Subject: Correct The Record Tuesday August 26, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:44:05 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Tuesday August 26, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Rand Paul says he scares Democrats. Should
he?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/25/rand-paul-says-he-scares-democrats-should-he/>*

“‘It's pretty funny to see Rand Paul trying to direct Democrats on policy
and politics alike,’ said Adrienne Elrod, communications director for
Correct The Record, a Clinton-aligned super PAC. ‘He's too cute by half,
and as a whole,  he is too dangerous for our nation.’”

*MSNBC: “Potential 2016 contenders flocking to I.A., N.H.”
<http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/potential-2016-contenders-flocking-ia-nh>*

“Hillary Clinton has not made stops to either state…yet.”

*Huffington Post opinion: Ian Reifowitz: “Dear Hillary: Don't Worry About
'Obama's Third Term' Nonsense -- Run on Progressive Values and Record”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-reifowitz/dear-hillary-dont-worry-a_b_5710687.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>*

“The most important task for any Democrat is to make an election a choice
between the values and record of our party versus that of Republicans.”

*The Hill: “Sanders weighs Clinton challenge”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/215939-sanders-weighs-clinton-challenge>*

“Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) is gearing up for a presidential primary
challenge against Hillary Clinton and hopes to capitalize on Democratic
concerns over Clinton’s coziness with Wall Street banks.”

*Politico political column: Roger Simon: “Hillary doomed if she’s Obama’s
third term”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/2016-election-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-110319.html>*

“You know who should worry? Hillary Clinton should worry. She has some of
the same flaws as Obama.”

*Washington Post: “O’Malley to send campaign staff to Iowa, N.H. and
elsewhere to aid fellow Democrats”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/omalley-to-send-campaign-staff-to-iowa-nh-and-elsewhere-to-aid-fellow-democrats/2014/08/25/a797cd3a-2c8d-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.html>*

“Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is preparing to dispatch more than two dozen
campaign staffers to other states with competitive elections this year,
including Iowa and New Hampshire, in his latest move consistent with
someone gearing up to run for president.”

*BuzzFeed: “Martin O’Malley Sends Staffers To Support Campaigns In Iowa,
New Hampshire”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/martin-omalley-sends-staffers-to-support-campaigns-in-iowa-n#2wwn3q7>*

“Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley will pay for more than two dozen staffers to
work on Democratic campaigns in Iowa, New Hampshire, and several other
states ahead of the midterm elections this fall, his spokesperson confirmed
Monday.”

*Articles:*

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Rand Paul says he scares Democrats. Should
he?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/25/rand-paul-says-he-scares-democrats-should-he/>*

By Chris Cillizza

August 25, 2014, 2:42 p.m. EDT

Here's Rand Paul on what a 2016 matchup between himself and de facto
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton might look like: "If you wanna see a
transformational election in our country, let the Democrats put forward a
war hawk like Hillary Clinton, and you'll see a transformation like you've
never seen."

While I'm not sure Clinton would describe herself as a "war hawk" she has
tended -- as Secretary of State and in the Senate -- to favor more
aggressive approaches to international conflicts then those advocated by
President Obama or, for that matter, Paul.

Consider:

* Clinton, while in the Senate, voted for the use of force resolution
against Iraq in 2002. Obama, spoke out in opposition to it. Paul, who, like
Obama, wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote, has worked to repeal
the use of force resolution.

* Clinton supported a larger troop surge in Afghanistan in 2009. Obama
chose a smaller one. Paul penned an op-ed -- along with two Democratic
Senators -- advocating for a faster withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan
than Obama proposed.

*  Clinton was a strong voice advocating military intervention in Libya.
President Obama eventually sided with her.  Paul opposed military
intervention.

* Clinton favored more directly and broadly arming Syrian rebels early in
the civil war, a move Obama resisted. Paul opposed arming the rebels.

Given that record, if Clinton and Paul were their party's respective
nominees, it seems certain that she would be more hawkish in her approach
to nearly every major international conflict than he would be. And that
fact alone would be a remarkable turnabout -- given that Republicans have
built much of their electoral success over the past three-plus decades
around a muscular foreign policy. (It remains to be seen whether Paul's
non-interventionist views will be disqualifying for him in the Republican
primary fight.)

"It's pretty funny to see Rand Paul trying to direct Democrats on policy
and politics alike," said Adrienne Elrod, communications director for
Correct The Record, a Clinton-aligned super PAC. "He's too cute by half,
and as a whole,  he is too dangerous for our nation."

The more intriguing question is whether Paul or Clinton would be closer to
where the American public stands on what role the U.S. should play in
foreign conflicts.

While there is a natural tendency to assume Clinton's hawkish views would
be preferred, there's reason to believe that the cumulative effect of a
decade's worth of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- wars strong majorities
don't believe were worth fighting -- has fundamentally altered how people
view the U.S.'s place in the world community.

Take this amazing chart via Wall Street Journal politics editor Aaron
Zitner from an April NBC-WSJ poll:

[GRAPH OF HOW INVOLVED THE U.S. SHOULD BE IN WORLD AFFAIRS]

And, the NBC-WSJ poll is far from an outlier. In a January Pew poll, six in
ten people said "we should pay less attention to problems overseas and
concentrate on problems here at home" while just 35 percent said "it's best
for the future of our country to be active in world affairs." A June
CBS-New York Times survey showed 58 percent saying that the U.S. should not
take a leading role "among all other countries in the world in trying to
solve international conflicts" while just 37 percent said America should
play a leading role. An August NBC-WSJ poll found that just 35 percent of
people were either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with the U.S.'s role in
the world while 62 percent were very or somewhat dissatisfied. Back in late
1995, 52 percent said they were satisfied with the U.S. role while 43
percent said they were not.

Support for the U.S. playing a more narrow role in world affairs tends to
run higher among Democrats and independents than it does among Republicans.
(See my point above about Paul's challenge in selling his views to
Republican primary voters.) Whether the difference between Clinton and Paul
on that set of issues would be enough to convince some Democrats and
Democratic-leaning independents to vote for him, however, remains to be
seen. It's simply too far away to begin predicting what the key issues of
the 2016 presidential election will be.

"How things have always been" only holds true until those things change.
Remember how America would never elect a black president named Barack
Obama? Or how the Senate would never invoke the nuclear option? One day the
current prevailing conventional wisdom about what the public wants the U.S.
to do -- and be -- internationally may find its way onto that list.

*MSNBC: “Potential 2016 contenders flocking to I.A., N.H.”
<http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/potential-2016-contenders-flocking-ia-nh>*

By Lisa Crivelli

August 25, 2014, 7:25 p.m. EDT

If you’re not visiting New Hampshire you’re not running for president… and
Texas Governor Rick Perry made the pilgrimage there this weekend.  It was
Perry’s first visit.

According to a report from NBC News and U.S. News and World Report, Rand
Paul, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio have made a
combined forty trips to New Hampshire and Iowa.  That’s four times more
than their Democratic counterparts, which include Vice President Joe Biden
and Brian Schweitzer.  Hillary Clinton has not made stops to either
state…yet.

*Huffington Post opinion: Ian Reifowitz: “Dear Hillary: Don't Worry About
'Obama's Third Term' Nonsense -- Run on Progressive Values and Record”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-reifowitz/dear-hillary-dont-worry-a_b_5710687.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>*

By Ian Reifowitz, author of “Obama’s America: A Transformative Vision of
Our National Identity”

August 25, 2014, 5:59 p.m. EDT

Some people just wanna party like it's 2008. There's apparently some
"concern" out there among advisers to Hillary Clinton -- all of whom, of
course, told CNN they had to remain anonymous -- about Republicans
attacking her candidacy (and presumably that of any Democratic nominee) as
"Obama's third term."

One of these unnamed advisers predicted that the Republican attack would
unfold thusly:

"If you like Obama, you will love Hillary. ... She was in his government,
she was at his side. ... That is, the way to go after her is four more
years of the same old thing. The question they should ask her is "Tell me
10 things that you disagree with him on."

Now, we don't know whether the Democratic nominee in 2016 -- whomever she
or he may be -- will listen to this nonsense. Either way, running away from
the Obama administration would be a serious mistake, not to mention being
all but impossible for just about any Democrat currently on the horizon.
Doing so would divide the party and depress enthusiasm, and thus voter
turnout, among President Obama's core supporters in key swing states like
Ohio and Florida. Besides, as we saw even as they competed for the
Democratic nomination in 2008, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do agree on
the vast majority of issues. Trying to pretend otherwise would be seen as
disingenuous at best.

The most important task for any Democrat is to make an election a choice
between the values and record of our party versus that of Republicans. When
we do that, we win. Period. When it comes to values, Democrats are the
party of the 99 percent, Republicans are the party of the 1 percent. We are
the party of freedom, justice, and equality for all Americans, no matter
who they are. The Republicans? Not so much. We are the party that believes
"we're all part of one American family," while the GOP operates from a
different principle: "I've got mine, and the rest of you are on your own."
If former Secretary Clinton is our party's 2016 nominee for president, she
must put these contrasts front and center.

The last three presidents have included two Democrats and a Republican.
How'd they do? President Bill Clinton presided over the longest peacetime
economic expansion in history, saw 20 million net jobs created during his
eight years, and, thanks in large part to a 1993 budget deal passed with
only Democratic votes in Congress, turned huge deficits into the first run
of federal budget surpluses in decades.

George W. Bush turned these surpluses -- which the Congressional Budget
Office predicted would come to over $800 billion per year from 2009 to 2012
-- into massive deficits. Additionally, he created all of about 1 million
net jobs in eight years, and that thanks only to an increase in government
jobs. The private sector actually lost jobs during the eight years of his
presidency.

In his last year, George W. Bush's economy tanked. It crashed. Our economy
was as bad as it's been at any point since the Great Depression. Barack
Obama came in and stabilized the situation. Fighting against almost
universal Republican opposition, his policies reversed the collapse, and
we've been growing slowly but steadily since. Even after losing millions of
jobs in its first months, his administration has seen overall job growth
exceed 5 million in just five-and-a-half years.

Unemployment is down. Median income, after falling hard thanks to the
crash, has rebounded in the last three years. The economy has grown for the
most part over the past five years, while the deficit has fallen
dramatically. The stock market has more than doubled off the low point
reached just after President Obama took office. Assuming these trends
continue over the next two years, the Obama record will be one to run on in
2016, and that includes Obamacare.

The American people have watched for the better part of three decades as
Democratic presidents have performed better for our country than have
Republicans. President Obama, in particular, has had to clean up the messes
left at home and abroad by George W. Bush, a president who inherited a very
strong country from Bill Clinton.

There's no question that Hillary Clinton will also have to run on her own
individual vision, her own talents, experience, and personal qualities.
Absolutely. But rather than listen to the advice of some "unnamed"
supporters and run away from the Obama record, former Secretary Clinton
should absolutely highlight it, along with that of her husband, as a record
of Democratic success.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis unfortunately tried to run a campaign that was
"not about ideology, it's about competence." In 2016, however, the
Democratic candidate for president would only benefit by emphasizing
ideology, by contrasting what Democrats believe to the beliefs of a
Republican party that, whoever is its nominee, is dominated by extreme
right, by the tea party. Our policy positions -- even now, when President
Obama's ratings are not what they were two years ago -- are more popular
than those of the Republicans. Those positions reflect our values, as does
the record of the last two Democratic presidents. Any Democrat running in
2016 should enthusiastically embrace them.

*The Hill: “Sanders weighs Clinton challenge”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/215939-sanders-weighs-clinton-challenge>*

By Alexander Bolton

August 26, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EDT

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) is gearing up for a presidential primary
challenge against Hillary Clinton and hopes to capitalize on Democratic
concerns over Clinton’s coziness with Wall Street banks.

Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats, plans to travel
to two crucial presidential battleground states next month.

He will speak at an AFL-CIO breakfast hosted in Manchester, New Hampshire,
over Labor Day weekend and then travel to Iowa in mid September, when
Clinton will be there building support for her own 2016 campaign.

Sanders plans to return to New Hampshire, which neighbors his home state,
on Sept. 27 to speak at the Stafford County Democrats annual dinner near
Durham, according to his staff.

“I’ll be going to New Hampshire and I’ll be going to Iowa. That’s part of
my trying to ascertain the kind of support that exists for a presidential
run,” he said Monday in an interview.

Sanders has not said whether he will run as an independent or a Democrat.

He has served as an independent during his entire career in Congress. This
lack of affiliation allows him to distance himself from both parties and
the low approval ratings they have as a result of years of squabbling.

But a non-partisan bid would force Sanders to raise millions of dollars to
overcome the hurdles various states have erected to make it harder for
independent candidates to get their names on the ballot.

Running as a Democrat would give Sanders higher visibility by allowing him
to participate in the early primary debates.

Sanders will hold a series of town-hall meetings in Dubuque, Waterloo and
Des Moines on Sept. 13 and 14, according to his staff. Clinton will be in
Iowa the same weekend to attend a steak fry hosted by Sen. Tom Harkin
(D-Iowa).

This week, Sanders will visit South Carolina, the host of another important
contest early on the 2016 presidential primary calendar, to speak at an
event sponsored by Progressive Voters of America, South Forward and the
South Carolina Progressive Network.

Many liberals have raised questions about Clinton’s stance on regulating
Wall Street banks and expanding Social Security, but Sanders has so far
declined to take shots at the presumed Democratic presidential frontrunner.

“I don’t want to speak about other people,” he said.

Instead, Sanders will push his agenda, which calls for a “massive jobs
program,” raising the minimum wage, changing the nation’s trade policies,
programs to make childcare and college education more affordable, and
subsidized healthcare.

Democratic strategists say there is room for a candidate to challenge
Clinton from the left in 2016.

“Hillary Clinton has a lot of progressive positions on issues and she
herself may move in a more populist direction but she also has lots of ties
to big money, she has lots of ties to Wall Street,” said Mike Lux, a
Democratic strategist. “She has been very reluctant to criticize Wall
Street on a lot of things.

“Absolutely there’s room on the populist left for someone to run against
her,” he added.

Democratic strategists say it is far too early to say whether Sanders will
emerge as the primary liberal challenger to Clinton.

They say it’s possible that other candidates, including Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) or Maryland Gov. Martin
O’Malley, may emerge as the leading alternative.

Liberal advocates say there are many questions about Clinton’s policy
stances. She has stayed relatively quiet about domestic issues since
retiring from the Senate in 2008.

“I would like to know more about where she stands. The world has changed a
lot since her husband was president and she hasn’t had to deal with
domestic issues since she was in the U.S. Senate,” said Roger Hickey,
co-director of Campaign for America’s Future. “The questions I would like
her debate and discuss is what do we do with this banking system that is a
problem for the real economy.

“Do we continue to deregulate the way her husband did or do we break up the
banks and make them less powerful?” he said.

Democratic activists acknowledge that Sanders is unlikely to present a
serious threat to Clinton but they are happy to see him jump in the race
because they want a vigorous debate over Wall Street.

Warren has emerged as the leading Democratic voice on Wall Street reform
but she insists that she does not plan to run for president.

“The big question that most progressives have for Hillary is, ‘Where is she
now compared to the past?’” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of
Democracy for America, a liberal advocacy group. “In the past she sided
with the Wall Street wing of the party. The reality is that the corporate,
Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party is going away.

“The future of our party is the Warren wing, which is fighting to break up
the big banks, expand Social Security and fighting economic inequality,” he
said.

Liberal Democrats hope a challenge from Sanders or another populist
candidate will force Clinton to move to the left on financial regulations,
corporate tax reform and expanding Social Security.

*Politico political column: Roger Simon: “Hillary doomed if she’s Obama’s
third term”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/2016-election-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-110319.html>*

By Roger Simon

August 26, 2014, 5:05 a.m. EDT

When Barack Obama was first elected to the presidency, he asked David
Axelrod to leave Chicago and come to the White House with him. Axelrod
would be a senior adviser, a powerful position where he could craft both
policy and the president’s message.

But Axelrod hesitated.

Though he was often credited with being a calming influence in the
fractious world of high-stakes politics, there was one thing Axelrod held
dear: the ability to tell his boss off when his boss needed telling off.

And when you’re president, Axelrod told Obama, I won’t be able to tell you
off.

Obama thought about it.

Yes, you still can tell me off, Obama told Axelrod. As long as you do it in
private.

Axelrod went to the White House in January 2009 and left in January 2011.
And today I wonder if there is anyone in the West Wing who has the valor
and the vigor to occasionally tell the president off.

Was there anyone who said last week, “Uh, the golf thing, Mr. President?
Maybe delay it a couple of days? So it doesn’t come minutes after you tell
the nation how ‘heartbroken’ you are over a beheaded journalist. Maybe go
hiking? Sit on a rock, commune with nature, that kind of thing?”

Instead, the president swiftly changed into his golf togs, grabbed his bag
and, as one wit put it, introduced the nation to his new doctrine: “Speak
softly and carry a Big Bertha.”

Even the civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, following the slaying of an
unarmed black teenager by a white police officer, did not keep Obama off
the links. As much as the White House says the president is always
connected to his job no matter where he is — which is technically true —
golf is clearly a world where the president goes to clear his mind and
think other thoughts.

Don Van Natta, who has written a history of presidents and golfing, wrote
for ESPN The Magazine in 2012 that Obama’s wife, Michelle, “nudged him onto
the links, hoping he would trade his smashmouth brand of pickup basketball
for the more gentlemanly game of golf. Now Obama sees the game as his only
chance to just wander around.”

But there are better times to wander than others. Especially while playing
a game associated with the 1 percent, not the people working two jobs to
make a living wage.

Still, Obama played on. And even though he talked about Ferguson during a
brief news conference, he wanted to keep it at arm’s length. “I’ve got to
make sure that I don’t look like I’m putting my thumb on the scales one way
or the other,” Obama said.

So Eric Holder, his attorney general, was left to express the kind of
sentiments that Barack Obama used to express. It was Holder who went to
Missouri and talked about being hassled by police as a young man and the
kind of smoldering anger and mistrust that builds in black America.

“I understand that mistrust. I am the attorney general of the United
States. But I am also a black man,” Holder said.

And it was Holder in 2009, in his first major speech after being confirmed,
who said: “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic
melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in
too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

Holder called for a “national conversation” on race not because such a
conversation would be easy, but because it was necessary to America’s
future.

President Obama wanted no part of it. In 2012, after Trayvon Martin,
another unarmed black teenager was shot and killed, Obama said it was not
“particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations” on
race.

But how does he know? When did he try it?

There appears to be nobody working for him who both disagrees with him and
is willing to tell him so. Instead, we are left with a president who seems
wrapped in his aloofness as a protective blanket to keep the outside from
getting in.

He may not care about the “optics” of all this. He’s got his two terms and
his big legacy item: national health care.

So why should he worry? You know who should worry? Hillary Clinton should
worry.

She has some of the same flaws as Obama. She can project a chilly public
personality, a remoteness, a reserve and a detachment from ordinary people.

And the Republicans see their opportunity. They already have their 2016
theme:

“She may be riding high right now, but people may decide against having
another four years of this kind of governing,” Rep. Paul Ryan, the
Republican vice presidential nominee in 2012, said recently.

The candidate at the top of the GOP ticket backed him up. “Our party has to
come together or we will continue with a third term of Barack Obama,” Mitt
Romney warned.

It is easier to imagine Clinton losing the presidency in 2016 than to
imagine exactly whom she would lose to. The Republican field has a very few
candidates capable of winning a general election and a gaggle of far
right-wingers who cannot.

Still, Clinton must connect with voters and sell her vision of America —
which thus far she has kept largely to herself — in order to win.

And even if she does that, she is not a sure thing: If she can be labeled
as Obama’s third term, she can be beaten.

That’s because I don’t think there are too many people who want an Obama
third term. Not even Obama.

*Washington Post: “O’Malley to send campaign staff to Iowa, N.H. and
elsewhere to aid fellow Democrats”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/omalley-to-send-campaign-staff-to-iowa-nh-and-elsewhere-to-aid-fellow-democrats/2014/08/25/a797cd3a-2c8d-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.html>*

By John Wagner

August 25, 2014, 4:27 p.m. EDT

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is preparing to dispatch more than two dozen
campaign staffers to other states with competitive elections this year,
including Iowa and New Hampshire, in his latest move consistent with
someone gearing up to run for president.

O’Malley (D), who has said he is seriously considering a 2016 White House
bid, plans to meet Friday with members of the group, who will be sent by
his political action committee to states with gubernatorial and U.S. Senate
races in the fall, aides said.

O’Malley spokeswoman Lis Smith confirmed the governor’s plans but offered
few specifics and declined to share the states to which the staffers will
be sent, beyond Iowa and New Hampshire. Both states have gubernatorial and
U.S. Senate races on the fall ballot.

Smith characterized the plans as part of O’Malley’s ongoing effort to
assist Democrats across the country win 2014 elections.

“The governor is doing everything he can to elect more Democrats, and this
is part of that,” she said.

Over the past two years, O’Malley’s PAC has made more than $230,000 in
contributions to Democratic candidates and committees, according to
campaign finance records. O’Malley has also hosted more than dozen
fundraisers for fellow Democrats, aides said.

And he has appeared in more than two dozen states at party dinners and
other events. Those include multiple events in both Iowa and New Hampshire,
the first two states with presidential nominating contests.

O’Malley’s political activities have far exceeded those of other Democrats
considering a 2016 run but have been overshadowed by speculation about
whether Hillary Rodham Clinton will enter the race.

The tactic of paying for campaign staff in other states prior to a
presidential year is one that has been employed by other White House
hopefuls in past cycles.

Smith declined to discuss the staffers that O’Malley’s PAC has hired for
the upcoming field work, which will focus on getting sympathetic voters to
the polls.

O’Malley has long believed in the importance of that kind of campaign work.
In 1984, he worked in Iowa as field organizer for presidential candidate
Gary Hart.

*BuzzFeed: “Martin O’Malley Sends Staffers To Support Campaigns In Iowa,
New Hampshire”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/martin-omalley-sends-staffers-to-support-campaigns-in-iowa-n#2wwn3q7>*

By Ruby Cramer

August 25, 2014, 8:27 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] The Maryland governor is the only Democrat sending people out
this year. A way to build favor in early-voting states ahead of 2016.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley will pay for more than two dozen staffers to
work on Democratic campaigns in Iowa, New Hampshire, and several other
states ahead of the midterm elections this fall, his spokesperson confirmed
Monday.

The move to dispatch campaign workers, first reported by the Washington
Post, signals the extent to which O’Malley is pursuing a possible White
House bid.

The governor’s spokesperson, Lis Smith, would not discuss details about how
many staffers would travel to which states. But she said the staffers would
be helping Senate and gubernatorial campaigns across the country, including
those races in Iowa and New Hampshire, the states that host the first
caucuses and primary.

The staffers, Smith said, will be paid for by O’Malley’s political action
committee, O’Say Can You See, also called O’PAC.

Politicians considering a national run will often send money or manpower to
early-voting states during the election cycle before a presidential race.
In 2006, before Democrats’ last open primary, workers paid by former
Democratic Sens. John Edwards and Evan Bayh, for example, hit New Hampshire
and Iowa.

But this year, O’Malley is the only known Democrat providing such support.

Raymond Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, said he
had no knowledge of plans for other Democrats to engage in races in his
state.

He hadn’t heard of O’Malley’s intentions to send staffers until Monday, he
said.

Ready for Hillary, a super PAC preparing for a possible Hillary Clinton
campaign, has been set up in primary states for the last year. The group
made its first organizing trip to Iowa last January. But Clinton herself
has yet to engage in midterm races. She is scheduled to appear in Iowa at
Sen. Tom Harkin’s annual steak fry next month.

O’Malley will finish his second and last term as governor in January. He
has spent much of the last year traveling on behalf of Democrats, while
putting together what he has called “the framework” for a possible
presidential campaign.

The campaign workers will meet with O’Malley on Friday and will dispatch to
states “imminently,” Smith said.

*Calendar:*

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

·  August 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes Nexenta’s OpenSDx
Summit (BusinessWire
<http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140702005709/en/Secretary-State-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-Deliver-Keynote#.U7QoafldV8E>
)

·  September 4 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton speaks at the National Clean
Energy Summit (Solar Novis Today
<http://www.solarnovus.com/hillary-rodham-clinto-to-deliver-keynote-at-national-clean-energy-summit-7-0_N7646.html>
)

·  September 9 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DSCC at
her Washington home (DSCC
<https://d1ly3598e1hx6r.cloudfront.net/sites/dscc/files/uploads/9.9.14%20HRC%20Dinner.pdf>
)

·  September 14 – Indianola, IA: Sec. Clinton headlines Sen. Harkin’s Steak
Fry (LA Times
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-tom-harkin-clinton-steak-fry-20140818-story.html>
)

·  October ? – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton fundraises for House
Democratic women candidates with Nancy Pelosi (The Hill
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/215410-clinton-to-fundraise-with-pelosi-in-october>
)

·  October 2 – Miami Beach, FL: Sec. Clinton keynotes the CREW Network
Convention & Marketplace (CREW Network
<http://events.crewnetwork.org/2014convention/>)

·  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>)

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