​Correct The Record Wednesday January 21, 2015 Morning Roundup

From:burns.strider@americanbridge.org To: CTRFriendsFamily@americanbridge.org Date: 2015-01-21 11:31 Subject: ​Correct The Record Wednesday January 21, 2015 Morning Roundup

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday January 21, 2015 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Hillary backs Obama's economic vision” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/230194-clinton-backs-obamas-economic-vision>* “Hillary Clinton indicated there is little daylight between the economic vision President Obama laid out in Tuesday night's State of the Union address and her own. “ *USA Today: “Hillary Clinton tweets support for Obama's economic view” <http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/01/21/hillary-clinton-obama-sotu-economy/>* “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s response to the State of the Union was a simple tweet hailing President Obama’s comments on the economy.” *San Francisco Chronicle: Politics blog: “Nancy Pelosi: Hillary’s the one” <http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2015/01/20/nancy-pelosi-hillarys-the-one/>* “She answered ‘yes, yes’ to whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and win the presidency.” *Bloomberg: “He Won Two, But Obama's Speech Shows There's Always a Next Election” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-21/he-won-two-but-obama-s-speech-shows-there-s-always-a-next-election>* “The long-shot nature of this wish list begs the question: Why focus on priorities destined to fail? The answer may have more to do with Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. With no more political campaigns of his own left to run, Obama is focused on the future, and he seems determined to set his party on a leftward course, with or without Clinton's consent.” *New York Times: “Bold Call to Action in Obama’s State of the Union, Even if No Action Is Likely” <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/us/politics/state-of-the-union-speech-leaves-questions-about-usefulness-of-unlikely-goals.html>* “Yet critics said Mr. Obama might be making life more difficult for his would-be successor, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, because his agenda could nudge her away from the middle in 2016.” *Breitbart: “Ingraham: Obama Tax Proposals About ‘Populist Theme’ for Hillary” <http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/20/ingraham-obama-tax-proposals-about-populist-theme-for-hillary/>* “Talk radio host Laura Ingraham said that President Obama’s tax proposals were about ‘trying to set a populist theme for Hillary Clinton’ on Tuesday.” *Washington Post: “Romney’s speaking fee at public university is $50,000, far less than Clinton’s” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romneys-speaking-fee-at-public-university-is-50000-far-less-than-clintons/2015/01/20/9c91c2d0-a0e4-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html>* “Mitt Romney will charge Mississippi State University $50,000 to deliver a lecture on campus next week, most of which will go to charity — a dramatically lower fee than the $250,000 to $300,000 Hillary Rodham Clinton requires for her university lectures.” *CBC: “Hillary Clinton to speak in Winnipeg today” <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/hillary-clinton-to-speak-in-winnipeg-today-1.2920816>* “Hillary Clinton is set to speak in Winnipeg Wednesday afternoon as part of a series of talks on global issues.” *MSNBC: “Seven years later, Clinton hopes to learn from mistakes” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/seven-years-later-hillary-clinton-hopes-learn-mistakes>* “Eight years ago, on Jan. 20, 2007, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton made it official: She was in the race for the presidency, and she was in to ‘to win,’ she said in a video on her website, seated on a floral couch in her living room.” *Articles:* *The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Hillary backs Obama's economic vision” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/230194-clinton-backs-obamas-economic-vision>* By Amie Parnes January 20, 2015, 11:01 p.m. EST Hillary Clinton indicated there is little daylight between the economic vision President Obama laid out in Tuesday night's State of the Union address and her own. Moments after Obama wrapped up his hourlong speech, Clinton, who is getting closer to making a decision about a 2016 presidential run, took to Twitter to say that Obama "pointed (the) way to an economy that works for all." "Now we need to step up & deliver for the middle class," Clinton wrote, adding the hashtags "fair shot" and "fair share" to her tweet. The message gives a glimpse into the economic message the would-be presidential candidate is crafting for what would be her second bid for the White House. It was the second time in a week that Clinton shared a message about the economy on the social media platform. On Friday, Clinton appealed to progressives in the Democratic Party by writing, "Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong. Better for Congress to focus on jobs and wages for middle class families." Clinton allies say the former secretary of State will endorse most of Obama's economic policies on the campaign trail, showing little space between her and her former boss and onetime rival. The allies say her campaign is likely to focus on middle-class issues, including women's issues. *USA Today: “Hillary Clinton tweets support for Obama's economic view” <http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/01/21/hillary-clinton-obama-sotu-economy/>* By Catalina Camia January 21, 2015 Hillary Rodham Clinton’s response to the State of the Union was a simple tweet hailing President Obama’s comments on the economy. *Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton* @HillaryClinton: @BarackObama #SOTU pointed way to an economy that works for all. Now we need to step up & deliver for the middle class. #FairShot #FairShare [1/20/15, 10:19 p.m. EST <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/557739125886169088>] Clinton, a likely presidential candidate and former secretary of State, made no mention of foreign policy in her tweet. Like Obama, she stressed the need to “step up and deliver for the middle class.” Obama touted such proposals as tax cuts for the middle class, free community college tuition, paid sick leave and a tripling of the child care tax credit in his sixth State of the Union Address. Republicans, not surprisingly, rejected Obama’s ideas and criticized the president for proposing to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for middle-class tax cuts. *San Francisco Chronicle: Politics blog: “Nancy Pelosi: Hillary’s the one” <http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2015/01/20/nancy-pelosi-hillarys-the-one/>* By Carolyn Lochhead January 20, 2015, 11:23 a.m. PST Heading into Tuesday’s sixth State of the Union address by President Obama with his poll numbers rising, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi her strategy for confronting total GOP control of Congress was to keep taking the economic equality message to the public. In an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, the San Francisco Democrat also said she has urged Democrats to find common ground with Republicans and the White House on the coming trade debate to try to influence the end result, and she answered “yes, yes” to whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and win the presidency. As for which Republican Pelosi think would be the toughest for Clinton to beat, Pelosi said, if she knew she wouldn’t say, but “I don’t know who that is anyway.” Pelosi said her plan is to move public opinion toward the new Democratic position on a massive middle class tax cut paid for by a fee on Wall Street, as laid out by her House Budget Committee ranking Democrat Chris Van Hollen. Pelosi noted that even Republican presidential candidates are taking a more populist approach (see Mitt Romney’s war on poverty). “Public sentiment is everything,” Pelosi said. “I’m kind of calm about this….I see this as an opportunity for us.” The coming push for trade promotion authority by the White House and Republicans is already pitting Democrats against Obama, looking very much like a replay of the NAFTA debate that had former President Bill Clinton allied with Republicans. Pelosi said she was urging Democrats to try to maintain leverage. “What we’re saying to the White House, we can find a path to yes if there’s transparency,” Pelosi said, describing trade authority as a bill “negotiated in secret by the president” and given to Congress to vote up or down, as so-called fast track trade authority is traditionally done. “What I say to my own people is, the more we look willing to cooperate, the more we might be able to bring them over to prioritizing America’s workers,” Pelosi said. “The president says that, but we want to make sure the bill does that. But if we say we’re not voting for anything, they’ll go all the way to the extreme and it will only be about financial services industry and more of the same that we’ve seen.” On the Hillary candidacy, Pelosi said Clinton would be “one of the best prepared people to enter the White House in a long time,” downplaying progressive dismay about a Clinton candidacy and interest in a more populist alternative such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. “I’ve had my own disagreements even with the White House on some of the proposals that have come forth,” Pelosi said. “But that’s why we’re the Democratic party. We love each other. Let other versions exist.” *Bloomberg: “He Won Two, But Obama's Speech Shows There's Always a Next Election” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-21/he-won-two-but-obama-s-speech-shows-there-s-always-a-next-election>* By Lisa Lerer and Margaret Talev January 20, 2015, 10:47 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] His State of the Union address lays down a marker for 2016 candidates. President Barack Obama said Tuesday night that he has no more races to run—“I won both of them,” he boasted—but don't be fooled: He's playing in 2016. Few—if any—of Obama's boldest proposals in Tuesday's State of the Union address stand a good chance of becoming reality. Free community college? Already rejected by Republicans. Increasing the capital gains tax? Violates a key tenet of Republican ideology. Bank fees? A plan that seemingly, only Elizabeth Warren could love. The long-shot nature of this wish list begs the question: Why focus on priorities destined to fail? The answer may have more to do with Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. With no more political campaigns of his own left to run, Obama is focused on the future, and he seems determined to set his party on a leftward course, with or without Clinton's consent. Rather than use his State of the Union to push modest proposals for his final two years in office, a gleeful, confident Obama outlined an ambitious economic vision. “Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well?” he asked. “Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?” White House aides say Obama wasn't focused on 2016 when he crafted the speech. “He has two years left, two years is a long time, but he also feels an urgency to get very strong ideas out there and try and make it bipartisan,” White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri said on Bloomberg Politics' “With All Due Respect” Tuesday afternoon. She has a point: While the focus in recent days has been on the president's plans to raise new taxes on the wealthy and redistribute wealth to the middle class, Obama is also playing a much quieter game of courting Republicans to cut trade and corporate tax deals opposed by his liberal base. Those initiatives may also shape 2016 by taking off the table a Republican argument that Democratic administrations will stall pro-business policies. Still, Obama's larger economic vision echoed that that of a prominent Democrat—just not the one leading the primary field. “Senator Warren has very much driven this conversation for the past two years,” said Ilya Sheyman, political director of Moveon.org Political Action. “This speaks to the growing influence of progressives in the party.” The agenda, which Obama dubbed “middle-class economics,” encompasses a sweeping set of proposals including new tax breaks for families, universal preschool, increasing the minimum wage, lowering mortgage premiums, and ensuring paid sick days and family leave for workers. “The idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, everyone does their fair share, everyone plays by the same set of rules,” he said. “We don’t just want everyone to share in America’s success—we want everyone to contribute to our success.” Many of these initiatives have long been on the wish lists of the Democratic progressive wing, and Warren praised the president's speech. But Clinton, with her Wall Street donors and her husband's embrace of Rubinomics, is more closely tied to the party's pro-business faction. By choosing to make this prime-time moment about inequality, Obama boxes Clinton into making a choice between the two. Though she responded swiftly on Twitter, she almost certainly will be asked for further opinion on his proposals and, even if she's not officially a candidate, her answers will be viewed in the context of a expected presidential bid. Progressive activists have spent months pushing Warren to run, despite her repeated insistence that she has no intention of doing so. “Some of the jockeying now is trying to strategically make sure Hillary understands that she can't be an economic moderate without generating pushback,” said Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union, told Bloomberg Politics last month. Obama's address gives a major boost to their efforts to drive the 2016 debate leftward. Already, Clinton has attempted to align herself with middle class interests. Last week, she tweeted her way into a congressional dispute over Republican efforts to roll back financial regulations, an unusual step for a politician who generally shies away from wading into active policy debates. Republicans argue that Obama's economic policies will only hurt Clinton. They say the results of the 2014 midterm elections, in which Republicans won back the Senate and expanded on their majority in the House, repudiated those policies. “It puts her in a very difficult position,” Republican pollster David Winston said of Hillary Clinton. “The public has said in exit polls they don't agree with that argument. And she's supposed to carry that ball?” Mitt Romney, considering a third presidential bid, accused the president of being “more intent on winning elections than on winning progress” in a Facebook post: [FACEBOOK POST] But Republicans, too, have been putting economic mobility issues at the center of their political messages. “Millions of our fellow citizens across the broad middle class feel as if the American Dream is now out of their reach,” wrote former Florida Governor Jeb Bush in the missions statement of his new political action committee. Those kinds of sentiments on issues like wage stagnation and poverty have been echoed by other potential Republican presidential candidates. Romney has cast himself as a champion of the country's poorest. Those Republicans might be the president's true target. The White House knows that if there's been one constant in the Obama era it's this: For Republicans, siding with the president is akin to committing political suicide. But coming out against popular proposals and being seen as obstructionists might just be worse—or so Democrats hope. “The president's proposals are a win-win for the Democrats,” said longtime Clinton adviser Paul Begala. “The Republicans will either pass them or, more likely, wish they had.” *New York Times: “Bold Call to Action in Obama’s State of the Union, Even if No Action Is Likely” <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/us/politics/state-of-the-union-speech-leaves-questions-about-usefulness-of-unlikely-goals.html>* By Peter Baker January 20, 2015 WASHINGTON — Near the end of his State of the Union address, President Obama noted, “I have no more campaigns to run.” A few Republicans in the audience cheekily applauded. Mr. Obama smiled but then offered an ad-lib retort: “I know,” he jabbed the Republicans, “because I won both of them.” Never mind that his party actually lost the most recent elections, delivering control of both houses of Congress to the opposition for the first time during his presidency. For an hour on Tuesday night, Mr. Obama commanded the biggest stage he will have all year, unbowed and self-assured, laying out an expansive and expensive legislative agenda as if he were the one who had triumphed. Watching an emboldened Mr. Obama, it would have been easy to forget that he was standing there just two months after the biggest electoral repudiation of his presidency. Indeed, with economic indicators on the rise and his own poll numbers rebounding slightly, he made no reference at all to the midterm elections, offered no concessions about his own leadership and proposed no compromises to accommodate the political reality. Instead, he asked congressional Republicans who have resisted new taxes at every turn over the last six years to raise taxes on the wealthy. He asked lawmakers who won their seats on promises of reining in government to reopen the spending spigot to provide free community college, child care and paid parental leave to millions of middle-income Americans. The program he outlined sounded pretty much like the one he would have sent to a Democratic Congress. “If you share the broad vision I outlined tonight, join me in the work at hand,” he told lawmakers. “If you disagree with parts of it, I hope you’ll at least work with me where you do agree. And I commit to every Republican here tonight that I will not only seek out your ideas, I will seek to work with you to make this country stronger.” But after the lights went out and the presidential motorcade had made its way back up Pennsylvania Avenue, the party balance had not changed. For all of Mr. Obama’s confident demeanor, the question raised by the speech was whether advancing initiatives with little or no hope of passage constituted an act of bold leadership or a feckless waste of time. Every president throws out ideas in a State of the Union address knowing they will not succeed, at least not right away — to frame the debate, lay down an opening bid, draw a line against opponents or set the stage for future action. But rarely has the disconnect between a president and Congress seemed as wide as it is now. Unlike President Bill Clinton, who moved to co-opt Republican issues like crime and welfare on his own terms when the other party captured Congress, Mr. Obama tacked left even as Capitol Hill tacked right. Rather than declare the end of big government, he responded with a defense of an activist Washington. Mr. Obama’s advisers said he saw little reason to hold back on his ambitions just because the new Republican majorities were unlikely to go along. Jon Favreau, his former chief speechwriter, said that pre-emptively scaling back his goals would be like going into a job interview and asking for the salary the employer was likely to give rather than bargaining for more. “Now, do I personally think the Republicans will be willing to meet the president halfway on tax reform?” Mr. Favreau said. “No, but that shouldn’t stop the president from proposing a solution that he feels would actually help solve the problem.” But Republicans said Mr. Obama risked looking ineffectual and out of touch if he simply promoted initiatives that Congress would never take seriously. Steve Schmidt, who worked in President George W. Bush’s White House and managed Senator John McCain’s campaign against Mr. Obama in 2008, said proposing free community college for most students and more paid family leave for parents seemed ludicrously unrealistic. “There’s a student-body presidency campaign component to this — no more homework and go home at 1 p.m.,” Mr. Schmidt said. He added, “You would expect he would gain the political maturity to come into the Congress with an open hand instead of a clenched fist.” John Feehery, a former top adviser to Republican congressional leaders, said there was still value in a president’s making long-shot proposals. “It’s important for setting the contours of the debate and for sparking the imagination of the listening audience,” Mr. Feehery said. “It helps if you don’t get laughed out of the room, but it’s hard to know what will be viewed as inspirational and what will be seen as insipid.” Even without congressional support, promoting his ideas allows Mr. Obama to force other political actors to respond. And he can point to past efforts that did not succeed in Congress but produced progress on other levels. Although he has failed to push through an increase in the minimum wage, for example, a number of states have responded to his appeals and raised it on their own. “With north of 30 million viewers tuning in, the State of the Union is the Super Bowl of political events,” said Josh Gottheimer, a former speechwriter for Mr. Clinton. “It’s an opportunity for a president to drive a new proposal down the field, regardless of legislative viability, and literally change the debate in one fell swoop.” Michael Waldman, another former Clinton speechwriter, said it would be a mistake for a president to let legislative politics stop him from proposing what he supports. “We don’t know what the big debates and policy fights of the post-Obama era will be,” Mr. Waldman said. “He is putting in his 2 cents. Perhaps Obama’s ideas won’t get enacted. But the Republican leadership’s ideas won’t get enacted either.” Yet critics said Mr. Obama might be making life more difficult for his would-be successor, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, because his agenda could nudge her away from the middle in 2016. “He’s not just pushing her,” said David Frum, who was a speechwriter for Mr. Bush, “but to change the party around her to constrain her.” Mr. Frum added that although Mr. Obama hoped his agenda would put Republicans on the defense, it might have the opposite effect. “This is a document that unifies Republicans,” he said. It may also unify Democrats, leaving both sides as divided as ever. Mr. Obama dismissed any suggestion that he had any role in the division. He rebuffed “the pundits” and “the cynics” who called him “misguided, naïve” to have promised to bridge Washington’s divide. “It’s amazing what you can bounce back from when you have to,” he said, quoting a young mother whose family had emerged from the economic troubles of recent years. For a moment, he sounded as if he meant himself. *Breitbart: “Ingraham: Obama Tax Proposals About ‘Populist Theme’ for Hillary” <http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/20/ingraham-obama-tax-proposals-about-populist-theme-for-hillary/>* By Ian Hanchett January 20, 2015 Talk radio host Laura Ingraham said that President Obama’s tax proposals were about “trying to set a populist theme for Hillary Clinton” on Tuesday. “He’s [Obama] getting his party ready for 2016. He wants to do what George W. Bush couldn’t do in 2008. George W. Bush couldn’t campaign…for the Republican nominee…They didn’t want him anywhere near the conventions” she stated. Ingraham continued “Obama wants to be the anti-Bush when it comes to that, so he wants to set the themes for 2016. What he’s doing in this State of the Union speech is not thinking he’s going to get all this passed through Congress, he won’t…but he’s trying to set a populist theme for Hillary Clinton.” Later, Peter Morici, Economist and Professor of International Business at the University of Maryland agreed, saying “it permits him [Obama] to say that ‘I want to things to strengthen the middle class, but here, the Republicans are blocking me because they’re protecting the wealthy.’” *Washington Post: “Romney’s speaking fee at public university is $50,000, far less than Clinton’s” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romneys-speaking-fee-at-public-university-is-50000-far-less-than-clintons/2015/01/20/9c91c2d0-a0e4-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html>* By Rosalind S. Helderman and Philip Rucker January 20, 2015 5:39 p.m. EST Mitt Romney will charge Mississippi State University $50,000 to deliver a lecture on campus next week, most of which will go to charity — a dramatically lower fee than the $250,000 to $300,000 Hillary Rodham Clinton requires for her university lectures. Romney — the 2012 Republican presidential nominee who is weighing a third run for the White House — will speak as part of the university’s Global Lecture Series, a speaking series administered by the student government, a university official said. Romney has directed that most of his $50,000 fee go to Charity Vision, a nonprofit organization that partners with doctors to provide free eye surgeries that is led by one of Romney’s sons, according to a contract obtained Monday by The Washington Post under a public records request to the university. The remaining portion of the amount will be set aside to cover Romney’s travel, according to the contract. Romney’s fee stands in stark contrast to Clinton’s, the presumptive 2016 Democratic front-runner who has spoken to dozens of industry associations, Wall Street banks, universities and other groups. The former secretary of state’s speaking fees at universities have typically also gone to a family-connected charity — in her case, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. However, her high fees have drawn campus protests and sharp criticisms from Republicans, who have said they demonstrate a likely presidential candidate who has grown out of touch. At the University of California Los Angeles, Clinton’s $300,000 fee prompted a university official to inquire with her speaking agency whether the university could receive a discount. The official was told that the $300,000 was her special university rate. She is scheduled to deliver two paid speeches Wednesday in Canada at events sponsored by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Romney’s speaking schedule has received less attention, particularly since his return to the private sector following his loss in 2012. According to a financial disclosure released during that campaign, he collected more than $360,000 in speaking fees in 2011 from appearances at Barclay’s Bank, Goldentree Asset Management and other companies. Sid Salter, a spokesman for Mississippi State University, said the former Massachusetts governor was chosen by the campus’s student leadership for the annual lecture. Past speakers have included former secretary of state Condoleeza Rice and broadcaster Dan Rather. He said Romney’s fee is on the low end for the series, which is funded using a portion of sales taxes collected from on-campus sales. “Mitt Romney is not going to personally receive any compensation for the speech,” Romney spokesman Colin Reed said. “It’s all going to Charity Vision and travel costs.” The Chartwell Worldwide Speakers Bureau, which represents Romney, advertises on its Web site that he offers “a clear vision of the key challenges facing America and the world” and “will bring a huge draw to any event or conference.” According to the contract, Romney will spend about six hours on campus, including a reception for students, a VIP meeting and an hour-long lecture, including a question-and-answer session. He is then tentatively scheduled to attend a dinner with alumni. Clinton tends to spend less time on the ground with each appearance, typically attending a short reception prior to her speech. A university official at UCLA asked that groups be prepared to snap photos with her before she arrived, noting that Clinton “doesn’t like to stand around waiting for people.” Romney’s contracts set some limitations similar to Clinton’s, such as banning the university from releasing recordings of his speech without his permission and requiring his sign-off for promotional materials. It outlines no requirements for luxury amenities, such as food or equipment in his green room, though it is possible those kinds of requests have been made by his representatives in private communications with the university. Romney has long been a supporter of Charity Vision, a Provo, Utah-based organization that provides medical care to people in the developing world. The group’s president is one of Romney’s sons, Josh. In 2013, Mitt and Ann Romney, along with their family and friends, traveled to rural Peru on a mission for Charity Vision. There, they helped conduct eye exams for local villagers, including many children. In a video promoting the trip, Mitt Romney described eye screenings at a local school. *CBC: “Hillary Clinton to speak in Winnipeg today” <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/hillary-clinton-to-speak-in-winnipeg-today-1.2920816>* By Teghan Beaudette January 21, 2015, 4:30 a.m. CT [Subtitle:] Former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton to speak at Winnipeg Convention Centre Hillary Clinton is set to speak in Winnipeg Wednesday afternoon as part of a series of talks on global issues. The former secretary of state and first lady is expected to speak at the RBC Winnipeg Convention Centre at 1 p.m. Clinton is spending the morning hosting a similar talk in Saskatoon before arriving in Winnipeg. She’ll deliver the keynote address during the Global Perspectives series sponsored by CIBC. Clinton now leads the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and recently wrote Hard Choices, a memoir about her four years as secretary of state. She has previously called Canada "an exceptional partner" to the U.S. in an effort toward global peace. It has been widely speculated Clinton is gearing up to run for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president in 2016. *MSNBC: “Seven years later, Clinton hopes to learn from mistakes” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/seven-years-later-hillary-clinton-hopes-learn-mistakes>* By Alex Seitz-Wald January 20, 2015, 4:39 p.m. EST Eight years ago, on Jan. 20, 2007, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton made it official: She was in the race for the presidency, and she was in to “to win,” she said in a video on her website, seated on a floral couch in her living room. History had other plans, and Clinton’s campaign collapsed under the weight of infighting and misguided strategy as Barack Obama seemingly came out of nowhere to rob her of the Democratic nomination. Now, with Democrats putting all their political eggs in Clinton’s basket to save the party in 2016, they are anxiously waiting to see if the former secretary of state has learned from her mistakes of 2008, should she decide to run again. Promising new leadership, a new message and new strategy, Clinton allies say the former secretary of state is under no illusion about what went wrong in 2008 and is eager to learn from her mistakes – but some wonder if she’s too busy fighting the last battle to win the next one. The loss was devastating for Clinton, as she wrote in her 2014 memoir, “Hard Choices,” and it took her time to understand what went went wrong. “I really didn’t have a good strategy for my campaign,” she told ABC News last year. “I didn’t plan it the right way … I let people down.” Since then, the former secretary of state has been preoccupied with not repeating the mistakes. “I think it will be profoundly different,” said Democratic strategist Bob Shrum. “She will offer a sense of vision about the future,” and not be a candidate “of restoration,” he said. The addition of new blood into the Clinton high command represents the most dramatic shift apparent so far. Gone from the very top ranks of the prospective campaign are long-time Clinton loyalists, with baggage and institutional knowledge, and in are new faces to Clinton’s world, many from Obama’s. If you can’t beat them hire them, the thinking goes. To replace Mark Penn, who advised Clinton to downplay her potentially historic role as a woman in the top echelon of politics and project an aura of inevitability, Clinton hired former Obama pollster Joel Benenson as her chief strategist. Jim Margolis, Obama’s ad maker, is expected to be Clinton’s media consultant, replacing the team that made the couch announcement video. Meanwhile, Clinton’s pollsters and field directors are also likely to be Obama alums, as are top officials at the main big-money super PAC supporting her bid. “She’s certainly bringing in a broader perspective and new talent, and I think that’s a good sign,” said Stephanie Cutter, a Democratic strategist who sat out the 2008 Democratic primary before signing on with Obama for the general election. Allies say Clinton has proven she can run a good campaign – it just came too late. In the waning days of 2008, after it was clear the nomination was slipping away, Clinton became warm with voters and an underdog populist on the stump, while shaking up her team at headquarters. Former top Obama strategist David Axelrod has said Clinton was a bad candidate in 2007, but a good one in 2008 after she lost the Iowa caucuses in early January. “Once she wasn’t the frontrunner anymore, once she was fighting for her place, she threw all the caution away and I think she started relating to voters in a much more visceral way that reflected who she really is,” Axelrod said recently while waiting for a potential Clinton arrive at an event he was hosting in Chicago. “If I had any advice for her, it would be: Be that person.” It’s still too early to know whether she will be that person, and an upheaval is always one campaign shakeup away. To clamp down on in-fighting, which plagued the 2008 campaign, Clinton is expected to enlist John Podesta, a former White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton who imposed order during the particularly difficult times of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The typically low-key Podesta is famous for having an alter ego, or “evil twin” named Skippy whose acerbic tongue makes sure things stay on track and people behave. When he took over as chief of staff in November of 1998 he joked he told reporters that he values his staff, in addition to talent and experience, is people who can “work together as a team. The President deserves that; the country deserves that; and so does the White House staff.” Clinton and her team were blindsided by the success of Obama in 2008, but they’re keeping closer watch on potential threats from the left this time around. Her staff and outside allies follow Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren closely, keeping an eye on her speeches and public appearances. In Iowa, where Clinton campaigned for Senate candidate Bruce Braley and other Democrats last year, her team inquired how Warren’s appearances in the state been attended and what the enthusiasm level was like. “I think that she’s very sensitive to this Elizabeth Warren trying to paint her as being identified with Wall Street,” longtime Clinton friend and donor Alan Patricof recently said on Bloomberg TV. “And I don’t think it’s true, frankly, because it’s just part of her base, and I think she can willingly sacrifice some of that base to bring herself to a position where she’s not identified with it.” Clinton herself has made entries to the restive liberal base, meeting with progressive activists sometimes critical of her style of politics and embracing Warren’s rhetoric where she can. The former presidential candidate also struggled in her relations with the media, with a hostile style that bred resentment and distrust. While nothing is official, operatives rumored to be in the running for top jobs in a Clinton communication shop say they hope for a different approach and fresh start with the press. Her old top press handlers, including Phil Singer and Howard Wolfson, are not expected to reenlist. “It has to be different this time around. It’s not an option. And it will,” said one Democratic communications operative who hopes to be involved in the campaign. But with an announcement still likely months away, some allies wonder if Clinton is to preoccupied with fighting her last battle. “There’s a lot of people that are taking a look at this and saying, we agree this needs to be a different campaign from 2008, but just doing what someone else did in 2012 doesn’t fundamentally fix what went wrong,” said one Clinton ally. In speeches since stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton has mostly avoided taking on the painful primary loss directly. It’s “a little bit ancient history,” she joked during a speech at UCLA last year. Now she’s hoping history does not repeat itself. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · January 21 – Saskatchewan, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce’s “Global Perspectives” series (MarketWired <http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/former-us-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-address-saskatoon-1972651.htm> ) · January 21 – Winnipeg, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Global Perspectives series (Winnipeg Free Press <http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Clinton-coming-to-Winnipeg--284282491.html> ) · February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html> ) · March 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 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>)