Subject: Correct The Record Monday October 6, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 09:31:46 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Monday October 6, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*The Hollywood Reporter: “Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton Hitting Up
Hollywood for Last-Minute Midterm Cash”
<http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/obama-biden-hillary-clinton-hitting-738248>*

“For Hollywood politicos seeking a little variety on the fundraising scene
this season, Hillary Clinton will be in town on Oct. 20 for a Democratic
Senatorial Campaign fundraiser co-hosted by Katzenberg and Casey Wasserman.”

*Politico: “Bill Clinton tries to save Arkansas from GOP”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/bill-clinton-2014-arkansas-elections-111614.html?hp=f1>*

“In his most intense political swing of the midterm election yet, the
campaigner-in-chief will test whether his legacy and powers of persuasion
can keep this state’s rightward drift at bay one more time.”

*Bloomberg: “The 12 Families Who Have Given to Every Single Clinton
Campaign”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-10-06/the-12-families-who-have-given-to-every-single-clinton-campaign>*

[Subtitle:] “For these couples, who’ve given more than two hundred dollars
to every Clinton campaign and charity over the past 22 years, money does
buy a kind of happiness.”

*Boston Globe: “Third Way in struggle for the Democratic Party’s soul”
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/10/06/struggle-for-soul-democratic-party-pits-wall-street-backed-think-tank-against-elizabeth-warren/pYk3SXRnZDmpi7C7N4ZpXN/story.html>*

“With the income gap growing between most of the nation’s taxpayers and the
wealthiest 1 percent, the battle is over how aggressively the party’s
candidates — including, potentially, Hillary Clinton — will contrast
themselves with Republicans on tax and economic issues in 2016.”

*NBC 6 (South Florida): “Exclusive Interview with University of Miami
President Donna Shalala”
<http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Exclusive-Interview-with-University-of-Miami-President-Donna-Shalala-278171441.html>*

“When asked if she would campaign for Hillary Clinton should she decide to
run in 2016, Shalala said there is a possibility she would get involved in
some way.”

*Politico: “Rogue donors not ready for Hillary?”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/hillary-clinton-donors-2016-elections-111622.html>*

“Hillary Clinton is facing the beginnings of a backlash from rich liberals
unhappy with her positions on litmus test issues and her team’s efforts to
lock up the Democratic presidential nomination before the contest starts.”

*Miami Herald blog: Marc Caputo: “Hillary Clinton's Miami trip shows she’s
empress of image-management”
<http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/marc-caputo/article2523164.html>*

“The Biltmore wasn’t the only no-reporter zone. Earlier in the day, Clinton
hawked her tome Hard Choices at Books & Books in Coral Gables.
Photographers were allowed — provided they didn’t report. If you wanted to
speak briefly to the former secretary of state/U.S. senator/first lady, you
had to buy the hardcover. No press questions, please.”

*Bloomberg: “The Truth About Jeb Bush’s Presidential Ambitions”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-10-06/the-truth-about-jeb-bushs-presidential-ambitions>*

“To paraphrase a favorite Bill Clinton line, if Republicans want a perfect
candidate, they can vote for someone else. If he runs, Jeb’s central
challenges are very similar to Hillary’s, although she would have a much
better chance of avoiding a bruising nomination fight.”

*Articles:*

*The Hollywood Reporter: “Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton Hitting Up
Hollywood for Last-Minute Midterm Cash”
<http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/obama-biden-hillary-clinton-hitting-738248>*

By Tina Daunt

October 6, 2014, 1:47 a.m. PST

[Subtitle:] Obama and Biden arrive in Los Angeles this week, while Hillary
Clinton makes a Hollywood sweep for the Democrats on Oct. 20

With the November midterm elections less than a month away, Barack Obama
and Joe Biden are back in Los Angeles this week to raise more Hollywood
cash amid concerns that the Democrats could lose their majority in the U.S.
Senate.

Biden will arrive this afternoon for an evening cocktail reception with
Nancy Pelosi at the Brentwood mansion of Fox Filmed Entertainment chief Jim
Gianopoulos. The event, called "When Women Succeed America Succeeds," is
being co-hosted by Jeffrey Katzenberg, Peter Chernin, Barry Meyer, Hope
Warschaw, John Law and James L. Brooks. (The event will include a special
performance by Carole King.)

Obama, meanwhile, arrives on Thursday for a Democratic National Committee
fundraiser hosted by Gwyneth Paltrow, with tickets ranging from $1,000 to
$32,400 per person. An email sent to Hollywood donors on Sunday warned that
lower-cost tickets for "the reception, preferred reception and VIP guest
levels are all now wait listed." However, the email noted, there is still
room for those willing to "write $32,400 per guest or raise $60,000" to
mingle with Paltrow and the president. (Also included: a photo with Obama,
dinner and a personalized invitation.)

For high-rollers who want to avoid the hoi polloi at the Paltrow event,
restaurateur Michael Chow and his wife Eva Chow have agreed to host a
"smaller-venue" reception with Obama at their home on Friday morning. "This
is a 20 person candid discussion with President Obama and is an opportunity
for guests to ask questions of the president," noted an email sent to
Westside Democrats. Tickets are selling for $15,000 per person.

For Hollywood politicos seeking a little variety on the fundraising scene
this season, Hillary Clinton will be in town on Oct. 20 for a Democratic
Senatorial Campaign fundraiser co-hosted by Katzenberg and Casey Wasserman.
The event is considered a prelude to Clinton's expected entry into the 2016
presidential race.

*Politico: “Bill Clinton tries to save Arkansas from GOP”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/bill-clinton-2014-arkansas-elections-111614.html?hp=f1>*

By Katie Glueck

October 5, 2014, 4:53 p.m. EDT

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Bill Clinton is coming home, a place that’s
increasingly unrecognizable from the place he grew up as a politician.

In his most intense political swing of the midterm election yet, the
campaigner-in-chief will test whether his legacy and powers of persuasion
can keep this state’s rightward drift at bay one more time. He’s out to
spare some of his oldest friends in politics: his onetime driver Mike Ross,
now running for governor; endangered Sen. Mark Pryor; and a pair of House
hopefuls with whom Clinton goes back decades.

Interviews with about a dozen Arkansas political hands on the eve of
Clinton’s trip — personal friends, professional allies and a few opponents
— suggest the ex-president can raise money and perhaps spur some voters to
the polls. As far as campaign surrogates go, there’s no one better. Yet
even the most optimistic Democrats say that may not be enough.

“He’s well-liked, well-loved, he could win any election he ran for,” said
Sheila Bronfman, who has long been active in Arkansas Democratic politics:
Bill Clinton even officiated at her wedding. “That doesn’t always
translate.”

But Clinton will certainly try: He has four rallies in two days scheduled
across the state, at universities in Conway, Jonesboro and Fayetteville,
plus a stop in the northwest city of Rogers.

“Arkansas is personal, it’s special,” said Mack McLarty, Clinton’s former
chief of staff and counselor, and a lifelong friend. “He will make a
broader case of why these candidates, and he knows them all, are generally
good, centrist Democrats. He’ll be able to make the case why their approach
to governing is just better for Arkansas.”

David Pryor, a former senator and governor, whose son is locked in one of
the most hotly contested Senate races of the year against Republican Tom
Cotton, agreed: “He never forgets Arkansas, nor does he ever forget his
friends here in the state.”

Clinton’s ties with the candidates he’s seeking to boost run deep.

Mark Pryor has known Bill Clinton since the 1970s, when Pryor’s father was
serving as governor, and the two have talked politics over burgers when
Clinton has returned to the Razorback State over the years. Ross, the
underdog in his contest, got his start in politics as Clinton’s driver
during the 1982 gubernatorial race. James Lee Witt, waging an uphill bid in
Arkansas’ 4th Congressional District, was Clinton’s Federal Emergency
Management Agency director during his two terms in the White House. And
Patrick Henry Hays, running a competitive race in the state’s 2nd District,
has crossed political paths with Clinton for decades.

“[His visit is] just getting more people talking about the race,” Witt
said. “People are telling us it’s exciting to see President Clinton down
here doing a fundraiser for you. He does create a lot of excitement, and
I’m hoping that excitement will help turn the voters out.”

Rallying the base may not be enough, the thinking goes among Arkansas
Democrats — but if anyone can meaningfully do it, it’s Clinton. A spokesman
for the former president declined to comment.

“No one can better turn out the Clinton base than Clinton,” said Skip
Rutherford, dean of the Clinton School of Public Service at the University
of Arkansas. “In an election where one, two, three percentage points in
turning out base voters [makes the difference], that’s what Clinton can do.
I think among his constituency, traditional Democratic constituency voters,
he is still very, very strong.”

Jay Barth, a professor at Hendrix College who is involved in statewide
polling, said Clinton likely can’t move undecided voters, and that for
turnout to make a difference, there would have to be substantial and
unusual interest from Democrats in a non-presidential-year election.

“In terms of turnout, that’s the gift he can provide state Democrats, and
clearly that’s what they need most right now,” he said. “The races are
close, but Republicans have an edge in most of them. Assuming [they] have
normal turnout, the Democrats really need exceptionally high turnout to
pull it off in those races.”

“No one knows how he will move the dial, move the needle, but surely it
won’t hurt to be seen with Bill Clinton,” David Pryor said.

The elder Pryor, who has known Clinton since the latter was 19, said the
ex-president maintains a deep interest in the political intricacies of the
state. “Bill Clinton could do you a poll of Arkansas much more accurately
than the polls being done now; he has a great feel for the political
pulse,” he said.

Clinton maintains significant cachet in Arkansas in part because he and, to
a lesser extent, his wife — Hillary Clinton, a possible 2016 Democratic
front-runner — remain highly engaged, according to people plugged into
Arkansas politics. He was born in Hope, Arkansas, and served as governor
from 1978-80 and then again from 1982-92.

Robert McLarty, a Democratic strategist whose family has worked with the
Clintons for years, said Bill Clinton still comes back for high school
reunions, and the famously tardy pol is sometimes late to events because
he’s watching the University of Arkansas Razorbacks.

The family name is everywhere: There’s the Clinton presidential library,
the Clinton School of Public Service, the Hillary Rodham Clinton Children’s
Library and Learning Center, the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport,
and President Clinton Avenue, to name a few. But tying that beloved brand
to the Democrats on the ballot this year may not be enough to counteract
GOP efforts to link them to the current national Democratic Party, Arkansas
activists fret.

“If it rains on Election Day, probably the Democrats are going to be in
trouble,” said Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola, a Democrat who has known the
Clintons since before they got married.

Arkansas is one of the last states in the South to turn red, but the 2010
elections — fueled by the rise of the tea party and deep opposition to the
administration and its health care law — moved the state toward the GOP
column, wiping out Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln, flipping two House
seats from blue to red and giving Republicans gains in the state
legislature.

Stodola said in an interview that everything has to go right for Democrats
in November, and, even then, the races will be tight. The contests,
particularly the Senate race, have drawn national attention and massive
amounts of money from both sides of the aisle. Clinton has personally
participated in fundraisers for several of the Democrats on the ballot.

“Clearly, he’s got the ability to ask people to reach down again and give
what they can,” said Stodola, who served as scheduling coordinator for
Clinton’s failed 1974 House bid and has stayed in touch ever since.
“Obviously he’s going to be able to talk with passion to those people
really committed to making sure the get-out-the-vote effort is maximized as
much as possible. Can he do that? He’s done it before; I’m fully confident
he can do it again. Is it going to be enough? We’ll see.”

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a Republican Arkansas strategist who is advising
Cotton, said Clinton maintains deep reservoirs of respect and admiration in
Arkansas — but that doesn’t extend to the candidates for whom he’s stumping.

“He’s still extremely popular in the state,” said Huckabee Sanders (she is
the daughter of former Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee). “People will come
out to hear him. In terms of being able to translate that into votes, I
don’t see him being able to sway a large number of people.”

Ross is betting that Clinton can help him with turnout. He is running
against Asa Hutchinson, who as a congressman in the 1990s was a prosecutor
in Clinton’s impeachment trial. (That’s something Democrats here have never
forgiven. At the prospect of a Gov. Hutchinson, the activist Bronfman
shuddered, “God forbid.”)

“When he talks, people listen,” Ross said of Clinton. “We’re excited about
having the president doing rallies with me all over Arkansas. He’s going to
be an important part of our turnout operation.”

The RealClearPolitics average of polls for that race, going back to August,
shows Hutchinson with a roughly 6-point lead.

Ross, however, notes that in 2000, when he ran for Congress, he was
considered the underdog — and then Clinton showed up.

“Four weeks out, everyone said I couldn’t win,” he said. “I kept working.
President Clinton came in and did some rallies with me. I went on to spend
12 years in Congress.”

*Bloomberg: “The 12 Families Who Have Given to Every Single Clinton
Campaign”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-10-06/the-12-families-who-have-given-to-every-single-clinton-campaign>*

By Lisa Lerer

October 5, 2014, 9:48 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] For these couples, who’ve given more than two hundred dollars
to every Clinton campaign and charity over the past 22 years, money does
buy a kind of happiness.

Jeanne Sweeney loved the Clintons so much that she displayed life-sized
cardboard cutouts of the couple in her Cincinnati home. When Bill Clinton
was “bad,” like during the Monica imbroglio, he was placed in the closet.
Hillary never went in the closet.

“Even the grandkids knew better than going into grandma’s room and saying
anything that wasn’t in support of Hillary,” said her daughter, Susan
Kreuzmann. “Hillary was, to her, the real thing.”

Sweeney gave as much as $16,800 in 17 separate donations, but those
cut-outs were the closest she ever got to the Clintons. She died on Easter
Sunday in 2008, eleven weeks before Hillary Clinton would deliver her
emotional concession speech to President Barack Obama. Still, the
85-year-old found a way to back her heroine: Arranging the details of her
funeral, in her final days, she told her children to ask mourners for
campaign contributions in lieu of flowers.

“That was her. And anybody who knew my mother understood it immediately,”
said Kreuzmann. “I’m actually somewhat glad she didn’t have to see her lose
the primary.”

Supporting the Clintons in their various endeavors over the years has taken
a very large village. But within the global circus of Hollywood
celebrities, Wall Street banks, foreign royalty, ex-government officials,
and smitten ordinary citizens who’ve been drawn into the couple’s orbit,
there is a very small elect. According to a close reading of disclosure
forms and other documents, only twelve couples have responded to every ask
by giving more than two hundred dollars to the five national campaigns, the
PAC, the Clinton Foundation, and Ready for Hillary—the outside group
promoting a second Clinton presidential run.

These few devotees—the very innermost circle of the Clinton cult—have
supported Bill and Hillary since at least 1992, through epochal triumphs
and bimbo eruptions and the slow bleed of Whitewater culminating in the
Monica scandal, which caused the faith of the most devoted to be
tested—after which, of course, Bill could be once again taken out of the
closet.

Between them, the 12 families have given more than eight million dollars.

It’s helped to pay for the political campaigns, of course, but also funded
the global good works of Bill Clinton’s foundation, cemented Bill’s
presidential legacy with a 28-acre, LEED-certified, glass and steel museum
complex, and helped maintain an certain style of living, donating flights
on private planes, hosting Hampton vacations, and storage units full of
gifts. Some of these—a china cabinet,  a jacket, a copy of President
Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech, and a chandelier, among others—were later
donated by the Clintons to the presidential library, thus preserving the
relationship for posterity.

More evanescent is the constant beat of parties: Dinner fundraisers in
Nantucket, Yom Kippur breakfasts, a Georgetown dinner for Elian Gonzalez
where the Cuban boy, his family, and his lawyer dined on shrimp and smoked
salmon. They’ve also been soldiers in Hillary’s diplomatic wars, enlisted
to help raise $60 million at the 2010 Shanghai Expo and thus help the new
Secretary of State avoid a major diplomatic snub. They also helped fund the
Clinton Birthplace Foundation, which preserved the small, square house the
president lived in until he was four-years-old in Hope, Arkansas as a
National Historic Site.

In this karmic circle, all manner of things flow back: tickets to state
dinners, White House visits, speeches to favorite charities, book
introductions, even ambassadorships. But the perks are not the point. It’s
a marriage, for better and worse, and also an obsessive kind of love, only
intermittently requited, in which the true feelings of its object are
forever uncertain. That is part of what it makes it so thrilling, even
after all these years.

[GRAPH OF THE TWELVE COUPLES]

Former Michigan Governor Jim Blanchard ($60,000) is another of the dozen.
“I would not claim to be in the inner circle of either Hillary or Bill, but
I’m a loyal guy,” he says ($164,500), sitting in his Washington law office,
a small space festooned with at least ten photos of the Clintons. “We’re
good enough friends that they don’t need to tell me and I don’t need to
tell them. It’s just that simple. I know if I really needed something I
could get them on the phone and talk to them. But I don’t need anything
other than their good will.”

Blanchard has backed the Clintons since he first met a young, second-term
Governor from Arkansas at a Georgetown dinner party in November 1982. As
Hillary huddled in a corner discussing political strategy with the
legendary Washington hostess Pamela Harriman, Bill collared Blanchard and
began dispensing advice about raising taxes—something Blanchard would have
to do as the newly elected governor of Michigan.

“I remember thinking how charming he was. He and Hillary. Both of them,”
Blanchard recalled. “They became friends right away.”

The couples quickly became a foursome, Blanchard recalled, meeting at the
hotel bar after governor’s conventions. (Though Clinton, he notes, isn’t
much of a drinker, often nursing a glass of wine all night long.) During
the conferences, Hillary would organize the spouses for their own meetings,
where they’d discuss balancing work and political duties. She was
practicing law then, making $92,000 in 1989. With Bill bringing in $35,000
annually as governor, Hillary supported the family.

“Hillary’s been a good friend of my first and second wives. But I never
thought of her of running for office, much less senator of New York,”
Blanchard recalled.

“Would I have thought of her in a top policy-making position somewhere,
absolutely,’’ he continues. “But, look, at the time, only his friends even
thought he could be president.”

But Blanchard quickly became a convert to the Hillary cause. He hosted
fundraiser after fundraiser, organized the Michigan campaign, like he did
for her husband, and fought for delegates before the Democratic National
Committee. In between, he helped arrange for his firm to act as pro bono
counsel for the Clinton foundation. Along with his wife, Janet, he's given
nearly $60,000 to the Clintons, not counting the more than $100,000 he
raised from others for the 2008 campaign.

“She’s in many ways more focused and disciplined then he is. Not as apt to
make small talk,” he says. “She was always good, don’t get me wrong, she is
now very much in his league and in some respects better.”

Much of the wall space in his office is devoted to basking in the reflected
glory of Clinton’s political career and the Clintons’ efforts to assure him
that he’s been integral to their mission. Framed across from his desk are
two front pages from the Detroit Free Press: the day he was reelected as
governor and when Clinton won the White House in 1992

“Take a look at this. The two guys who are yanking away are Clinton and
myself.” He holds up a photo of famous faces—Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson,
Michael Dukakis, Pat Schroder and others—standing behind a long conference
table. On one side, Blanchard is calling to the people behind him. On the
other, stands a younger Clinton, mouth open and gesturing in
mid-conversation.

The photo is from a 1987 closed door meeting at the Grand Hotel on Mackinac
Island organized by Blanchard for Democratic governors to audition the
eight prospective presidential candidates. The Democratic party was in his
home state for their annual Governors Association meeting, a group Clinton
then headed.

At the meeting, the New York Times later reported, Clinton warned his
fellow Democrats not to “demean the candidates,” citing two frequently
heard statements: that Mr. Dukakis couldn’t win because his family was
Greek or that Gore was not “a real Southerner.”

Clinton, recalled Blanchard, had ruled out running in 1988. “I remember him
saying: Chelsea was too young, it was just not right.”

As he pulls photos from the shelves, he charts the Clintons’ political
journey. There’s the shot from a golf course. “You can see he was wearing
those stupid shorts." The night before Clinton was sworn in. “Look, his
hair was chestnut,” he exclaims. And the one taken by Nevada Gov. Bob
Miller’s wife at a breakfast for Democratic governors held at the Library
of Congress. And finally, one of Blanchard and another super-donor, former
ambassador to Portugal, Elizabeth Bagley, with Hillary at the State
Department. That one has a handwritten note: “Thanks for your service and
'having my back’ —Hillary.”

In fundraising circles, the Clinton's are famous for those kinds of
personal touches—the notes that make their donors believe they are more
than just open wallets.

The realities of these odd relationships are most often submerged beneath
smiles and thank-you notes, and when they surface, it can be disappointing.

In 1992, Blanchard had been promised a cabinet post as Transportation
Secretary. On Christmas Eve, after the tickets to Little Rock were already
purchased, he saw on the news that the new administration had gone with
someone else instead: Federico Pena, the Hispanic mayor of Denver, who
helped fulfill a campaign promise for a cabinet that “looked like America.”
Blanchard called Warren Christopher, director of Clinton’s transition team,
enraged.

“He said: Sorry, I couldn't get back to you. The president was going to
call you but he had to do some Christmas shopping,’’ said Blanchard.

In lieu of the transportation post, Christopher offered Blanchard a job in
the White House, as assistant to personnel. Blanchard turned it down, after
which they gave the job to his wife, Janet. White House chief of staff
Bruce Lindsay threw out the idea of an ambassadorship, maybe to Canada or
Germany.

“Why do I want to go anywhere?” Blanchard replied. “I don’t want to go
anywhere. I have a president in the White House who's my friend. I can get
him on the phone.”

 Lindsay asked him not to rule it out, at least not before he met with the
president—who turned on the classic Clinton charm. Sitting in the Oval
Office, Blanchard watched as Clinton walked to a closet and pulled out a
putter.

““He said here, take this, Bush left it,’” said Blanchard, slowly swinging
the club back-and-forth. “I couldn’t figure out why but later I realized.
Bush is left-handed. Clinton is left-handed. This was a right handed
putter!”

Blanchard took the job as Ambassador to Canada. And through all the
intervening years, he’s always been a loyal member of Team Clinton, ready
to go one more round. “How can you, not after all we’ve been through, not
want to help again.”

The first time New York philanthropist Susan Stern, another of the Clinton
elect,  met Hillary Clinton she was running late, rushing to a fundraiser
at a house in Westchester. Stern arrived, still wearing her pleated tennis
skirt, in the midst of Hillary's remarks.

“I saw this woman who had a headband and glasses and a pleated skirt also,”
she recalled. “I was mesmerized. I said I don't know anything about him but
I would vote for her for anything.”

Stern and her husband, Jeffrey, a private equity investor, hosted some
fundraisers when Clinton ran for reelection. Then, when Hillary decided to
run for New York Senate, they escalated their level of involvement, which
led to greater intimacy. At a Hillary fundraiser at Stern's home, she
served a cake for Hillary’s birthday.

“It was like having someone hanging out at house. She was just wonderful,’’
Stern remembers. “My son had his whole basketball team, and she was hanging
out with them. And we raised a lot of money.”

After she won, Clinton offered Stern a job managing relationships with the
families of 9/11 victim, but she turned it down, saying she didn’t have the
social work expertise needed for the job. Instead, she suggested Clinton
make Israel her first foreign trip.

Less than ten minutes after hanging up the phone, Clinton staffers called
back with an invitation to accompany the new Senator on the tour of the
Holy Land. They flew commercial, with Hillary sitting next to long-time
aide Huma Abedin and Stern in the row behind. When they arrived, they
headed to the King David, the traditional hotel for visiting dignitaries.
Clinton invited Stern up to her room to share a huge fruit basket left by
the hotel. “She said come on over, ‘I have all this food.’ And we hung out
with her and it was amazing,’’ Stern recalled. It was the first of several
trips Stern took with Hillary to Israel.

Now, the Clintons run in the Stern family. Her sons helped mobilize younger
voters while they were in college. And her daughter-in-law recently handed
out books at a signing in Chappaqua. Stern and her husband have donated
nearly $52,000 to the Clintons—a figure that doesn’t include the more than
$100,000 they bundled for the 2008 presidential bid.

“If she decides to run she will have the entire Stern family working from
all over the country, including my little grandson,” said Stern. “If she
runs, I’ll get rid of everything else I'm doing like I did last time and
give it my all.”

Stern, like many donors, is a kind of collector of moments of Clinton
intimacy, emblems of their relationship. in late August 2000, she recalls,
when Stern joined Clinton and Chelsea as they campaigned in Scarsdale, as a
scrum of voters pressed in, Stern asked Chelsea how she handled the
attention.

“She said: ‘Mrs. Stern, I’ve actually never known any other life,” she
recalled. “I said: ‘Here’s a head’s up, this is not normal.”

Then, there was the time Hillary called her from the 2008 Democratic
National Convention to ask how Stern’s hip surgery went. Or the time she
called to ask after one of her sons when he was in the hospital. She’s
saved all the letters, including the one Hillary sent to her mother on her
90th birthday.

And she recalls one particularly special evening in January 2000, when
Stern was honored by the Israel Policy Forum. President Clinton’s term was
coming to end and his speech to the group would be his last major address
to a Jewish audience. Many of his top foreign policy aides attended but
Clinton sat with her family. “He addressed my mother and said, ‘you know,
your daughter is pretty good. She might have a future in this business,’”
she recalled. “Of course, my mother was flying.”

Notes to Clinton’s national security staff written on an early draft of his
speech reveal a slightly different perspective: “He needs to say: Suzie is
someone he knows.”

*Boston Globe: “Third Way in struggle for the Democratic Party’s soul”
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/10/06/struggle-for-soul-democratic-party-pits-wall-street-backed-think-tank-against-elizabeth-warren/pYk3SXRnZDmpi7C7N4ZpXN/story.html>*

By Noah Bierman

October 6, 2014

WASHINGTON — On a summer afternoon amid the frenzy of the Democratic
National Convention in Boston 10 years ago, a group of Washington business
lobbyists, political operatives, and a smattering of senators gathered at
one of the city’s downtown law firms to hear a plan.

Members of the group worried that, with the end of the Bill Clinton era,
the Democratic Party’s centrist wing had lost its way. Over sodas, they
pitched a new think tank named for Clinton’s political philosophy, Third
Way.

Fast forward a decade: The philosophy, sketched out privately at the Boston
office of Brown Rudnick,

is now at the center of an intense struggle for the soul of the Democratic
Party.

Third Way, backed by Wall Street titans, corporate money, and congressional
allies, is publicly warning against divisive “soak-the-rich” politics
voiced by populist Democrats. Its target: Elizabeth Warren, the
Massachusetts senator whose rise to power two years ago helped galvanize
Democratic grass roots against Wall Street and pushed the issue of income
inequality to the forefront.

This is more than a grudge match. At stake for the Democratic Party is the
support of middle-class, swing voters who decide elections.

Third Way ignited a clash in December when its leaders essentially declared
war on Warren in a guest column in the editorial pages of The Wall Street
Journal, warning Democrats not to follow Warren and New York Mayor Bill de
Blasio “over the populist cliff.”

Many on the left were shocked, and angered. Warren’s allies saw Third Way
as a proxy — being used by her enemies on Wall Street to scare off the rest
of the party.

“Wall Street is extremely good at pushing anybody that is critical of them
as being populist, or know-nothings,” said Ted Kaufman, who temporarily
served as an appointed US senator to replace Vice President Joseph R. Biden
Jr., then succeeded Warren in leading a special congressional panel that
oversaw the bank bailout.

For their part, Third Way representatives bristle at the idea they are
doing the bidding of Wall Street power brokers.

With the income gap growing between most of the nation’s taxpayers and the
wealthiest 1 percent, the battle is over how aggressively the party’s
candidates — including, potentially, Hillary Clinton — will contrast
themselves with Republicans on tax and economic issues in 2016.

The philosophy set out by Third Way will be part of that conversation.

The organization publicly discloses little about its funding. But a Globe
examination of public documents and the backgrounds of its leadership
offers a window into how some wealthy Wall Street and business interests —
who contribute generously to Democratic candidates — have sought to tip the
Democratic Party’s intellectual debate against populism.

Third Way raises just over a third of its $9.3 million annual budget from
undisclosed corporations. The remainder, the bulk of its funding, is
donated by individuals, almost all of whom are members of Third Way’s board
of trustees.

The group is dominated by executives from the financial industry, people
who are typically the targets of the populist rhetoric of Warren, and
sometimes even President Obama.

Two-thirds of its 31 trustees have held senior leadership positions in
investment funds or big banks or served in some other capacity on Wall
Street.

Board members include its chairman, John Vogelstein, who once led the
private equity firm Warburg Pincus; vice chairman David Heller, the former
global head of equity trading for Goldman Sachs; and Derek Kirkland, a
managing director at Morgan Stanley.

Both Vogelstein and Heller were major financial backers of Obama, and all
three contributed heavily to Senate Democrats.

Third Way’s founders dispute that they are doing Wall Street’s bidding or
are trying to leave the poor behind. They also insist their financial
supporters on the board of trustees do not influence the organization’s
political and policy positions.

“We’re not remotely aligned with what Wall Street wants,” said Jonathan
Cowan, the group’s president and cofounder.

This is certainly no Tea Party-style civil war of the sort that is
fracturing parts of the Republican Party. This struggle among Democrats
often plays out behind the scenes — in the White House, the corridors of
Congress, and the office suites of lobbying firms in downtown Washington.

But in a decade of existence, Third Way has been able to expand its
influence, hosting Vice President Joe Biden and other Democratic luminaries
at its symposiums. Visitor logs show that Third Way leaders have enjoyed
excellent access to the Obama White House, with at least 50 visits since
2009.

Third Way leaders are extremely sensitive to questions and criticism about
their sources of funding. The real issue, Third Way says, is that harsh
populist positions and rhetoric are damaging the Democratic Party.

“It goes back to what Bill Clinton said, which is ‘You can’t love the job
and hate the job creators,’ ” said Matt Bennett, Third Way’s vice president
for public affairs and one of its cofounders. “Vilification of industry
isn’t helping Democrats.”

*Washington home base*

Third Way’s offices are just off K Street, the epicenter of Washington’s
lobbying district. The space is modern and youthful, with frosted glass
separating work pods and offices for the think tank’s 40 casually dressed
employees. The walls can be written upon, which researchers do with
colorful markers.

Much of their work squares with bread-and-butter liberal orthodoxy: gun
control, gay rights, immigration, and health care reform.

“We are centrist Democrats, not centrists,” Cowan said.

Their overarching emphasis is on solidifying political support among the
middle class. Where they differ from many Democrats is how they plan to
appeal to the vast middle: reduce deficits and cut spending growth on such
entitlements as Social Security and Medicare.

They insist on deficit reduction and entitlement cuts as conditions for key
tax hikes on the wealthy.

That is a sharp contrast from many other Democrats, including Warren, who
speak about taxing the wealthy as a matter of fairness and who would
support raising their tax rates as stand-alone measures.

Third Way’s insistence on linking tax hikes to a grand bargain — which has
been impossible to obtain in the Obama era — has a direct bearing on the
wallets of the group’s wealthy funders.

Third Way denies that its wealthy donors give money only because the
organization is against stand-alone tax hikes on the rich. Rather, its
leaders say it is a political blunder for Democrats to wage class warfare
on the 1 percent. It publicly issued a memo in July that said the group’s
polling suggested a better message to appeal to America’s middle class:
“economic growth and opportunity.”

“Raising taxes is absolutely essential, but it is not sufficient from our
perspective,” Cowan said in an interview, in which he also said the group
advocated strongly for Obama’s health care law and the deal that ended the
fiscal cliff, both of which included tax hikes on the wealthy.

“If the Democratic Party stands only for raising taxes on the wealthy, not
for actually making entitlement reforms and other spending cuts,’’ he said,
“then the other half of the equation will never happen.”

The group also had some suggestions about the bank bailout that has fueled
so much of the anger at Wall Street for the past six years: Don’t call it a
bailout.

“This is an emergency line of credit,’’ Third Way executives wrote in
September 2008, as anger was reaching a ferocious pitch. “Banks need this
loan so they can loan to you — the American consumer.’’

To some of Wall Street’s harshest critics, such talking points — which
could have easily come from a public relations shop in Lower Manhattan —
undercut the group’s entire mission.

“When your positions correlate 100 percent with your paymasters, you have
to wonder about the independentness and robustness of the work product,”
said Dennis Kelleher, president and chief executive of Better Markets, a
Wall Street watchdog.

*Donations to Third Way*

In the aftermath of the financial crisis, when big banks were being bailed
out, several faced intense pressure over the size of their executive
bonuses. Goldman Sachs announced it would shrink its bonus pool and
increase its charitable giving. It turns out some of that charity went to
Third Way.

The think tank received a total of $850,000 from Goldman Sachs Gives, in
2010 and 2011, according to the charitable fund’s IRS documents.

Bennett said it should not be characterized as a donation from Goldman
Sachs, but as a personal contribution from Heller that was made through the
Goldman charity.

A Goldman Sachs spokeswoman declined to comment. Goldman Sachs Gives is a
“donor-advised fund” that gives money to charity based on recommendations
from Gold- man managers, according to its IRS filing and company statements.

Heller reported giving Third Way an additional $250,000 in 2010 from his
own charitable foundation, The Hermine and David Heller Foundation. Heller
did not return messages and Third Way said he would not comment.

Though Third Way does not report details of its contributions, some of its
donors do so through private foundations.

Donald Mullen, who headed global credit and mortgages for Goldman Sachs,
gave Third Way a combined $200,000 through his private foundation in 2011
and 2012. Internal Goldman e-mails written during the housing crisis, later
made public by the Senate, show Mullen talking about making “some serious
money” as the housing market plummeted, the type of revelation that
inflamed populist anger. Mullen declined to comment.

The current chairman of Third Way, Vogelstein, heads New Providence Asset
Management, which controls endowments for nonprofits and portfolios for
wealthy individuals. He remains a senior adviser to Warburg Pincus, the
private equity firm he ran until 2002. He and his wife have given Third Way
$625,000 between 2010 and 2012, according to IRS filings.

Additionally, the liberal magazine the Nation reported in December that
Third Way paid a Washington lobbying firm, Peck Madigan Jones, to raise
more than $500,000 of its budget, according to Third Way’s 2012 tax filing.
Peck Madigan, which did not respond to e-mailed questions, lobbies for
several Wall Street-tied clients, including MasterCard, Deutsche Bank, and
the International Swaps and Derivatives Association.

Although Cowan insisted contributions from trustees play no role in the
think tank’s positions, in at least one instance, Third Way gave a major
donor direct influence over its public policy positions: a paper that took
aim at populists.

Bernard Schwartz was listed as one of five authors of a Third Way research
paper released in February 2007, before the financial crisis, titled “New
Rules for the Economy: A framework for the 21st Century.” Among its
contentions is that populists are wrong about the decline of the American
middle class, one of several misguided “myths” in their ideology.

Schwartz is a retired industrialist and Third Way trustee who runs a
private investment company. His family foundation has donated $5 million to
Third Way since 2006, according to IRS records. Schwartz is one of the
Democratic Party’s largest donors, sending six-figure contributions to
party committees and Democratic super PACs every election cycle.

The Third Way report Schwartz cowrote also lists two fellow Third Way
trustees — Heller and Kirkland — as contributors.

Schwartz declined a request for an interview.

*Access to the chief of staff*

Just six weeks after President Obama chose William M. Daley as his chief of
staff, in February 2011, Cowan walked into the White House for the first of
three coveted meetings with the powerful insider.

Daley was tapped for the job after what Obama labeled a “shellacking” in
the 2010 congressional elections. His selection was seen by many as a
signal that Obama wanted to dial back his rhetoric after earlier lashing
out against “fat-cat bankers on Wall Street” in a “60 Minutes” interview.

Daley, who held senior positions with JP Morgan Chase, also represented a
golden opportunity for Third Way: He was a member of the group’s board of
trustees when he was selected to run the White House.

The former secretary of commerce for Clinton, and a key supporter of the
North American Free Trade Agreement, was seen as friendly toward business.
His selection was praised by the Chamber of Commerce and Republican Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell as a step toward common ground.

Cowan would not say what he discussed with the chief of staff. Daley said
he does not remember, but that many groups try to “tee up ideas.”

“I knew Jonathan and I knew that they were smart,” Daley said.

Daley said he does not think Obama’s Wall Street rhetoric changed
dramatically during his tenure as chief of staff.

“We and others want to break up the banks, however you define that,” Daley
said, in describing Democrats. But “that hasn’t become the sort of mantra
of the normal person out there so you’re going to continue to have this
tension between the left of the party and the middle” over rhetoric, he
added.

Daley left the White House after a year on the job. He returned to the
Third Way board. In May, he became managing partner of Argentiere Capital,
a Swiss hedge fund.

*Toward the 2016 election*

The battle over money and influence has now moved to the 2016 presidential
election, and the competition between parties for the financial favors of
Wall Street executives will be fierce.

Though Third Way’s salvo against Warren in The Wall Street Journal became a
seminal moment in its fight against Democratic populism, the group is now
very sensitive about the topic and will not even discuss why they chose to
wage it.

Cowan and Bennett took pains not to utter Warren’s name in several
interviews.

Nor would Warren, who is backing several moderate senators in tough
reelection campaigns, talk about Third Way.

Robert Reich, Clinton’s former labor secretary, who has become a leading
Wall Street critic, argued that there are several issues Democrats are
unwilling to tackle because of Wall Street’s grip on the party — including
tax breaks for hedge fund managers, transaction taxes for high-speed
traders, limits on the size of banks, and income tax rates for high earners.

“At some point it becomes a Faustian bargain,” he said. “The financial
dependence on Wall Street effectively ties the hands of the Democratic
Party.”

But moderate Democrats worry the party is doomed to lose general elections
if candidates are perceived as antibusiness in an effort to win over
activists on the hard left.

“That really has never generated a hell of a lot of support on Election
Day,” Daley said.

*NBC 6 (South Florida): “Exclusive Interview with University of Miami
President Donna Shalala”
<http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Exclusive-Interview-with-University-of-Miami-President-Donna-Shalala-278171441.html>*

By Cherine  Akbari

October 5, 2014, 3:50 p.m. EDT

University of Miami President Donna Shalala sat down with NBC 6's Jackie
Nespral for an exclusive interview, looking back on her time at UM and
discussing what the future holds.

Shalala announced last month her intention to retire after 14 years at the
University of Miami. She says many want to know what is next in store.

"It's too early to tell what I'm going to do next," Shalala said. "I
haven't made any decisions, I've made no commitments. There are lots of
people calling that have things for me to do."

Shalala served for eight years as Secretary of Health and Human Services
for the Clinton administration. When asked if she would campaign for
Hillary Clinton should she decide to run in 2016, Shalala said there is a
possibility she would get involved in some way.

"I'm sure that if she decides to run, there will be some things to do if
I'm in a position to do that," Shalala said. "I'm a political scientist but
not an expert on campaigns. While I could be helpful in terms of running
around the country making speeches, don't expect to see me as an
operational person on a campaign."

Shalala assumed the presidency at UM in 2001, having previously served as
Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Shalala said she saw an
opportunity to make a real difference for Miami.

"I had never before been able to take an institution into the top ranks,"
Shalala said.

Along with projecting $3 Billion raised for the university's Momentum
campaign by next June, Shalala considers her recruitment of world-class
faculty to be among her greatest accomplishments.

"The Unviersity of Miami was a very good place," she said. "Now it's on the
verge of being the next great American university."

Shalala admits that she thought the university was vulnerable after news
broke about the Nevin Shapiro scandal. And while she says it was a painful
experience, she is proud of how they managed the fallout.

"I was pissed off during a large part of it," she said. "I was also angry
at the NCAA because they didn't behave in a professional way. I said that
publicly. We cooperated from the beginning and we got it done, but it had
an effect on our football program. It's going to continue to have an effect
for another couple of years."

Shalala said the university also investigated itself.

"To have a rogue person like that, we went back and took a look to
investigate and see if we could have stopped some of that at the time, and
the fact is, no one talked at the time," she said. "We learned a lot from
our experience in this."

While Shalala may be stepping down at the end of the school year, she says
she will continue to teach at the university, and plans to start research
and publishing again as an academic.

"I teach the largest class at the university," she said. "Lots of students
want to take it. It's the politics and economics of health care. It's a hot
topic so I'll continue to teach. I love teaching."

*Politico: “Rogue donors not ready for Hillary?”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/hillary-clinton-donors-2016-elections-111622.html>*

By Kenneth P. Vogel

October 6, 2014, 5:04 a.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton is facing the beginnings of a backlash from rich liberals
unhappy with her positions on litmus test issues and her team’s efforts to
lock up the Democratic presidential nomination before the contest starts.

Elizabeth Warren says she’s not running, but donors are pledging big money
to get her to reconsider. Joe Biden, Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb have
found polite and occasionally receptive audiences among potential sugar
daddies. Even Bernie Sanders has support from some wealthy donors.

Clinton is seen by some liberals as too hawkish, too close to Wall Street
and insufficiently aggressive on fighting climate change, income inequality
and the role of money in politics. Those are animating causes for many rich
Democrats, and some are eager for a candidate or candidates to challenge
Clinton on those issues, if only to force her to the left.

“I have talked to large donors who are not happy with what Hillary
represents,” said Guy Saperstein, a San Francisco lawyer and part owner of
the Oakland A’s. “But they’re not going to stick their heads up above the
ramparts right now and get shot at.”

Saperstein provided seed funding to a super PAC launched this summer to try
to draft Warren into the presidential race and pledged $1 million if the
Massachusetts senator decides to run. The super PAC is hiring staffers in
key primary states and recently enlisted a fundraising firm to solicit
donors.

It’s just one example of the big-money Democratic presidential jockeying
taking place almost entirely behind the scenes. The results will go a long
way towards determining whether the party will maintain unity in 2016 or
tumble headlong into to the sort of costly super PAC-funded internecine
skirmishes that have confounded Republicans.

The worst nightmare for Democrats would be replicating the 2012 GOP
presidential primary. It was thrown into chaos by a pair of super-rich
activists — Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess — who each poured millions of
dollars into super PACs that propped up the longshot campaigns of Newt
Gingrich and Rick Santorum, respectively. The cash helped both candidates
remain in the race for months longer than they likely would have been able
to do otherwise, inflicting serious damage on the frontrunner and eventual
nominee Mitt Romney.

With over two decades’ worth of carefully cultivated connections to the
Democratic Party’s deepest pockets, Hillary Clinton is in some ways the
ideal candidate for the mega-check brand of politics that has come to
dominate American elections.

Yet the former first lady, New York senator and secretary of State is also
uniquely exposed in the new landscape, where rogue billionaires can use
their checkbooks to buck or shape the party line if they’re unhappy with
its candidates or positions.

Like Romney in 2012, Clinton is the early consensus choice for her party’s
presidential nomination among elites who believe she gives them their best
chance to win a general election. And, she has inched closer to entering
the race, her backers have worked to avoid Romney’s fate by trying to
neutralize potential Adelsons and Friesses on their side and convince them
there are no viable alternatives.

Using a network of big-money groups laying the groundwork for a
presidential campaign, including the super PAC Ready for Hillary — which
has raised more than $10 million since January 2013 (including at least
$1.7 million over the last three months) — Clinton’s allies have collected
contributions and pledges of support from an impressive roster of the
party’s most generous donors, including Houston trial lawyers Steve and
Amber Mostyn, billionaire financier George Soros and medical device heir
Jon Stryker.

“I think it’s un-American,” declared Ben Cohen, the co-founder of Ben &
Jerry’s ice cream and a significant donor to progressive candidates and
groups — particularly those working to diminish the role of unlimited cash
in politics. “The big problem with politics is big money in politics. … I’m
talking about the undue influence of corporations and the wealthy. We’ve
got them controlling the general elections, we’ve got them controlling the
primaries, and now we’re talking about them controlling the pre-primaries.”

Clinton’s backers are assiduously courting top cause-oriented liberal
donors like San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer. He has pledged
to spend more than $50 million in the 2014 midterms supporting Democrats
with aggressive stances on environmental issues including fighting climate
change.

Yet Steyer — who supported Clinton in 2008 and in July had her over to his
San Francisco home for an informal get-to-together — thus far has resisted
Ready for Hillary’s entreaties to formally commit to her in 2016. Sources
say Steyer raised eyebrows in Hillary-land last month when on the sidelines
of a climate change awareness march in New York City, he told MSNBC that
she could benefit from a primary challenge.

“Being forced to refine what you say and think is a good thing,” said
Steyer.

Former Virginia Sen. Webb, who’s flirting with a run for the nomination,
met recently with major donors in New York, and some came away thinking
that he could convincingly run as an economic populist to Clinton’s left.

“Donors on the left — progressives — don’t think she’s divorced herself
from Wall Street and they’re bothered that she never cut the cord with
people like Larry Summers and Laura Tyson,” said one New York donor who met
with Webb. There are a number of major liberal donors who would support a
Webb campaign, but are fearful of vocally opposing Clinton before the
campaign even starts, asserted the donor.

“A lot of people give money to be recognized and when the Clintons turn
against you, you’re dead to them and that hurts these people,” said the
donor. “Do I want her to be the president over any Republican? Sure. But a
lot of donors are actually thrilled that Bernie could go, and that Webb and
O’Malley are probably going to go, because they are going to force her to
answer questions.”

O’Malley, the outgoing governor of Maryland, has been methodically laying
the groundwork for a presidential campaign for more than a year. But in
meetings with major donors, he’s been reluctant to contrast himself to
Clinton, and has even been offering himself as a fallback choice, according
to multiple sources familiar with his pitch.

“He’s saying ‘I don’t know if she’s going to run, but, if she doesn’t I
would like to be your second choice,’” said one fundraiser.

Another fundraiser said O’Malley is in a tough spot. “The fact that he’s
telling people that he wants to be their second choice really undercuts
him, but he has to, because 80 to 90 percent of his donors are the
Clintons’ donors.”

O’Malley recently has focused at least partly on major donors who bucked
Clinton in 2008 by siding with Barack Obama in the Democratic primary, and,
as such, are seen by some in Democratic finance circles as potential 2016
wildcards.

Among those with whom O’Malley has recently met: San Francisco real estate
developer Wayne Jordan and his wife Quinn Delaney, venture capitalist Ryan
Smith of Salt Lake City, and Wall Street titan Robert Wolf.

Jordan, Delaney and Smith did not return calls seeking comment on
O’Malley’s prospects, while Wolf, a close Obama confidant who was traveling
in Turkey on a presidential export mission, emailed to say he hasn’t
“really focused on the 2016 campaign yet.”

An O’Malley spokeswoman declined to comment on his recent donor meetings.
But fundraisers interviewed for this story pointed out that often, when
O’Malley meets with donors, he’s raising money for the Democratic Governors
Association. A source familiar with his meeting with Wolf said it was not
related to the DGA — just O’Malley’s own political ambitions.

Likewise, Vice President Biden’s private meetings with major donors often
are related to his fundraising for the Democratic Party, so he wouldn’t
necessarily have to make the case for himself vs. Clinton. But a fundraiser
who has been briefed on Biden’s meetings with top donors said he often
leaves little doubt about his own presidential ambitions and is not shy
about comparing his prospects to Clinton’s.

“He is the most aggressive in making the case for why it should be him, as
opposed to her,” said the fundraiser.

Yet the donors interviewed for this story mostly viewed Biden, whose
spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment, as indistinguishable
from Clinton on their pet issues — and much less viable as a candidate.

Still, Clinton’s backers are carefully monitoring the donor courtship by
all her prospective rivals. Even Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders’
open exploration of a longshot run for the Democratic nomination reportedly
is is causing anxiety in Hillaryland. Sanders, who spent the weekend in
Iowa and is headed New Hampshire Friday, has made inroads with wealthy
liberals for whom campaign finance reform is a top issue and has signaled
to them that he is all-but certainly going to run, according to multiple
sources.

Longtime Sanders backer Cohen, of Ben and Jerry’s fame, stopped short of
endorsing a Sanders’ presidential bid because he said he didn’t want to
jeopardize the non-partisan status of a non-profit he’s financing to the
tune of “hundreds of thousands of dollars” called Stamp Stampede. It’s
working to rally support for campaign finance reforms ahead of both party’s
2016 presidential primaries.

But, Cohen said “there are major donors that would support Bernie” for
president because of his support for campaign finance reforms, which has
not been among Clinton’s core causes. “And if it ends up hurting the
Democrats’ chances, so be it, because the most important thing is to get
money out of politics,” said Cohen.

By far the candidate who most worries Clintonites — and most excites the
anybody-but-Hillary donors — is Warren, whose tough posture towards Wall
Street and reducing income inequality thrill liberal activists and donors.
They’re hoping that she can be convinced to make the race if they can
demonstrate enough support for her.

“I think the wiggle room is that she doesn’t have to make the decision
now,” said Deborah Sagner, a New Jersey real estate executive and
philanthropist. She sided with Obama early in his 2008 Democratic primary
against Clinton, later raising more than $500,000 for his reelection, and
now is raising money for the Warren super PAC, Ready for Warren
Presidential Draft Campaign.

“I was never really been inspired by the Clintons; either of them,” said
Sagner, who wrote among the first checks — $20,000 — to the Warren super
PAC, the very name of which has been interpreted as a swipe at Ready for
Hillary.

Sagner said she’s been “delightedly surprised” by how many donors have
offered to contribute. “Obviously, I’m not necessarily saying to this to
people who I know from ’07 have been for Hillary. I’ve mostly been talking
to people who in ’07 were looking for an alternative to Hillary.”

Among them, she said, there is the sense “that a rigorous primary in the
Democratic presidential primary is very healthy for the party.”

Sagner is a former board member of the influential Democracy Alliance club
of wealthy liberals. Its membership — which skews anti-war, anti-money in
politics and economically populist — largely turned away from Clinton and
towards Obama in 2008. Sources say the club’s current donor pool again
includes an ardent anybody-but-Hillary wing. This time around, its underdog
rival of choice is Warren, who demurred when she was urged to run after
speaking to the club’s annual winter meeting late last year.

Warren’s lawyer has even gone so far as to disavow Ready for Warren. But
it’s proceeding anyway, with the two-pronged goal of demonstrating to
Warren that there would be sufficient financial support for her campaign
and also building political infrastructure around the country that could be
tapped by any such campaign. It’s a model similar to – but on a much
smaller scale – than that which Ready for Hillary pioneered early last year.

“We’re not just trying to get Sen. Warren to run, we’re also building a
network that can support her when she does,” said Scott Dworkin, a
Democratic fundraiser whose firm Bulldog Finance Group was retained late
last month by Ready for Warren.

The super PAC — which is run by Erica Sagrans, who worked for the Obama
Democratic National Committee and reelection campaign — recently posted job
listings for a deputy director, as well as state coordinators in Iowa, New
Hampshire and South Carolina.

“We want to get away from the storyline that everyone knows what’s going to
happen,” she said. “We want to show that it’s not inevitable. It’s still
very early and that there’s still room to push for someone we’re really
excited about to get into this race and we think that Warren is that
progressive champion.”

If Ready for Warren catches hold, but its hero ultimately doesn’t run,
Sagrans said the group would consider supporting another progressive
candidate in the primary or pushing the field on “progressive issues around
income inequality, student debt – the kind of issues Warren champions.”
But, Sagrans added “we think she has a credibility and passion and
fearlessness around those issues that not a lot of folks have.”

Asked whether she was referring to anyone in particular, Sagrans laughed.
“No one in particular. Just anybody.”

*Miami Herald blog: Marc Caputo: “Hillary Clinton's Miami trip shows she’s
empress of image-management”
<http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/marc-caputo/article2523164.html>*

By Marc Caputo

October 5, 2014, 7:10 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton’s latest Miami visit served as a fresh illustration of how,
whether or not she ever becomes president, she is America’s reigning
empress of image-management.

In a replay of her trips here in September 2013 and February of this year,
Clinton traveled Friday to Miami Beach and Coral Gables in a de rigueur
cocoon of U.S. Secret Service, cops and yes-men — all dedicated to the
proposition that reporters aren’t created equal to contributors and
sycophants.

Sure, the Secret Service has had a string of embarrassing security lapses
as of late. But when it comes to keeping a free press from freely
reporting, the men with guns don’t miss much as they protect a prized
asset: a politician’s poll-tested, stage-managed media image.

No press questions, please.

As a result, security booted me and three other reporters Friday night out
of the lobby of the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables, where Clinton helped
Democrat Charlie Crist raise $1 million. The press wasn’t that close to the
private fundraiser room across the lobby. Nor were reporters trying to get
into the closed-door event.

“We didn’t kick you out,” a Secret Service agent told me defensively after
I blamed the agency on Twitter.

“You had him kick me out,” I told the agent, pointing to a Coral Gables
police sergeant.

Agent: “No. The hotel staff kicked you out. And the White House kicked you
out.”

Me: “The White House?”

Agent: “No, um, her staff.”

Ahh, “her.” She who shall not be named.

Later, a hotel worker told me that one man who claimed he was hotel
security was really a Secret Service agent. Hotel staff said the “event
organizers” wanted us gone.

But the event organizer was Crist’s campaign. And a Crist staffer
strenuously denied that the campaign was behind it and, to his credit,
argued with police and the Secret Service about it.

Indeed, Crist wanted the press there. A picture with Clinton is worth a
thousand absentee-ballot requests, mailers or donations. Last fall, after
Crist announced his candidacy for governor, he personally invited me to a
fundraiser in the very hotel room that wound up having the Clinton event
Friday. And he proceeded to use me as a prop that day.

“We’re open with the press,” Crist said.

Unless Clinton says otherwise, that is.

After all fingers pointed to Clinton’s folks, a Clinton staffer denied the
operation had given the kick-them-out order. So, perhaps, no one said it.
Instead, just as drones naturally anticipate the needs of the hive’s queen,
everyone with a gun acted without the requirement of an external command.
It’s in their DNA to make sure information is tightly controlled.

The Biltmore wasn’t the only no-reporter zone. Earlier in the day, Clinton
hawked her tome Hard Choices at Books & Books in Coral Gables.
Photographers were allowed — provided they didn’t report. If you wanted to
speak briefly to the former secretary of state/U.S. senator/first lady, you
had to buy the hardcover.

No press questions, please.

In a speech at the beginning of the day to a women’s real-estate group,
reporters were kept well away. Clinton spoke alone at the lectern and then
took pre-screened questions as she sat on stage.

Clinton had the same arrangement when she spoke to a travel-agents group
last year and at the University of Miami in February. She was never pressed
about whether she’ll run for president. That line of questioning isn’t in
the approved script, although it’s more welcome than inquiries about U.S.
foreign policy struggles in the Middle East.

In all on Friday, Coral Gables spent the equivalent of about $3,300
providing police services for Clinton at the two events, the city
estimated. It wasn’t reimbursed by Clinton or the Crist campaign.

The city’s acting police chief, Ed Hudak, said the “global city” has a long
history of protecting visiting dignitaries as part of the department’s
regular duties. “It’s part of the dynamics of policing this city,” Hudak
said.

Clinton charges as much as $300,000 for a paid speech. But sometimes she
gives a break, as she did for a scheduled Oct. 13 speech at a foundation
for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to the Las Vegas
Review-Journal, which unearthed documents showing she’s to receive $225,000.

Clinton also allegedly insisted on staying at the “presidential suite” of a
luxury hotel of her staff's choice and required the equivalent “or larger”
of a $39 million, 16-passenger Gulfstream G450 jet.

It’s unclear what sort of demands Clinton made of the Crist campaign, the
Realtors, Books & Books or any of the other groups she has addressed.

Throughout, though, the pattern of perfectly positioning the
not-yet-a-candidate candidate has remained disciplined and constant.
Sometimes, to an extreme degree.

At Clinton’s event last year, a docent actually swiped a man’s smartphone
when he used it to take a picture of her on stage. The image was erased,
and the device was then handed back to him as he protested.

A docent explained: “That’s American politics.”

It certainly is in the world of Clinton’s image-management.

*Bloomberg: “The Truth About Jeb Bush’s Presidential Ambitions”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-10-06/the-truth-about-jeb-bushs-presidential-ambitions>*

By Mark Halperin

October 5, 2014, 9:03 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Some insiders say he’s already running. Others says he's
definitely not. Here’s the reality, distilled from over a dozen discussions
with those who know Bush really well.

There are currently two factions in American presidential politics: Those
who are absolutely sure Jeb Bush will run for president in 2016 and those
who are absolutely sure he won’t.

The first group points to Bush’s recent weeks on the road—he hit a variety
of long-planned Republican political and policy events in advance of the
midterms, and put on an  impressively lively and incisive show. Supporters
share stories of Bush aides quietly urging potential backers to keep their
powder dry only a little longer. George W. Bush’s jaunty recent assertion
that his brother “is weighing his options,” is seen as a trilling dog
whistle signifying that Dallas, Houston, and, significantly, Kennebunkport
are all on board for a third Bush presidency.

The second group, meanwhile, insists Jeb Bush will once again sit out the
presidential race, this time scared off by the lethal-looking twin buzz
saws of Common Core and immigration. Even more lethal, there are enduring
murmurs that Jeb’s irrepressibly formidable mother, his wife, and his
daughter are dead set against a run. Members of Group Two clock the echoing
absence of the courtship of aggressive bundlers; interest-group activists;
and Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina kingmakers; and conclude that
there is no candidacy brewing—just a guy with a great résumé, a substantive
agenda, and a brand name, stirring the pot.

Such mirror-image speculation is only mounting—in the last week alone,
three premium-grade Republican sources confided to me with utmost certainty
that Bush is in fact already running, while one of America’s premier
political reporters privately offered up a laundry list of reasons why Bush
was definitively not taking the plunge.

Here’s the reality, distilled from over a dozen discussions with those who
know Bush really well: Jeb himself still hasn’t decided.

There is no doubt that Bush is significantly closer to running for
President than he was four years ago. He isn’t showing some leg to sell
books or raise his speaking fees. He isn’t worried about the mechanics of
the race, such as who might be his New Hampshire campaign manager, or how
best to deal with straw polls. His decision-making process is less about
consultation than, as is typical for the former Florida governor, about
introspection. Jeb Bush is grappling with the hardest of questions: Is he
the right person to bring the Republican Party toward the center and govern
a country that has proven stubbornly difficult to lead? In other words, is
this, finally, his time?

A potential Jeb Bush candidacy is a high-stakes question.

Since the Reagan years, nearly every Republican Party presidential nominee
has been the establishment favorite, raised the most money in the year
before the election, and has been viewed by the Gang of 500 as the most
formidable general election candidate. (The one exception: In 1996, Phil
Gramm took in slightly more cash than Bob Dole, and Bill Clinton’s team
worried more about competing head-to-head with Lamar Alexander than they
did the Bobster.)

There is uncharacteristic chaos right now in the Republican Party, which,
for the first time in the modern era, is lacking a clear frontrunner at
this stage of the presidential cycle. Given Hillary Clinton’s strength and
the GOP’s complete failure since 2012 to improve its standing with the key
elements of the Obama coalition of the ascendant—Hispanics, young voters,
single women—the establishment is on the verge of a post-midterm panic
about the unfilled vacuum.  Not one GOP sharpie I’ve talked to in the past
six months has said with any confidence who their nominee will be, and most
are either stumped or limp-throated when asked to venture a guess at the
top tier. Pressed, they’ll typically cough up Chris Christie, Paul Ryan,
Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Mitt Romney. A portion of that bunch would
likely not get in the race if Bush decides to run. None of them combines
Bush’s fundraising capacity and his compelling case for general-election
strength.

Until and unless grandmotherhood and other personal factors keep the
Democratic frontrunner out of the contest, Republicans have to assume they
are looking for a nominee who can take on a supremely daunting, uber-iconic
Clinton.

While supporters of flashy candidates such as Paul and Rubio talk a good
game about nomination muscle, national appeal, and anti-Clinton clout, Bush
has walked the walk as the popular governor of electorally indispensable
Florida and as a member of the most politically successful family in
American history. Jeb (along with Romney) is likely the only contestant who
could keep pace with the expected Clinton haul in excess of $1.5 billion.
“The Republican donor base will fall in line” behind Bush, says one of the
party’s best and most experienced fundraisers. “There is no competition.”

Despite a near-total lack of spadework in the early states and among
activists and bundlers, Bush could line up a team of campaign staffers,
policy experts, and finance mavens at a moment’s notice. More to the point,
he doesn’t have much ground to make up.  One long-time senior Republican
official says of the other prospects, “None of them has done shit” to build
an organization so far. “Bush will have the band put together in a day. He
is the most prepared from a infrastructure point of view by light-years.”
Unlike his competitors, Bush could lure donors off the fence in a hurry,
without undergoing a hazing trial to test skill and stability. The train
would fire up and chug away from the station at the git-go.

Moving to the Electoral College endgame and the essentials of demography
and partisan affiliation, Bush’s strength is manifest. His long record
attracting non-white voters, especially Hispanics, stands out. This is
hugely important, given the reality that promoting a path to citizenship
has become a litmus test for many in the Latino community—and while some
GOPers may still be in denial about the arithmetic, the party can’t win
back the White House without garnering a much larger share of the Hispanic
vote than Romney won.

It is also striking how many Democrats who have met Jeb Bush tell me
they’ve come away both impressed and open to supporting him for president,
a crossover capacity that is a rarity in this polarized nation of ours. And
Bush would be without peer in fending off Hillary Clinton’s ability to
encroach on elite Republican patronage, including Wall Streeters.

Finally, the most macro significant question for any Republican putting him
or herself forward to beat Clinton is this: What states can you win that
Romney lost? For Bush, the easy answer includes Florida, Ohio, Colorado,
Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Virginia. If he runs a strong campaign,
Bush could also compete in California and possibly New Jersey and Michigan.

Speaker John Boehner tried hard to get Bush in the race last time, putting
on extra pressure in February of 2012, when Romney appeared in danger of
losing to, or being politically crippled by, Rick Santorum. Twice in the
last two weeks, Boehner has again made his yearning for the Floridian
publicly clear.  There are other politicians, including several prominent
senators and even a high-profile would-be presidential candidate, who are
said to have assured Jeb that they would cheerfully back him were he to run.

Within JebWorld, which prefers operating on its own tweaked-Swiss-watch
schedule, there is a bit of frustration with both the “he’s running!” and
the “he’s not running!” brigades. Bush’s political inner-inner circle is a
bicoastal two-person shop made up of Californian Mike Murphy and Floridian
Sally Bradshaw, both of whom have advised him about politics and policy for
more than two decades. The members of the next tier, Bush’s outer-inner
circle, would fill the seats of a Broadway theater. It includes bundlers,
business people, think tankers, pols, strategists, and friends, all of whom
are super eager to see Bush run. They agree with the governor’s own humble
assessment that he is a special leader who can wait until early 2015 to
enter the race, even from the standing start it would effectively involve.
That Jeb would aim for a far less traditional campaign than previous
Republican nominees. That as a candidate and president, he would emphasize
the same issues that have been his passion in and out of government
throughout his decades-long career: fiscal discipline, education, the
efficient delivery of government services (including health care), and
equal opportunity.

But don’t dig up that ‘90s vintage Bush v. Clinton memorabilia just yet.

Despite support of enthusiastic donors, establishment leaders, voters, and
even some reporters (many of whom have been granted access to his private
email address), Jeb has two-ton problems, from blue-blooded Bush fatigue
and the reverberations of his brother’s Oval choices to his own grassroots
shortcomings and mild, spare-to-the-heir reputation. Not to mention weak
polling data and a meek social media presence—all of which would factor
into the looming dust-ups of Iowa and New Hampshire and the muck of the
Freak Show. Says one observer, “It would be a very tough slog. Part of it
is the Bush name,” but also some apostate positions and a sense that Bush
has been out of elective politics for too long and has a demeanor more
suited for the American Enterprise Institute than Greenville, SC.

While immigration is often cited as Bush’s biggest problem with the
conservative base, his support for the education standards in the Common
Core has actually caused more trouble this year, inciting heckling protests
outside some events and grumbling inside the party.  With his education
advisers, Bush has regular conversations about the issue.  Some of his
aides have attempted to understand why the matter provokes so much
grassroots anger and have talked about trying to reframe his position to
express support of higher standards, although it’s a fight Bush would
welcome as a presidential candidate.  In private meetings, when pressed on
both the substance and the politics, Bush pushes back hard.

Then there’s the persistent chatter that three generation of Bush women
don’t want any part of another White House run. Barbara’s icy dismissals of
a Candidate Jeb (“we’ve had enough Bushes”) have made both national news
and late-night laugh fodder. One source, however, who recently spent time
with the former first lady says, in fact, she has shifted from unalterably
opposed to “neutral,” in part because of how much her ailing husband wants
to see their son in the Oval Office.  (A spokesman for former President
Bush 41 and Mrs. Bush, Jim McGrath, says, her tart comments shrugging off a
Jeb candidacy were “about there being no sense of entitlement. She said
countless times that Jeb would make a superb president. Nothing has
changed.”)

Barbara Bush’s previous skepticism, according to numerous sources, was
grounded in concern that daughter-in-law Columba Bush would not take well
to the harsh spotlight of either a coast-to-coast campaign or life in
Washington. Jeb’s wife is said to be shy, private, and sensitive to
ridicule she received for struggling to transition from her native Spanish
to English. But lately Columba has inched closer to the spotlight,
participating in a few public events and in family activities in
Kennebunkport, providing some reassurance to those closest to Jeb.  Columba
has been traveling with her husband on some international trips, attended
at least one board dinner with him in New York this year, and, according to
an intimate, has been more actively engaged in her husband’s public policy
work in the last 12 months than she has been in five or six years.

“She’s seen it all,” says a family friend. “The good, the bad, and the
ugly. I don’t think she’s capable of doing ten [presidential campaign]
events a day. But she could do a couple.”

Their two sons, Jeb Jr. and George P., are both willing to go along for the
ride if their father runs, Bush intimates say. Daughter Noelle, 37, has a
history of drug abuse but is said to be in a “good place” now, given her
past, and, somewhat regularly travels from her home in Orlando to visit her
parents in south Florida. Jeb Bush presumably wouldn’t be as far along in
his consideration if Noelle’s condition or posture made running a
non-starter.

To paraphrase a favorite Bill Clinton line, if Republicans want a perfect
candidate, they can vote for someone else. If he runs, Jeb’s central
challenges are very similar to Hillary’s, although she would have a much
better chance of avoiding a bruising nomination fight. They would both have
to convince the country that, familiar family name notwithstanding, they
represent change, fresh ideas, and a new direction.

One Republican—fairly panting for a Jeb candidacy—says, “He believes that
he can convince people what the Republican Party stands for and what it can
do on behalf of the American people.” The White House is probably the best
place to wield that kind of influence, which is why so many members of his
outer-inner circle insist the vector is facing toward yes. Says one close
friend, “He’s getting there. He’s working himself into it.”

But another Republican big shot who has attended recent events with Bush
posits that the current swell could be more about Bush’s followers than
Bush himself. “The ever-hopeful chattering class thinks they need him to
run. He does five events. He’s doing what Jeb Bush does well. He’s very
focused and doing his thing. And trying to figure out if he can do this on
a national scale.”

*Calendar:*

*Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official
schedule.*

·  October 6 – Ottawa, Canada: Sec. Clinton speaks at Canada 2020 event (Ottawa
Citizen
<http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/hillary-clinton-speaking-in-ottawa-oct-6>
)

·  October 8 – Chicago, IL: Sec. Clinton stumps for Illinois Gov.
Quinn (Chicago
Sun-Times
<http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/hillary-clinton-hitting-illinois-stump-gov-quinn/mon-09292014-1000am>
)

·  October 8 – Chicago, IL: Sec. Clinton keynotes AdvaMed 2014 conference (
AdvaMed
<http://advamed2014.com/download/files/AVM14%20Wednesday%20Plenary%20Media%20Alert%20FINAL%209_30_14(1).pdf>
)

·  October 9 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton fundraises for Arkansas Sen.
Pryor (AP
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/03fe478acd0344bab983323d3fb353e2/clinton-planning-lengthy-campaign-push-month>
)

·  October 9 – Philadelphia, PA: Sec. Clinton fundraises for gubernatorial
candidate Tom Wolf (AP
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/03fe478acd0344bab983323d3fb353e2/clinton-planning-lengthy-campaign-push-month>
)

·  October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton and Sen. Reid fundraise for the
Reid Nevada Fund (Ralston Reports
<http://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/hillary-raise-money-state-democrats-reid-next-month>
)

·  October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation
Annual Dinner (UNLV
<http://www.unlv.edu/event/unlv-foundation-annual-dinner?delta=0>)

·  October 14 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes
salesforce.com Dreamforce
conference (salesforce.com
<http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF14/highlights.jsp#tuesday>)

·  October 20 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton fundraises for House
Democratic women candidates with Nancy Pelosi (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-nancy-pelosi-110387.html?hp=r7>
)

·  October 20 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton fundraises for Senate
Democrats (AP
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/03fe478acd0344bab983323d3fb353e2/clinton-planning-lengthy-campaign-push-month>
)

·  November 2  – NH: Sec. Clinton appears at a GOTV rally for Gov. Hassan
and Sen. Shaheen (AP
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/03fe478acd0344bab983323d3fb353e2/clinton-planning-lengthy-campaign-push-month>
)

·  December 1 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton keynotes a League of
Conservation Voters dinner (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-green-groups-las-vegas-111430.html?hp=l11>
)

·  December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts
Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)