back and laugh — just a very, very attractive person.'" *Associated Press: For Clinton, her family foundation may pose campaign risks <http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-her-family-foundation-may-pose-campaign-risks-125132967--election.html>* “The foundation launched by former President Bill Clinton more than a decade ago has battled HIV and AIDS in Africa, educated millions of children and fed the poor and hungry around the globe. It also has the potential to become a political risk for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she moves toward a second presidential campaign.” *Articles:* *Washington Post: McAuliffe: ‘No need’ for Clinton to start 2016 bid right away <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/22/mcauliffe-no-need-for-clinton-to-start-2016-bid-right-away/>* By Philip Rucker February 22, 2015 10:10 a.m. EST Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton family friend and political supporter, said that he sees "no need" for Hillary Rodham Clinton to begin her 2016 presidential campaign right away and that she benefits by avoiding a bruising Democratic primary challenge. "Listen, I'm very happy with the situation," McAuliffe said Saturday in an interview with The Washington Post. "She doesn't have to get in right away. It's saving a lot of time, effort and money. Let the Republicans all get in." McAuliffe, who served as national co-chairman of Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign and as the Democratic National Committee chairman during the 2004 presidential primaries, said he knows from experience that launching a campaign early can be draining. He pointed out that in the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton did not announce his candidacy until October 1991. "Having done this for many years, the second you get in and open up a campaign account, let me tell you, that money just goes out the door," McAuliffe said. "There’s no need at this point. We’re in a very good position, so she can take her time on her timetable, which is spectacular." McAuliffe, who once sat on the board of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, defended the charitable foundation's decision to accept donations from foreign governments. “If the biggest attack on Hillary’s going to be that she raised too much money for her charity, okay, I’ll take that," he said. "No one’s alleging anything beyond that she raised money and people gave her money and foreign governments gave her money. At the end of the day, that’s fine. It went to a charity. It helped a lot of people." McAuliffe's comments come amid much discussion in Democratic circles about Clinton's timetable for what her allies think is a certain 2016 White House run. Clinton's team has signaled that she is likely to begin raising money as early as April but may delay aggressive campaigning until the summer. Some Democrats believe she is wise to hang back and wait, while others want to see her fighting now to erase any impressions that she may be taking the Democratic nomination for granted. At this stage in the 2008 campaign, the Democratic field already had taken shape, with announced candidacies of Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, among others. But this time, Clinton does not face a serious primary threat. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) has insisted that she is not running, despite an effort by some liberal activists to draft her into the race, while Vice President Biden is not actively preparing for a candidacy, although he has not shut the door on a run. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former senator Jim Webb (Va.) have been making waves and visiting early primary states, but none has launched a campaign. "People are going to make their decision," McAuliffe said. "If they run, they run. If they don’t, they don’t." McAuliffe said he disagreed with the view of some Democrats that a competitive primary campaign would be good for Clinton and would help prepare her for the rigors of the general election. "What’s going to go on on the Republican side is going to be intense and tough," McAuliffe said. "I wouldn’t want to see that on the Democratic side — of course not, if we can avoid it. It's going to be a long, tough slog for them." McAuliffe was asked to assess the early moves of former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who has locked up many of the Republican Party's prominent donors and policy thinkers in the two months since he formed a leadership PAC to explore a bid. "None of that surprised me," McAuliffe said. "At the end of the day, it’s still hard because of, obviously, the negative issues around his brother, the issues of the war in Iraq and all that. That's still going to linger out there. You’ve got to remember, when President Obama took office, you think of the job losses that occurred under President [George W.] Bush’s term and contrast that to the millions of jobs created under President Obama. I’ll take that contrast." McAuliffe continued, "Jeb Bush, who wants to pretend he can distance himself, cannot distance himself from that failed economic record and failed foreign policy record. All of the issues that we had before will come back to [the] fore.” As for what role McAuliffe may play in a Clinton 2016 campaign, he said he would be her loudest cheerleader in Richmond. "I have the job I’ve always dreamed of," McAuliffe said. "I love being governor, as you probably can tell." In 2007 and 2008, he said, "I spent 500 days on the road. I can’t do that again. I’ve got a job here." "You know what?" he continued, "to be honest with you, I’m personal friends with them. They want me to be successful. Honestly, [the] president calls all the time. I talk to Hillary all the time. They want me to be successful as a governor. I think that’s the best thing I can do." He said that Virginia is poised once more to be a top general election battleground and that he would focus on helping Clinton win his home state. McAuliffe is preparing for state legislative races this year and is trying to help Democrats regain control of the state Senate. "I'm laying the groundwork and putting all the pieces in place for '15 to get my Senate back," McAuliffe said. "But that same team I’m putting in place and operations will be a set-up to make sure that [in 2016] Virginia’s blue." *Huffington Post: Hillary Clinton And The Not Too Bitter, Not Too Smooth, Just Right Primary <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/22/hillary-clinton-primary-challenge_n_6724440.html>* By Jason Linkins February 22, 2015 7:30 a.m. EST Every election cycle can be considered, first and foremost, a monument to hype. With every passing week, the political world is a blizzard of brash predictions, bold pronouncements and bad advice. This year, your Speculatroners shall attempt to decode and defang this world with a regular dispatch that we're calling "This Week In Coulda Shoulda Maybe." We hope this helps, but as always, we make no guarantees! It shouldn't be controversial to say that at this point in the 2016 race, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton enjoys virtually every possible advantage in the Democratic primary field. She's the best-known candidate with the highest level of name recognition and visibility. She has a long-nurtured campaign apparatus and the ability to call campaign infrastructure into being on the fly. Against the rest of the Democratic field, she's the overwhelming favorite in every poll that's ever been conducted. Of course, anytime we talk about a "Democratic field," we should really say, "insofar as one exists." Her competition -- so far a dimly lit constellation of long shots (and perhaps the current vice president) -- isn't shaping up as a particularly robust challenge. Clinton plays a role in that simply by looming on the landscape. As has been discussed previously, Clinton has the power to "freeze the field" -- meaning that her dominance is such that Democratic party elites and mega-donors are loath to invest in a competitor, creating a sort of vicious cycle in which no viable competitors can truly present themselves. There is a very real possibility that Clinton could face only a nominal challenge in a Democratic primary, and potentially none at all. And that's produced an interesting phenomenon among the members of the political media who, expecting a competitive primary to generate monetizable content and grist for "The Narrative," find themselves somewhere in the middle of a story that doesn't seem to have started. This is how you can understand the constant attention given to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren -- a woman who is not running for president -- as a "foil" for Clinton. Every great protagonist needs an antagonist, and the political press would dearly love, if possible, to will one into being. Elsewhere, there are the Hot Takes, suffused by the media's drug of choice, counter-intuition. Are all the advantages that Clinton secretly holds actually disadvantages in disguise? Is Clinton's ability to quelch all viable contenders for the Democratic nomination actually the Achilles heel that will lead to her undoing? A better question might be: Are all the people offering that opinion simply planting a flag for a future "Told ya so" story down the line? I think it's fair to say that most of us, if we wanted something important (like, say, a job), wouldn't spend much time regretting the news that we were the only person in the running. Just about everyone would prefer to win in a blowout. At the same time, there is something that we all understand instinctually about the nature of competition: It tests mettle. And the old eyeball test informs us of the virtues of tested mettle. When we look at the 27-1 Gonzaga University men's basketball team alongside the other basketball teams in the top four of the NCAA's national rankings, many of us downgrade the Bulldogs because we know that they didn't play against the same level of competition as Kentucky, Virginia and Duke did. So, in the back of our mind, Gonzaga looms as a paper tiger. That said, eventually Gonzaga is going to have ample opportunity to show that they're superior to their competition -- just like Clinton will, even if she runs in an uncontested primary. Of course, the fact that there isn't already vigorous competition for Clinton to face tells us a few potentially ominous things. First and foremost, it shows that the Democratic Party's bench is not terribly deep right now. Elections are, at bottom, a competition of ideas -- one in which a losing candidate's vision may persist beyond the candidate's own electoral hopes. That's a good thing for any political party. Furthermore, a quickly decided primary could negatively impact state-level political organizing, which in turn would impact the vitality of down-ticket campaigns. But let's stick with the question: Is Hillary running virtually unopposed a bad thing? As Vox's Matt Yglesias points out, having a competitive primary means "real debates, real media strategy, real policy rollouts, and all the other accompaniments of a presidential nominating congress." He goes on to note that "competition" in this instance goes well beyond simply having other credible opponents: A vigorous primary campaign is a means through which, among other things, the key potential vulnerabilities in a candidate's biography get aired. Was Clinton lying about her opposition to gay marriage the way David Axelrod says Obama was? Have too many years at the pinnacle of American politics left her out of touch with middle class struggles? Can she distance herself from Obama administration foreign policy initiatives that didn't work out (settlement freeze? Russia reset?) without sounding disloyal or ineffectual? Can she answer questions about the complicated finances underlying her husband's foundation? As long as she's "not running," we just don't know. And the closer she gets to obtaining the nomination without answering the questions, the more vulnerable the position she leaves herself in for the general election. Here's the thing: All of that is smart-sounding stuff. It's thoughtful argument that appeals to our instincts. You can take that to a Beltway soiree or the set of a Sunday morning talk show, and with a little charm, you'll hold up. And yet, it's still really just gut feelings. It's still that instinct that pushes you to take an at-large team from the ACC deeper in the tourney than the one-loss Western Conference champions -- a good enough gamble that could, nonetheless, leave your bracket in tatters. And it's worth pointing out that over on the GOP side, Republican elites are making their own set of gambles with their primary. The Republican National Committee's interpretation of their 2012 cycle woes has led them to believe that the long primary cost them dearly. The RNC believes that their primary afforded too many fleeting also-rans too much media coverage, that the length of the competition provided too many opportunities for their party to be shown in a bad light, and that ultimately, everything conspired to force their nominee into a bunch of positions from which the extrication was too difficult. They have, subsequently, undertaken a number of moves to "fix" this problem, and while they've not created a situation in which one candidate has a massive advantage over everyone else, it's still a drive toward limiting the competition, all based on some gut feelings. Can we get closer to the truth of how, if at all, a competitive primary brings benefits -- or pitfalls -- to candidates? Well, if we turn to political science, there seems to be one constant notion: A competitive primary is very good for candidates, right up to where the competitive primary becomes a divisive primary, at which point the benefits of competition tend to fade. The virtues of competitive primaries are hotly debated, as it turns out. Back in February of 2008, The Monkey Cage's John Sides embarked on an exploration of the topic, noting that the most relevant research at the time pointed to other factors as being far more determinative of success in a general election. From a gambler's point of view, the health of the economy and the popular regard for the presidential incumbent matter a lot more than what happens during a primary. But Josh Putnam, proprietor of Frontloading HQ, nevertheless saw something interesting in the notion that a competitive primary could take a dark, blowback-producing turn. Just as the RNC concluded after the 2012 cycle, the factor that fascinated Putnam in 2008 was timing -- the notion that on a long enough timeline, a competitive primary eventually, maybe inevitably, turns divisive. Per Putnam: At what point does the positive competitiveness of the race for delegates turn into the negative, party-splitting divisiveness? Should Clinton do well in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, then 2008 may have reached that point for the Democrats. But in the Super Tuesday era (1988/1992-2004), no challenger has been afforded such an opportunity. That era was marked by frontrunners who were able to snuff out insurgencies before competitiveness turned to divisiveness. ... [Walter] Mondale quelled Gary Hart before a movement started (No, this isn't within the era I defined above but it is a good example.). George W. Bush kept [John] McCain at bay. And [John] Kerry silenced John Edwards. Competitiveness yielded to reality in all three cases before divisiveness took hold or could attempt to take hold. It's almost as if there's a sort of "uncanny valley" phenomenon happening, in which competition elevates everyone until it gets too hot or turns too personal. There's a sweet spot: Ideally, you want your level of competition to be challenging, but not bedeviling. You want the primary race to look like a collegial bit of tire-kicking, not a campaign in which you're sending arsonists out to torch the rival dealership. So maybe all of the people who continually pen that "Elizabeth Warren versus Hillary Clinton" fan fiction are onto something, instinctually: They have a sense that the Jim Webbs and Martin O'Malleys of the world might not make it out of Iowa and that Clinton needs someone who can stay in the game long enough to make it to Super Tuesday. But not much further than that. In the end, that data-driven conclusion about competitive primaries that we really want remains elusive -- or at the very least, not strong enough to talk us out of our horse-sense feelings on the matter. But let's return to one last study, cited by The Monkey Cage's Jonathan Robinson, about that 2008 competition between Clinton and Barack Obama: Using a survey that tracked individual voters from the primary to the general election, Michael Henderson, D. Sunshine Hillygus, and Trevor Thompson ... examine whether and why Clinton supporters did or did not support Obama in the general election. They find that 71% of Clinton supporters ended up voting for Obama. Moreover, supporters of Clinton and the other Democratic candidates were no more likely to stay home on Election Day. The most important factors that predicted a vote for McCain among supporters of the other Democratic candidates were not frustration with the primary election’s outcome but ideology and political issues, especially the Iraq War. All of that suggests that even though the 2008 Democratic primary got fiercely competitive, it still stoked an energy that lasted throughout the election cycle, ensuring that Democratic voters stayed engaged over the long haul. Perhaps what a political party, ideally, wants out of a primary is a contest where the competitiveness fosters some amount of voter engagement without tipping into a grotesque spectacle that leaves those who had engaged with it feeling nauseous, discouraged and just plain done with politics for the year. Handled the right way, a contested primary creates a number of "products" organically that would need to be manufactured by other means in a non-contested primary. Competition helps to present those Big Ideas to the electorate, a vision of the future for which to fight. It breeds passion and gets voters to start using those muscles of commitment, which eventually get them out of the house and to the polls on Election Day. Perhaps most importantly, it allows the candidates to make connections with those activist members of the electorate, who'll use their muscles to make sure those committed voters know how to get to those polls on time. At this point, it sure looks like Hillary Clinton can grab the nomination without too much trouble. Trouble is, some trouble might be a nice thing to have. *ABC News: One Thing That Might Surprise You About Hillary Clinton <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2015/02/one-thing-that-might-surprise-you-about-hillary-clinton/>* By Benjamin Bell February 21, 2015 3:08 p.m. EST This week, we asked Amy Chozick, national political reporter for the The New York Times, who covers Hillary Clinton, about when the former secretary of state might announce her 2016 intentions, her possible competition and one thing that surprised Chozick about Clinton. Read our conversation below before Chozick appears on the “This Week” roundtable Sunday. 1] Hillary Clinton has not said she is running for president, although obviously many people assume she will. If she does, what do we know about when she might announce? Amy Chozick: The conventional wisdom is that she would establish some sort of exploratory committee to begin raising money in April. She could then do a splashy public rollout of an official campaign later in the spring or early summer. But the exploratory committee would give Clinton the legal apparatus to begin to raise and spend money for a political campaign. 2] Clinton’s Twitter account has been closely watched since she started tweeting. Do we know who is in control of that account and the strategy behind it? Amy Chozick: I think we might be overanalyzing. Clinton, apparently, handles her own Twitter account and enjoys the medium. Just look what it did for her with the “Texts from Hillary” meme. Tweeting allows her to comment (albeit in 140 characters) on events of the day in a very controlled, but heavily disseminated way. That beats the unpredictability of a press conference, at least for now. 3] The New York Times reported Clinton met with Sen. Elizabeth Warren in December. Do they [team Clinton] perceive her as a threat to a possible Clinton candidacy for president? And if so, how large? Also, is there a specific Republican that team Clinton perceives would pose the biggest challenge to Clinton should she decide to run and secure the nomination? Amy Chozick: Sen. Warren says she is not running for president, but she has had a significant impact on the national conversation, especially about Wall Street and inequality and how Clinton and the Democratic Party writ large address those issues. On the Republican side, Jeb Bush is currently perceived as the biggest threat. He has name recognition, appeals to Latinos, and has deep coffers and some centrist appeal. 4] At this point, who are Clinton’s closest advisers? Should Clinton decide to run for president, who might be at the top of the power structure? Who might run her campaign? Amy Chozick: Many of the same loyal aides who have been with Clinton since the White House (when her team was known as Hillaryland) continue to serve as her closest advisers, but a lot of newcomers will come on board for a 2016 campaign. John Podesta, who worked in former President Bill Clinton and President Obama’s administrations, is expected to serve as a campaign chairman. 5] Covering Clinton, what is one thing that has surprised you about her? Amy Chozick: Hmm. She likes to drink. We were on the campaign trail in 2008 and the press thought she was just taking shots to pander to voters in Pennsylvania. Um, no. *Politico: Bernie Sanders not eager to ‘tilt at windmills’ in 2016 <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/bernie-sanders-not-eager-to-tilt-at-windmills-in-2016-115395.html>* By Caitlin Emma February 22, 2015 11:53 a.m. EST Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders has been in Iowa again, railing against the Koch brothers, calling for economic justice and trying to gauge whether there’s enough grassroots support for a presidential run. Sanders didn’t mention the presumed Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, by name in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” but said, if he decides to seek the White House, he isn’t sure he would run as a Democrat. “The fact that I’m in Iowa, which is a caucus state, maybe speaks for itself,” he said. “But I haven’t made that final decision. And I got to tell you that a lot of my strong supporters say Bernie, ‘Stay out of the damn Democratic Party. Run as an Independent.’” Sanders is the longest serving Independent member of Congress at 24 years. In Iowa, he told supporters that he was ready to take on the “billionaire class,” railing against the corrupting influence of money in politics. “The United States government has got to start working for the middle class and families of this country and not just millionaires and billionaires,” he said. “It is likely that within a very short period of time, the Koch brothers themselves will have a stronger political presence than either the Democratic or Republican Party.” Asked whether he could win a presidential race, Sanders said it was a “fair question.” He doesn’t want to “tilt at windmills,” he said, or attack imaginary enemies like the famous literary character Don Quixote. “I’ve got so much to do,” the senator said. “But I just think that out there, there are so many people who are hurting, so many people who are disillusioned, so many people who are viscerally upset that they work long hours for low wages and the billionaires are getting richer. They need a voice.” *Bloomberg: John Kasich Swats at Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton as He Considers 2016 <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-22/john-kasich-swats-at-rand-paul-hillary-clinton-as-he-considers-2016>* By Ali Elkin February 22, 2015 12:28 p.m. EST [Subtitle] The Ohio governor says all his “options are on the table” when it comes to running for president. Ohio Governor John Kasich is offering a preview of how he would tangle with potential rivals Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton if he runs for president. In an interview airing Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, Kasich defended his decision take Medicaid expansion money under Obamacare, which fellow Republican Paul has called a move by governors who think money grows on trees. "You know, Matthew 25 says that it's about how you treat the widowed, how you treat the poor, how you treat the hungry," Kasich said. "How do you clothe those who have no clothes? That is a conservative position to help them get on their feet so they then can assume their rightful place in our society." In Kentucky, he added, "maybe everybody's fine, maybe there aren't people who are suffering these problems." The state had the seventh-highest poverty rate in the U.S. (including the District of Columbia) in a 2011-2013 average, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Asked about Clinton, Kasich said, "You know, I like Hillary, but I'm not ever going to be for her for president." He suggested that he'd continue to speak out on foreign policy, in which Clinton was involved as President Barack Obama's secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. "Hopefully whether I do this or not, I can have somewhat of a voice when it comes to the fact that America, you know, it just seems to be in retreat," he said. Whether Kasich will meet Paul in the presidential primary is unclear. "All my options are on the table, and it's a process that I, you know, have really not spent an enormous amount of time studying internally," said Kasich, who has been traveling to campaign for a balanced-budget amendment to the U.S. constitution. "But look, I'm not saying I won't, I'm not saying I will, I'm leaving my options out there and we'll just see how things develop." *NBC News opinion: Giuliani's Comments Don't Hurt the GOP, They Help Hillary <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/oped-giulianis-comments-dont-hurt-gop-they-help-hillary-n310581>* By Jason Johnson February 22, 2015 12:34 p.m. EST This week former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that President Obama doesn't love you, me or America. He said that the President has been under the influence of communists since he was 9 years old, and that Obama is likely a socialist or an anti-communist. And despite the handwringing on the right and left, his words don't really harm anyone. Not the Republican brand, not his own reputation or even any of the Republicans who have backed his statements. However he did just HELP Hillary Clinton, and if the GOP is serious about 2016 they should be worried about any statements actions or thoughts that get her closer to the White House. This all started last week when Giuliani was giving a speech at a posh Manhattan Dinner party for likely Presidential candidate Scott Walker last Wednesday, when Rudy said: "I do not believe — and I know this is a horrible thing to say — but I do not believe that this President loves America." Apparently that didn't bring the point home enough because the former mayor of New York city kept going in on Obama, with any media outlet that'd let him talk. On Fox & Friends: "What I'm saying is, in his rhetoric I very rarely hear the things that I used to hear Ronald Reagan say, the things that I used to hear Bill Clinton say about how much he loves America. I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American Presidents. And when it's not in the context of an overwhelming number of statements about the exceptionalism of America, it sounds like he's more of a critic than he is a supporter." He added, "You can be a patriotic American and be a critic, but then you're not expressing that kind of love that we're used to from a President." Basically by the end of the week Giuliani was doing everything short of asking for another copy of Obama's birth certificate and asking for his whereabouts on the morning of 9-11. Many in the press and some Republican commentators have said Giuliani's comments are harmful to the Republican brand, and slowly but surely Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush have come to not quite critique Giuliani but claim that their disagreement with Obama has always been more about policy than whether he loves America. Governor Bobby Jindal and former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann have come out in support of Giuliani's statements and have earned praise and scorn for their courage or cowardice depending on how you lean politically. Ultimately none of this matters, and this entire tempest in a teapot is probably giving the Clinton campaign goosebumps. First, Rudy Giuliani is not saying anything new, not for him, and not for many people in the Republican party base. From conservative commentators like Mark Levin to rank-and-file Republicans, the belief that Obama doesn't love America is not new, and it didn't take us losing the war against ISIS for many conservatives to question his patriotism, faith and love of country. It's just a very common belief system among the base of the modern Republican party. The best way to tag the party nominee of a two term president is to claim they'll essentially be that president's third term. The more the GOP makes this race about Obama, the easier it'll be for Hillary Clinton to draw contrasts between herself and his administration. Remember the whole 'flag pin' incident? Yes we all know from a moral and statesmanship perspective that this kind of language is racist and counter-productive for the United States but when in the last 7 years have we seen anyone in American campaign politics benefit from trying to be the adult in the room? Obama's "Dad-in-Chief" routine hasn't helped against the Republican Congress, or during campaigns. Giuliani's comments are no different than Steve Scalise hanging out with Klan members. The GOP knows who their base is, but for some reason we're all supposed to feign shock and disgust when we're reminded. While most Republicans don't hold beliefs this far to the racist right the fact is the last guy who tried to split the needle with the GOP base by saying "Obama is a good man with bad ideas" ended up losing. And speaking of losing, that's what this is really all about, the Republicans should be worried about losing to Hillary Clinton in 2016, and this kind of rhetoric is exactly what would lead to her and Bill Clinton marching back into the White House. Yes, there's the obvious problem, that this kind of language from a prominent Republican is alienating to young voters, minority voters and independents, but it actually goes a bit deeper than that. The best way to tag the party nominee of a two term president is to claim they'll essentially be that president's third term. The more the GOP makes this race about Obama, the easier it'll be for Hillary Clinton to draw contrasts between herself and his administration. Does anyone other than the far right believe Hillary doesn't love America? Does anyone other than the far right believe Hillary was influenced by communists? Or doesn't want to stop ISIS? If Republicans can't get over their Obama derangement syndrome it just makes it that much easier for Hillary to say "Obama isn't on the ballot!" and define herself. It's already going to be hard to tag her with the Obama administration because everyone knows she disagrees with the President a lot. If Republicans respond to every attack on the president like it's a leaked audio tape, Hillary will be waltzing right back into the White House, whether she loves America or not. *New York Times opinion: Hillary, Jeb and $$$$$$ <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-and-fund-raising-for-the-2016-presidential-race.html?_r=0>* By Frank Bruni February 21, 2015 [Subtitle:] Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Fund-Raising for the 2016 Presidential Race There are firm and necessary laws against American candidates accepting foreign donations. There’s no such prohibition for a philanthropy like the Clinton Foundation, which undeniably does much essential, heroic work around the globe. But it’s a philanthropy headed by a woman who’s most likely running for president and by her husband and daughter. Their requests and their gratitude cannot be separated entirely from politics. There’s inevitable overlap and blending. As The Washington Post wrote, the foundation “has given contributors entree, outside the traditional political arena, to a possible president. Foreign donors and countries that are likely to have interests before a potential Clinton administration — and yet are ineligible to give to U.S. political campaigns — have affirmed their support for the family’s work through the charitable giving.” And this isn’t some minor wrinkle of the foundation’s structure and workings. “A third of foundation donors who have given more than $1 million are foreign governments or other entities based outside the United States, and foreign donors make up more than half of those who have given more than $5 million,” according to The Post’s analysis. That analysis also showed that “donations from the financial services sector” represented the “largest share of corporate donors.” In other words, the foundation is cozy with Wall Street, which has also funneled Clinton some of her enormous speaking fees. The Journal noted that “at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.” A few prominent Democrats with whom I spoke were spooked, not because they believed that Clinton would feel a pressing need to repay these kindnesses, but because the eventual Republican nominee had just been handed a potent weapon against her. And in the income-inequality era, how does a candidate crowned with this many dollar signs put herself forward persuasively as a woman of the people and a champion of the underdog? THE answer — and her salvation — may be that we’ve all become so accustomed to the tide of money washing through politics that we just assume all candidates to be equally (and thoroughly) wet. We give in. And we stop acknowledging frequently or urgently enough that American elections, which should be contests of ideas and character, are as much (if not more) contests of cold, hard cash. Certainly those of us in the news media are somewhat guilty of this, because something that’s no longer new is no longer news. Sure, we publish stories about the dizzying, obscene heights of spending by major donors, like one written in The Times last month by Nicholas Confessore. He noted that the Koch brothers had drawn up a budget of $889 million for the 2016 election cycle. But we discuss the damage being done to Chris Christie’s presidential dreams by the defection of potential donors without digressing to underscore the perversity of a small circle of people having so much consequence. We report, as we did in January, on how well or poorly Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz performed when they spoke at a gathering put together by the Kochs in Southern California. But we don’t flag the oddity of these auditions, the chilling bizarreness of the way the road to the White House winds not only through the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary but also through plutocrats’ posh retreats. An astonishing bounty of the comments and developments that make headlines emanate from the arena of fund-raising. We learned that Mitt Romney might enter the 2016 race because he was telling donors as much, and we learned that he had decided otherwise because he was letting donors know. In neither instance did we take sufficient note of that. We articulate misgivings about how much of Clinton’s or Bush’s thinking may be rooted in the past. But the bigger issue, given the scope of not just their own political histories but also their relatives’, is how heavy a duffel of i.o.u.s each of them would carry into office. Their prominence is commensurate with their debts. And only so many of those can be forgotten. *Washington Post: The making of Hillary 5.0: Marketing wizards help re-imagine Clinton brand <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-making-of-hillary-50-marketing-wizards-help-reimagine-clinton-brand/2015/02/21/bfb01120-b919-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html>* By Philip Rucker and Anne Gearan February 21, 2015 6:18 p.m. EST Is Hillary Rodham Clinton a McDonald’s Big Mac or a Chipotle burrito bowl? A can of Bud or a bottle of Blue Moon? JCPenney or J. Crew? As she readies her second presidential campaign, Clinton has recruited consumer marketing specialists onto her team of trusted political advisers. Their job is to help imagine Hillary 5.0 — the rebranding of a first lady turned senator turned failed presidential candidate turned secretary of state turned likely 2016 Democratic presidential nominee. Clinton and her image-makers are sketching ways to refresh the well-established brand for tomorrow’s marketplace. In their mission to present voters with a winning picture of the likely candidate, no detail is too big or too small — from her economic opportunity agenda to the design of the “H” in her future campaign logo. “It’s exactly the same as selling an iPhone or a soft drink or a cereal,” said Peter Sealey, a longtime corporate marketing strategist. “She needs to use everything a brand has: a dominant color, a logo, a symbol. . . . The symbol of a Mercedes is a three-pointed star. The symbol of Coca-Cola is the contour bottle. The symbol of McDonald’s is the golden arches. What is Clinton’s symbol?” Clinton’s challenge is unique. Unlike potential Republican challengers of relatively middling fame who are introducing themselves to a national audience for the first time, Clinton is almost universally recognized. Love her or loathe her, potential voters know who she is after more than two decades in public life. Or they think they know. As Clinton and her advisers conceptualize her 2016 image, her own history shows the potential for peril. In politics, authenticity can be a powerful trait, and it is one that sometimes has escaped Clinton. In her 2008 presidential campaign, despite some raw displays of emotion, she often came across as overly programmed. In 2016, a challenge for Clinton will be adapting to the political moment with a fresh image while remaining true to her settled identity. “Look at Budweiser,” said a former campaign adviser to President Obama, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly. “That’s what Hillary Clinton is. She’s not a microbrew. She’s one of the biggest, most powerful brands ever in the country, and recognizing that is important.” Ahead of her campaign launch, Clinton has tapped some of the Democratic Party’s star strategists as well as two of corporate America’s branding wizards: Wendy Clark, who specializes in marketing age-old brands such as Coca-Cola to younger and more diverse customers; and Roy Spence, a ­decades-long Clinton friend who dreamed up the “Don’t Mess With Texas” anti-littering slogan as well as flashy ad campaigns for Southwest Airlines and Wal-Mart. Clark took an unpaid leave in January from Coca-Cola, where she ispresident of brands and strategic marketing for carbon­ated beverages in North America, to help Clinton in what Clark called “a passion project.” Spence is co-founder and chairman of GSD&M, an Austin-based corporate ad firm, and has experience in politics, including with Clinton’s 2008 campaign. Clinton’s words suggest that her 2016 campaign will stress economic fairness — the level playing field for the middle class implied by her Twitter message last month praising Obama’s State of the Union address. “Now we need to step up & deliver for the middle class. #FairShot #FairShare,” Clinton wrote. But the plans for Clinton’s rebranding are not yet clear, nor are the influences of the Madison Avenue sensibility Clark and Spence bring to her operation. Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill declined to comment on the branding strategy or the specific work of Clark and Spence. People familiar with Clinton’s preparations said Clark and ­Spence are focused on developing imaginative ways to “let Hillary be Hillary,” as one person said, and help her make emotional connections with voters. “I just want America to know the Hillary Clinton I know,” said Jerry Crawford, a friend and the Iowa chairman of Clinton’s 2008 campaign. “I want as many people as possible to get to know the woman I’ve seen behind closed doors. She’s bright, disciplined, quick to throw her head back and laugh — just a very, very attractive person.” Spence, who got to know Bill and Hillary Clinton when they worked in Texas on George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign, tried to steer Clinton out of a rough patch in 2008 after her early losses to Obama. He is credited with her provocative “3 a.m. phone call” ad but also with soft-focus initiatives to reveal what he called “Hillary’s heart.” Mark McKinnon, a friend and competitor of Spence and a media strategist with George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns, said: “Spence and Clark have a lot of experience refreshing established, well-known brands like AT&T, Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart. Should come in handy.” Spence and Clark have been credited with creating three-dimensional personalities around otherwise dull consumer brands. At Coca-Cola, Clark spearheaded the “Share a Coke” campaign to put names such as Brittany and Zach on soda cans, a marketing move that boosted sales among millennials. Spence helped ­DoubleTree Hotels make the freshly baked chocolate chip cookies the chain serves guests upon check-in an icon for its sales pitch of warm comfort for beleaguered travelers. But Fred Davis, a Republican advertising guru, said that if Clinton’s rebranding “seems like a craven attempt to try to put fresh paint on an old house, then it will backfire.” “I think most voters are actually pretty intelligent, and they’ll see through any blatant attempt to change,” Davis said. “Her only hope, to me, is not a rebranding, but it’s actual policy positions and ideas that are fresh and new — and because those are fresh and new, voters might think, ‘Wait a minute, I’m going to give her another chance.’ ” Some Clinton allies agreed. They dismissed the suggestion that refreshing her brand alone will make the candidate seem current. They said Clinton’s paramount challenge is to answer two questions: why she is the right person to step into the Oval Office, and what she would do when she’s there. If she does that, they said, her image will take care of itself. “I don’t think people are looking for someone who’s being reinvented or rebranded,” said Steve Elmendorf, a top Democratic lobbyist who was a strategist for Clinton’s 2008 bid and other presidential campaigns. “This is somebody they know, whom they have confidence in, and the question is, can she lead us to a better place over the next four years? That’s her biggest challenge. What are the new ideas? . . . It can’t be yesterday’s program.” Sealey, who is credited with the successful “Always Coca-Cola” campaign in the 1990s, said that Clinton, like Coke, “has incredible top-of-mind awareness, and it’s a huge asset.” “The issue is: What is her promise?” he said. “With Mercedes, it’s quality. With Volvo, it’s safety. With Coca-Cola, it’s refreshment. If you can get her promise down to one word, that’s the key.” Spence’s business partner, Haley Rushing, said their approach to all clients, corporate and political, “starts with them at the center,” rather than market trends. “We always start from the inside out, not the outside in,” she said. Rushing and Spence ­co-founded the Purpose Institute, where Rushing’s title is “chief purposeologist” and the staffers act as “organizational therapists” uncovering the central purposes of their client organizations. Rushing said she is not working on the Clinton effort but that she envisions a Clinton brand built around years of experience. She said, “Everything emanates from, ‘What is Hillary’s purpose in the world?’ ” Clinton has faced that question before, with mixed results. After a complicated tenure as first lady, Clinton reinvented herself as a potholes-and-pork senator from her adopted state of New York. Then she ran for president as a tough woman in the mold of Margaret Thatcher. Failing that, she had a careful run as the country’s top diplomat under Obama that allies believe raised her stature. Perhaps her most significant rebranding came in 2000, when she became a popular elected official in her own right after her husband’s Monica Lewinsky scandal and after a controversial tenure as first lady. Clinton was ridiculed as a dilettante and a carpetbagger, but she won over critics, even some Republicans, with a dogged commitment to local issues. In 2008, however, Clinton’s rebranding went badly, starting with a misreading of the zeitgeist that had her stressing her ­commander-in-chief qualifications when the public preferred Obama’s promise of hope and change. Clinton’s advisers were divided then about how to bust the caricature of Clinton as remote and brittle. Some begged Clinton to reprise a campaign feature that had charmed New York voters, in which she stayed in ordinary people’s homes while traveling around the state. But Clinton insisted that doing so in Iowa or New Hampshire would come across as forced. Similarly, an online compilation of testimonials meant to showcase Clinton’s humanity and relatability fell flat. Too cheesy, some advisers said; at odds with her strength-and-competence message, others said. A rebranding that stuck: Clinton’s workmanlike turn as secretary of state, during which she visited more countries than most of her predecessors — and used her celebrity to draw attention to women’s empowerment and human rights issues. Now, Clinton will try to refresh her image once more so that voters see her as a champion for the middle class amid deep concerns about income inequality. Rohit Deshpande, a marketing professor at Harvard Business School, offered a fast-food giant as a case study. “Refresh with the times is the issue McDonald’s is facing right now,” he said. “It’s considered tired, and the marketplace has moved on. ” Fabian Geyrhalter, a corporate branding consultant, also drew a parallel between McDonald’s and Clinton: “There has been a brand value proposition over so many years, and suddenly she needs to shift that legacy into Clinton 2016: ‘This is what I stand for now.’ ” *Associated Press: For Clinton, her family foundation may pose campaign risks <http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-her-family-foundation-may-pose-campaign-risks-125132967--election.html>* By Ken Thomas February 22, 2015 12:10 p.m. EST The foundation launched by former President Bill Clinton more than a decade ago has battled HIV and AIDS in Africa, educated millions of children and fed the poor and hungry around the globe. It also has the potential to become a political risk for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she moves toward a second presidential campaign. The former secretary of state has struggled with some recent bad headlines over large donations given to the foundation by foreign governments in the past two years, and the $200 million-plus the organization has raised since 2013, ahead of her anticipated White House campaign. Republicans contend that foreign governments donating to a foundation led by a potential U.S. president creates unacceptable conflicts of interests. Also, the involvement of big money reinforces a long-standing narrative pushed by the GOP of the Clintons as a couple who frequently mix business and politics. "Unless Hillary Clinton immediately reinstates the ban on foreign countries giving to her foundation and returns the millions of dollars these governments have already donated, she's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent," said the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus. "The American people are not about to elect a president in Hillary Clinton who could expose them to the demands of foreign governments because they dumped massive sums of cash into her foundation." The foundation, which is scheduled to hold events in Morocco and Greece this spring, defended its financial support and addressed how it might function if Clinton runs for president. If she seeks office again, something taken as a given by most, the foundation said it would ensure its policies and practices are "appropriate, just as we did when she served as secretary of state." In 2009, when Clinton became President Barack Obama's chief diplomat, the foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments. The fundraising involving non-U.S. entities resumed in 2013, after she left the his administration. The Wall Street Journal last week reported the foundation had received money in 2014 from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman and others. The Washington Post reported the charity has raised nearly $2 billion since the former president started it in 2001. About one-third of its donations of $1 million or more come from foreign governments or non-U.S. entities, the newspaper found. Democrats say the Clintons can defend their work at the foundation because of its track record and history of tackling some of the world's biggest problems, from AIDS and clean water to hunger, educational opportunities and the protection of endangered wildlife. They also note that the foundation voluntarily discloses its donors — nonprofits are not required to do — and say there is no evidence the Clintons have used it to enrich themselves. Nearly 90 percent of the foundation's money goes toward its programming. "The foundation has done amazing work," said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, a Democrat who campaigned with Bill Clinton last year. "It has been a unifying force in our national affairs and in our international affairs." Yet the influx of corporate and foreign money just before a potential Hillary Clinton campaign has caused some anxiety within her party. "There was a reason they stopped taking foreign government donations when Hillary was secretary of state," said Mike Carberry, a Johnson County, Iowa, supervisor and former county Democratic chairman. He said the foundation should reinstate the policies used from 2009 to 2013. "It doesn't seem right." The foundation has strong ties with several corporations and other large foundations. Last September's annual meeting in New York was sponsored by an array of companies that regularly lobby the federal government, including financial firms HSBC Bank USA, Barclays and Deutsche Bank, as well as Fortune 500 companies such as Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Monsanto, Procter & Gamble and ExxonMobil. Goldman Sachs, whose corporate officers have played leading roles in the Treasury Department in recent years, has worked with the Clinton Foundation on the 10,000 Women Initiative aimed at helping female entrepreneurs around the globe access capital. Many of the same donors to the Clintons' political campaigns have given money to the foundation. Dennis Cheng, a former Hillary Clinton campaign fundraiser, recently left the foundation as its chief development officer and is expected to be a top fundraiser for her expected campaign. The examination of the foundation's finances come as many Democrats want Clinton to take on a more populist economic agenda that would demand more oversight of Wall Street firms. It also follows efforts by Democrats to scrutinize Republican Mitt Romney's business practices in 2012 and tie Republican candidates to millions of dollars provided by the Koch Brothers and their business interests. Beyond the headlines, many Democrats say it shows the need for Clinton to begin actively campaigning and build an apparatus better suited to rapidly respond to these types of critiques. "There's a vacuum," said Tom Henderson, the chairman of the Polk County, Iowa, Democrats, who noted potential candidates such as former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb are visiting soon. "She isn't doing anything" in Iowa, he said. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html> ) · March 3 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton honored by EMILY’s List (AP <http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=SUjRlg8K>) · March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton Foundation (WSJ <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/> ) · March 10 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton addresses United Nations Women’s Conference (Bloomberg <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-19/hillary-clinton-to-headline-united-nations-women-s-conference>) · March 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to keynote Irish American Hall of Fame (NYT <https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/562349766731108352>) · March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>) · March 23 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton to keynote award ceremony for the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting (Syracuse <http://newhouse.syr.edu/news-events/news/former-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-newhouse-school-s> )