Subject: ​Correct The Record Saturday November 22, 2014 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:58:06 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Saturday November 22, 2014 Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Associated Press: “Clinton: Obama immigration effort 'historic step'”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7ba2fdc9dff84f7d868060644822f195/clinton-obama-immigration-effort-historic-step>*

“The ballroom included leaders of Democratic groups Priorities USA Action,
American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record.”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton calls President Obama’s immigration action
necessary, ‘historic’”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-obama-immigration-action-113109.html>*

“Hillary Clinton made her first public comments on President Obama’s
immigration order Friday night at a ritzy event at a hotel in New York
City, saying it was necessary in the face of House inaction and that ‘this
is about people’s lives.’”

*Associated Press: “GOP-led House report debunks Benghazi allegations”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8cdb4a3910f846e2b3e8ff5e7af54929/gop-led-house-report-debunks-benghazi-allegations>*

“The CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack
on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a Republican-controlled
House committee has found. Its report asserted no wrongdoing by Obama
administration officials.”

*Mother Jones: “Republicans Finally Admit There Is No Benghazi Scandal”
<http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/11/republicans-finally-admit-there-no-benghazi-scandal>*

“It was all just manufactured outrage from the beginning. But now the air
is gone. There is no scandal, and there never was.”

*NewsMax: “New Video's High on Hillary in 2016 — but Is She Running?”
<http://www.newsmax.com/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-pac/2014/11/21/id/608932/>*

“Correct the Record, a branch of super PAC American Bridge, has produced
and released ‘The American Dream: Hillary Clinton Writing A New Chapter,’
with Americans gushing over their support for Clinton, interspersed with
slices of Clinton campaign speeches and appearances.”

*Weekly Standard: Hillary Clinton Tribute Video
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/first-hillary-2016-ad-tribute-video-encourages-presidential-run_819736.html>*

“The pro-Hillary Clinton group Correct the Record has released this tribute
video...”

*Time: “Hillary’s 2016 Campaign is Ready, Hypothetically Speaking”
<http://time.com/3600300/hillary-clinton-president-2016-ready-for-hillary/>*

“Hillary Clinton is almost definitely, but not certainly, going to run for
president and if she does, she’ll most likely be the strongest candidate,
but she could totally still lose, so Democrats shouldn’t get cocky. That
was the awkward message from would-be Clinton surrogates who were among the
several hundred politicos, fundraisers and activists who showed up for a
‘Ready For Hillary’ convention in New York Friday.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hillary Clinton Supporters See
an Especially Tight Race in 2016”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/21/hillary-clinton-supporters-see-an-especially-tight-race-in-2016/>*

“Hillary Clinton loyalists anticipate the 2016 presidential race will be
exceedingly close and that possible Republican candidates Jeb Bush and Rand
Paul could prove attractive to voters in battleground states.”

*The Daily Beast: “Team Clinton Prepares for the Other Side of If”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/21/team-clinton-prepares-for-the-other-side-of-if.html>*

“Hillary-palooza descended on Midtown Manhattan on Friday as hundreds of
the nation’s most fervid Clintonistas gathered at a Sheraton ballroom to
talk strategy and prepare for the campaign ahead.”

*The New Yorker: “On Keystone and the N.S.A., Clinton Remains Quiet”
<http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/keystone-nsa-hillary-clinton-remains-quiet>*

“Despite the clear remarks about Ferguson and immigration, Clinton’s views
on many crucial issues remain opaque.”

*Articles:*

*Associated Press: “Clinton: Obama immigration effort 'historic step'”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7ba2fdc9dff84f7d868060644822f195/clinton-obama-immigration-effort-historic-step>*

By Ken Thomas

November 22, 2014, 4:08 a.m. EST

NEW YORK (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton says she supports President Barack
Obama's executive actions to protect about 5 million immigrants living in
the U.S. illegally, calling it a "historic step" and urging Congress to
pursue a measure approved by the Senate last year.

Clinton placed the efforts aimed at changing immigration policy in the
context of families, many of whom she said are longtime residents raising
children and paying taxes.

"This is about people's lives," she said Friday during an appearance at the
New York Historical Society, adding that it was about "people who serve us
tonight, who prepared the food tonight."

Clinton is considering a presidential campaign in 2016 and her embrace of
Obama's actions come in sharp contrast to Republican condemnation of the
changes the president has ordered.

"I think the president took an historic step and I support it," the former
secretary of state said in her first public comments on the issue. She had
issued a statement shortly after Obama's speech Thursday night expressing
support.

Obama's actions were in line with previous moves by Democratic and
Republican presidents alike, she said. However, many Republicans in
Congress accuse Obama of overstepping his executive powers.

Charging hypocrisy, the Republican National Committee released a Web video
earlier in the day that included the audio of an April 2008 Clinton speech
in which she criticized President George W. Bush's use of signing
statements and other means "to transform the executive into an imperial
presidency."

Clinton spoke about the immigration plan during an interview with Walter
Isaacson, the biographer and CEO of the Aspen Institute, at the event. She
said she was studying the life and presidency of Theodore Roosevelt and
discussed the need for Americans to find a "common purpose."

"I think we just need to get back into that can-do, problem-solving spirit
that the Roosevelts exemplified," she said.

The former first lady jumped back into the political conversation as dozens
of her staunchest allies gathered at a New York hotel earlier Friday — even
though she has yet to say whether she will run.

Ready for Hillary, a Democratic super PAC unaffiliated with Clinton,
convened the meeting of 200 financial backers and Clinton insiders to
prepare for a campaign.

"It was a leap of faith," Harold Ickes, who worked in Bill Clinton's White
House, said of the Ready for Hillary effort. "We didn't know if people
would come to us, but we now have 3 million names, which will be important
to her if she runs."

Clinton sits far atop a hypothetical field of Democratic candidates that is
beginning to take shape.

Vice President Joe Biden and outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley are
potential challengers to Clinton, as is former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who
has opened an exploratory committee.

Discussions at the session included lessons learned from the 2014 election,
the media landscape and what the 2016 campaign might look like.

Attendees said they had no inside knowledge on when Clinton would make her
decision. But they said the early organizing on her behalf would facilitate
the transition from private citizen to candidate. Ready for Hillary has
identified 3 million supporters and raised more than $10 million.

"It's given her the luxury of time," said Jerry Crawford, an Iowa attorney.

They cautioned against the notion that Clinton would have a big advantage
because of her existing network from her husband's two terms and her own
political operation. "She's not inevitable," said Adam Parkhomenko, Ready
for Hillary's executive director. "It's not going to be easy."

The ballroom included leaders of Democratic groups Priorities USA Action,
American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record.

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton calls President Obama’s immigration action
necessary, ‘historic’”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-obama-immigration-action-113109.html>*

By Maggie Haberman

November 21, 2014, 10:54 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton made her first public comments on President Obama’s
immigration order Friday night at a ritzy event at a hotel in New York
City, saying it was necessary in the face of House inaction and that “this
is about people’s lives.”

“This is about people, I would venture to guess, who served us tonight, who
prepared the food tonight” and those who end up in jobs like day-laboring,
Clinton said during a question-and-answer session with writer Walter
Isaacson at a New York Historical Society event at the Mandarin Oriental
hotel at the Time Warner Center.

“It’s really the lives of people who are in many instances longtime
residents and workers who have not only raised children, but made
contributions [to society] and in many, many instances, because of the way
our system operates, paid taxes already,” Clinton said. She added that
Obama’s action is “historic.”

“It was in the face of not only past inaction but, I think it’s fair to say
for those of us who have observed the Congress’s attitude toward
immigration in the House of Representatives, likely to be the future as
well,” she said, adding the focus now needs to be bipartisan legislation
for comprehensive immigration reform.

The sentiments were in line with a statement Clinton issued the night
earlier, shortly after Obama issued the order sparing roughly 5 million
illegal immigrants from deportation.

But her focus on the human toll went further. It’s an emphasis that
Democrats have stressed as Republicans have taken issue with the president
acting unilaterally.

Aides to Clinton and Obama, who are frequently in touch, spoke in advance
about what the president planned to do.

Meanwhile, Clinton also went into a lengthy recollection about her time
before she ran for New York Senate, during a discussion about empowering
people to have faith in institutions.

“You’ve got to reconnect people into common purpose,” she said. “People
right now distrust every institution.”

She recalled that when she ran for Senate in New York, “as some of you may
remember, I had not lived in New York.”

“I had no idea really what was going to happen but I knew that I couldn’t
just parachute into New York and say, oh, I’m running for the Senate,
and…succeed.”

She talked about her “listening tour,” saying, “I spent months and they
were lots of very small events really listening to people and trying to
understand what their aspirations were.”

They were upstate, in the city and in the suburbs, she noted, adding, “Over
time, I got a better understanding of what I could do and people got a
better feeling for what I would do … I think that there is a way to rebuild
that sense of possibility.”

Later, she was asked about how she views the future through the new prism
of being a grandmother. She invoked a phrase she’s used often, although not
in that context, that “talent is universal, but opportunity is not.”

Her granddaughter Charlotte has had opportunities, Clinton said, that the
baby’s great-grandmother never had.

*Associated Press: “GOP-led House report debunks Benghazi allegations”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8cdb4a3910f846e2b3e8ff5e7af54929/gop-led-house-report-debunks-benghazi-allegations>*

By Ken Dilanian

November 22, 2014, 4:49 a.m. EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — The CIA and the military acted properly in responding to
the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a
Republican-controlled House committee has found. Its report asserted no
wrongdoing by Obama administration officials.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies,
the two-year investigation of the politically charged incident determined
that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue
team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA
was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it
out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the
attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest.
But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the
wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or
any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled
the American people.

The House Intelligence Committee report was released with little fanfare on
the Friday before Thanksgiving week. Many of its findings echo those of six
previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State
Department panel. The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by
a House Select Committee appointed in May.

The attacks in Benghazi killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, foreign
service officer Sean Smith, and two CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and
Glen Doherty. A Libyan extremist, Ahmed Abu Khatalla, is facing trial on
murder charges after he was captured in Libya and taken to the U.S.

In the aftermath of the attacks, Republicans criticized the Obama
administration and its then-secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who
is expected to run for president in 2016. People in and out of government
have alleged that a CIA response team was ordered to "stand down" after the
State Department compound came under attack, that a military rescue was
nixed, that officials intentionally downplayed the role of al-Qaida figures
in the attack, and that Stevens and the CIA were involved in a secret
operation to spirit weapons out of Libya and into the hands of Syrian
rebels. None of that is true, according to the House Intelligence Committee
report.

The report did find, however, that the State Department facility where
Stevens and Smith were killed was not well-protected, and that State
Department security agents knew they could not defend it from a well-armed
attack. Previous reports have found that requests for security improvements
were not acted upon in Washington.

"We spent thousands of hours asking questions, poring over documents,
reviewing intelligence assessments, reading cables and emails, and held a
total of 20 committee events and hearings," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.,
the committee's chairman, and Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland,
the ranking Democrat, in a joint statement.

"We conducted detailed interviews with senior intelligence officials from
Benghazi and Tripoli as well as eight security personnel on the ground in
Benghazi that night. Based on the testimony and the documents we reviewed,
we concluded that all the CIA officers in Benghazi were heroes. Their
actions saved lives," they said.

Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who serves on the intelligence
panel and the Benghazi select committee, said, "It's my hope that this
report will put to rest many of the questions that have been asked and
answered yet again, and that the Benghazi Select Committee will accept
these findings and instead focus its attention on the State Department's
progress in securing our facilities around the world and standing up our
fast response capabilities."

Some of the harshest charges have been leveled at Rice, now Obama's
national security adviser, who represented the Obama administration on
Sunday talk shows the weekend after the attack. Rice repeated talking
points that wrongly described a protest over a video deemed offensive to
Muslims.

But Rice's comments were based on faulty intelligence from multiple
agencies, according to the report. Analysts received 21 reports that a
protest occurred in Benghazi, the report said —14 from the Open Source
Center, which reviews news reports; one from the CIA; two from the Defense
Department; and four from the National Security Agency.

In the years since, some participants in the attack have said they were
motivated by the video. The attackers were a mix of extremists and hangers
on, the investigation found.

"To this day," the report said, "significant intelligence gaps regarding
the identities, affiliations and motivations of the attackers remain."

*Mother Jones: “Republicans Finally Admit There Is No Benghazi Scandal”
<http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/11/republicans-finally-admit-there-no-benghazi-scandal>*

By Kevin Drum

November 22, 2014, 1:02 a.m. EST

For two years, ever since Mitt Romney screwed up his response to the
Benghazi attacks in order to score campaign points, Republicans have been
on an endless search for a grand conspiracy theory that explains how it all
happened. Intelligence was ignored because it would have been inconvenient
to the White House to acknowledge it. Hillary Clinton's State Department
bungled the response to the initial protests in Cairo. Both State and CIA
bungled the military response to the attacks themselves. Even so, rescue
was still possible, but it was derailed by a stand down order—possibly from
President Obama himself. The talking points after the attack were
deliberately twisted for political reasons. Dissenters who tried to tell us
what really happened were harshly punished.

Is any of this true? The House Select Intelligence Committee—controlled by
Republicans—has been investigating the Benghazi attacks in minute detail
for two years. Today, with the midterm elections safely past, they issued
their findings. Their exoneration of the White House was sweeping and
nearly absolute. So sweeping that I want to quote directly from the
report's summary, rather than paraphrasing it. Here it is:

The Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient security for
CIA facilities in Benghazi....Appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable
tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found no evidence that
there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support....

Second, the Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to
the attacks. In the months prior, the IC provided intelligence about
previous attacks and the increased threat environment in Benghazi, but the
IC did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks.

Third, the Committee finds that a mixed group of individuals, including
those affiliated with Al Qa'ida, participated in the attacks....

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early
intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative
on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully
accurate....There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial
assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption
television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after
Ambassador Susan Rice spoke)....

Fifth, the Committee finds that the process used to generate the talking
points HPSCI asked for—and which were used for Ambassador Rice's public
appearances—was flawed....

Finally, the Committee found no evidence that any officer was intimidated,
wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from
speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi.
The Committee also found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized
activities in Benghazi and no evidence that the IC shipped arms to Syria.

It's hard to exaggerate just how remarkable this document is. It's not that
the committee found nothing to criticize. They did. The State Department
facility in Benghazi had inadequate security. Some of the early
intelligence after the attacks was inaccurate. The CIA should have given
more weight to eyewitnesses on the ground.

But those are routine after-action critiques, ones that were fully
acknowledged by the very first investigations. Beyond that, every single
conspiracy theory—without exception—was conclusively debunked. There was no
stand down order. The tactical response was both reasonable and effective
under the circumstances. The CIA was not shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
Both CIA and State received all military support that was available. The
talking points after the attack were fashioned by the intelligence
community, not the White House. Susan Rice followed these talking points in
her Sunday show appearances, and where she was wrong, it was only because
the intelligence community had made incorrect assessments. Nobody was
punitively reassigned or polygraphed or otherwise intimidated to prevent
them from testifying to Congress.

Read that list again. Late on a Friday afternoon, when it would get the
least attention, a Republican-led committee finally admitted that every
single Benghazi conspiracy theory was false. There are ways that the
response to the attacks could have been improved, but that's it. Nobody at
the White House interfered. Nobody lied. Nobody prevented the truth from
being told.

It was all just manufactured outrage from the beginning. But now the air is
gone. There is no scandal, and there never was.

*NewsMax: “New Video's High on Hillary in 2016 — but Is She Running?”
<http://www.newsmax.com/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-pac/2014/11/21/id/608932/>*

By John Blosser

November 21, 2014, 5:09 p.m. EST

With the midterm elections barely over, a group backing Hillary Clinton for
president already has released her first campaign video for the 2016
presidential election — and she's not even said if she is running yet.

Correct the Record, a branch of super PAC American Bridge, has produced and
released "The American Dream: Hillary Clinton Writing A New Chapter," with
Americans gushing over their support for Clinton, interspersed with slices
of Clinton campaign speeches and appearances.

[VIDEO]

"The video highlights Americans from across the country voicing their
excitement about Hillary Clinton's strength, resiliency, and her vision for
the future," the organization states on its website.

"America needs a president like Hillary Clinton, who will expand
opportunity for all Americans," Correct the Record says in an email to
supporters. "Whether it's the poor, the sick, the middle class, children or
women, Hillary Clinton has given a voice to those who could not speak up
for themselves," The Weekly Standard reported.

While Clinton has yet to announce officially that she's seeking the
Democratic nomination, the video is framed as being designed to convince
her to run, according to The Weekly Standard.

Throughout the video's undiluted praise of Clinton, Americans of all races
and sexes, with an emphasis on female backers, in various parts of the
country say things like, "She really does care about the average American,"
"Hillary has proven herself to be a very compassionate, competent leader,"
and "It just makes me so proud to support her."

"I think she has a hopeful message and an inspiring message and it should
inspire everybody in 2016," one states, while another says, "Voters have
always looked for someone to articulate a vision and define a destiny, and
that is something Hillary Clinton can do — she respects the humanity of
people."

It ends with what appears to be a mother and her daughters saying excitedly
in unison, "Run Hillary Run," and a shot of Clinton on a podium, shouting
to cheers, "I'm back," and a URL for the website
www.Readyforhillary.com/JoinTheMovement
<http://www.readyforhillary.com/JoinTheMovement>.

"Resilience? Oh my gosh, I think she's a poster child for resilience," one
woman says, while another speaker says, "I think she's an excellent
candidate and I think she is the future of the Democratic Party."

Correct the Record was founded to "aggressively challenge false right-wing
attacks before they take hold and expose the fraudulent sources of these
attacks to the public," the group's leader, Media Matters for America
founder David Brock, said in a statement, The Hill reported.

Brock, Politico says, is the author of "The Benghazi Hoax," an ebook aimed
at deflecting criticism of Clinton over her handling of the September 2012
attack on the American embassy in Libya which left four Americans dead,
including the ambassador, while she served as secretary of state.

The Hill notes that the group has funding from Susie Tomkins Buell,
co-chair of the Ready for Hillary super PAC, and Clinton backer Steve Bing.

*Weekly Standard: Hillary Clinton Tribute Video
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/first-hillary-2016-ad-tribute-video-encourages-presidential-run_819736.html>*

By Daniel Halper

November 21, 2014, 1:01 p.m. EST

The pro-Hillary Clinton group Correct the Record has released this tribute
video encouraging former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run for
president in 2016:

[VIDEO]

The video, which looks a lot like a campaign spot, is titled, "The American
Dream: Hillary Clinton Writing A New Chapter."

"America needs a president like Hillary Clinton, who will expand
opportunity for all Americans. Whether it’s the poor, the sick, the middle
class, children or women, Hillary Clinton has given a voice to those who
could not speak up for themselves," Correct the Record writes in an email
to supporters.

*Time: “Hillary’s 2016 Campaign is Ready, Hypothetically Speaking”
<http://time.com/3600300/hillary-clinton-president-2016-ready-for-hillary/>*

By Haley Sweetland Edwards

November 21, 2014

[Subtitle:] Would-be surrogates tried to make the case for Hillary without
admitting she's running

Hillary Clinton is almost definitely, but not certainly, going to run for
president and if she does, she’ll most likely be the strongest candidate,
but she could totally still lose, so Democrats shouldn’t get cocky.

That was the awkward message from would-be Clinton surrogates who were
among the several hundred politicos, fundraisers and activists who showed
up for a “Ready For Hillary” convention in New York Friday.

At some moments, they seemed to fall over themselves insisting that the
former Secretary of State’s ascendancy should not be considered
“inevitable,” while at other moments they discussed in great detail the
organizational structure, fundraising and messaging efforts that are
already in place to buttress her 2016 campaign.

Former Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez said that ambivalence as a result of
the pummeling Clinton’s campaign received six years ago, when many
Democrats considered her a shoo-in as the Democratic nominee.

“In 2008, we got eviscerated by a better campaign on the ground,” he
explained. “Lessons have been learned. So there has been extraordinary
preparation and it’s a very, very different, far more sophisticated
operation that’s there and it’s ready for her, should she decide to run.”

Adam Parkhomenko, who founded the organizational group Ready for Hillary,
which has spent the last two years collecting a database of roughly 3
million supporters, echoed the sentiment.

“I wouldn’t have been doing this since January 2013 if I thought she was
inevitable,” he said. “We learned in 2008 she’s not inevitable. No one’s
inevitable.”

Stephanie Schriock, the head of EMILY’s List, who is expected to play a
major role in a future Clinton campaign, said she looks forward to a
“healthy primary.”

“As everyone goes through a presidential primary process, it’ll be the
candidate who make the case,” she said, adding that Clinton, while clearly
the front-runner, will not be immune to that process. “There’s nothing
inevitable about 2016.”

Meanwhile, several Clinton backers, including Schriock, former Obama
campaign organizer Mitch Stewart, Correct the Record’s David Brock, and
political strategist Chris Lehane, spoke directly about what organizations
would have to work together on the ground to make a 2016 Clinton campaign
most effective, what issues Clinton would be most likely to emphasize, and
what message the campaign would be built around. All agreed that a
hypothetical Clinton campaign will likely to focus on working class voters,
who are feeling increasingly marginalized in today’s economy.

Clinton must project a vision for “economic opportunity for American
families,” said Schriock. That’s a phrase she used, with slight variations,
twice more during a half-hour talk with reporters. The campaign will likely
focus on connecting with working class voters, women, Hispanics and the
African American community over issues like equal pay, minimum wage and
leveling the playing field for the middle class, she said.

Nina Turner, an Ohio state senator, said that a Clinton campaign could
easily motivate key voting blocs, like the African American community, by
staking progressive positions on issues like prison reform or creating more
economic opportunities for the working poor. But, she said, “This is not
about a coronation for anybody.”

Stewart agreed that “a hypothetical Clinton campaign” would have to focus
primarily economic issues. “We have to come up with an economic message
that shows working class voters that we’re on their side,” said Stewart.

When asked what issues would put Clinton in the strongest position against
other potential Democratic contenders, such Martin O’Malley, Bernie
Sanders, or Jim Webb, who announced yesterday that he was exploring the
possibility of running, Stewart demurred. “I’m not going to comment on any
hypothetical candidate,” said Stewart, laughing. “Except my specific
hypothetical candidate.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hillary Clinton Supporters See
an Especially Tight Race in 2016”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/21/hillary-clinton-supporters-see-an-especially-tight-race-in-2016/>*

By Peter Nicholas

November 21, 2014, 5:05 p.m. EST

NEW YORK – Hillary Clinton loyalists anticipate the 2016 presidential race
will be exceedingly close and that possible Republican candidates Jeb Bush
and Rand Paul could prove attractive to voters in battleground states.

At an event Friday hosted by the super PAC “Ready for Hillary,” some of her
most ardent supporters said they don’t expect Mrs. Clinton to breeze into
the White House if she runs, in part because the nation might be unwilling
to extend Democratic control of the White House another four years.

Harold Ickes, a top adviser on Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, told
reporters that a Republican ticket made up of Mr.  Bush and Sen. Rob
Portman of Ohio would be a formidable one.

As the Spanish-speaking ex-governor of Florida, Mr. Bush could potentially
attract Hispanics who voted heavily for President Barack Obama in 2008 and
2012, Mr. Ickes said.  For his part, Mr. Portman represents a swing state
that is perennial a great prize in the competition for the 270 electoral
college votes needed to win the White House.

“I would think that a Jeb Bush and a Rob Portman, just as a hypothetical,
would be  a strong ticket for them for a couple of reasons,” said Mr.
Ickes, who served in Bill Clinton’s White House.  Should a Bush-Portman
ticket win Ohio and Florida, that would put added pressure on the Democrats
to capture Colorado, Mr. Ickes said.

Because  Mr. Bush – brother of the 43rd president and son of the 41st
president – “appears to have very strong credentials with Hispanics … that
puts Colorado very much in play,” Mr. Ickes said.

Seen as a centrist, Mr. Bush would have difficulty capturing the Republican
nomination, given the propensity of GOP primary voters to support
conservative candidates.

Other possible Republican candidates stand to do well in important swing
states, some of the other Ready for Hillary attendees said.

Kentucky Sen. Paul,  for example, might draw independent voters in New
Hampshire, a state with libertarian leanings, Terry Shumaker, a top adviser
to Ready for Hillary, told reporters. Mr. Paul has been a sharp critic of
the federal government’s surveillance practices and has taken a wary view
of U.S. military intervention overseas.

“I would think that Rand Paul would have significant appeal in New
Hampshire because there is a very strong libertarian streak in our state,”
Mr. Shumaker said. “We believe that people should be left alone. We believe
in the right to privacy.”

Mrs. Clinton’s supporters also voiced concern that she would be  attempting
to follow a two-term Democratic president.

“It seems to me one of their (Republicans’) overarching thematics will be
it’s time for a change,” Mr. Ickes said. “And you can shove a lot under
that thematic. And if they put up the right ticket – they’ve been known not
to, but if they put up the right ticket – it will come down to being very,
very hotly contested.”

*The Daily Beast: “Team Clinton Prepares for the Other Side of If”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/21/team-clinton-prepares-for-the-other-side-of-if.html>*

By David Freedlander

November 21, 2014

[Subtitle:] In a Manhattan hotel, the new super PAC hands came together
with Clinton war-room veterans and those who still have nightmares from
2008.

Hillary-palooza descended on Midtown Manhattan on Friday as hundreds of the
nation’s most fervid Clintonistas gathered at a Sheraton ballroom to talk
strategy and prepare for the campaign ahead.

The official purpose was a gathering of the national finance council for
Ready for Hillary, the super PAC that has grown from a Washington, D.C.
troop into a fundraising powerhouse, gathering more than $10 million and
millions of email addresses in order to lay the groundwork for an eventual
Clinton run.

Or “potential” Clinton run, as supporters of the former secretary of state
used to hasten to add, since Clinton has not indicated that she actually
will run. No more. Few of the speakers at the confab spoke of “If.”

When asked by a reporter how many people in the Sheraton ballroom were
convinced that Clinton would be a candidate, Stephanie Schriock, the head
of EMILY’s List, was momentarily taken aback.

“This room?” she asked. “Oh no they are pretty certain.”

Still, Schriock, who is often mentioned as a potential campaign manager for
a Clinton campaign, fell back on the old phrasing when asked about her own
ambitions.

“I am not going to talk about any conversations I may or may not be having
about a candidacy that may or may not be happening.”

The event was for those who had donated or raised at least $5,000 to the
non-campaign campaign, and compared to the sprawling Clinton campaigns of
old, the event ran with the efficiency of a Swiss watch. Speakers were kept
to a strict schedule. The event was spread over two ballrooms, not one, so
that the rolling parade of speakers would not be slowed by lunch. Reporters
were kept squirreled away in a room down the hall, while a steady parade of
political operatives and prominent Ready for Hillary supporters took
questions, which kept the media away from the hallways where donors and
operatives may say embarrassing things into microphones.

All of the bigwigs of Democratic politics were there. Paul Begala, mobbed
by donors as he entered the ballroom. James Carville, who showed up in dark
sunglasses, blue jeans, and running jacket. Conservative hit man turned
liberal media critic David Brock, spotted smoking an e-cigarette in the
lobby.

It was mostly a chance to make the case that Hillary Clinton is the only
Democrat who save the country from the kind of ruin that Republicans would
unleash on the nation.

“The general election in 2016 will be a very tight race, a very even race,”
said Harold Ickes, who helped lead Clinton’s 2008 effort. “This is still an
evenly divided country in many ways.”

And Ickes laid out for reporters what could be the specific nightmare
scenario for Democrats: a ticket featuring former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and
Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a ticket which would take two must-win states off
the table for Democrats.

He said that whoever runs would have a simple message: “It’s time for a
change.”

“And you can shove a whole lot under that metric,” Ickes said, flashbacks
of 2008 perhaps coming flooding back to him, when candidate Obama slammed
Hillary with that one word catchphrase, consigning her to being a figure of
the past.

Indeed, Clinton’s former failures as a candidate hung over the event.

“My disappointment in 2008 was so profound,” said Jerry Crawford, who
helped Clinton’s campaign in Iowa that year, when asked about the other
candidates in the field. “That now I wake up with nightmares about Bernie
Sanders.”

“I think message consistency matters,” said Mitch Stewart, who led Obama’s
Iowa effort in 2008, and served as battleground director for the 2012
campaign, and is now ready for Hillary. “Every six weeks, [the Clinton
campaign] seemed to have a new slogan. Identify what your message is and
stick to it.”

Their message was simple. “Hope and change. And then we dropped the hope
part.”

In Stewart’s conversation with the press, another slogan was suggested for
Clinton this time around: “Super-Hypothetical,” since that is the mode in
which most operatives seem to discuss a Clinton candidacy.

But if Clinton is not quite yet a candidate, other Democrats are. There is
Jim Webb, who declared his intentions earlier this week. There is Martin
O’Malley, who has not been shy about declaring his own intentions. And
Sanders, who according to Crawford “is packing 200-300 people into church
basements like a revival.”

As for Ready for Hillary, it now survives in a sort of suspended animation.
In matter of months, if not weeks, it will shut down, its vision either
realized by a Clinton candidacy or shattered by the lack of one.

“We are doing everything we have been doing for two years and we are not
going to do anything differently until she makes a decision,” said Adam
Parkhomenko, the founder of Ready for Hillary. “Folks are going to keep
going.”

There was talk to do about “the Hillary Bus,” which the Ready for Hillary
crew had been taking around the country to college campuses in order to
generate enthusiasm.

Organizers were not sure what to do it with once the group shut down.

“The Smithsonian,” suggested Parkhomenko.

But few doubted that Clinton would be a candidate.

“Oh, c’mon,” said one attendee. “Do you really think Hillary would have let
all of this go on if she wasn’t running?”

*The New Yorker: “On Keystone and the N.S.A., Clinton Remains Quiet”
<http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/keystone-nsa-hillary-clinton-remains-quiet>*

By Ryan Lizza

November 21, 2014

On Friday, Ready for Hillary, a super PAC that has been described as “a
make-work program for former Clinton hands,” and that is busy building a
database of donors and volunteers that the group will eventually sell or
rent to an official Clinton campaign, held an all-day meeting at the
Sheraton on Fifty-third Street, in New York.

In what it billed as a National Finance Council meeting, the super PAC
sponsored a series of panels with well-known personalities from the Clinton
world. Interspersed between seminars on politics and the media, state
officials delivered testimonials before donors under the rubric “Why I’m
Ready for Hillary.” Clinton was actually in town to deliver a speech a few
blocks away, at the Mandarin Oriental hotel, but she didn’t stop by the
Sheraton. The Ready for Hillary event was like a “Star Trek” convention
where Captain Kirk never shows up.

The discussion panels were closed to the press, but reporters assembled in
a room down the hall and a steady stream of Clintonites visited to take
questions. Most everyone dutifully noted that the Clinton candidacy was
still just a hypothetical, but occasionally some activists slipped. Buffy
Wicks, the executive director of the super PAC Priorities USA Action,
started one sentence with “When Hillary Clinton decides to run…,”
dispensing with the façade.*

It was an odd event: reporters asked questions about Hillary Clinton’s
plans and policy agenda to a group of people who knew as little as anyone
about her presumptive campaign and its messaging. In that sense, the Ready
for Hillary meeting was the perfect embodiment of the Democrats’ current
Hillary problem: everyone in the party seems to be supporting her, and yet
nobody can articulate exactly why. (I wrote for the magazine recently about
Clinton’s seeming inevitability as a Presidential candidate.)

The meeting came at the end of an eventful week—one that only underscored
Clinton’s continued reluctance to explain what she might want to do as
President. In Congress, the Senate debated two major issues: the Keystone
XL pipeline and reform of the National Security Agency. Clinton remained
silent about both.

As Secretary of State, Clinton was in charge of the process that will
eventually lead to a decision about whether the Administration allows
TransCanada to build its pipeline, which would transport crude oil from
northern Alberta down to American refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. It has
become a defining issue for U.S. environmentalists, and was one of the most
politically charged and significant issues that Clinton faced during her
time at State—and yet her memoir, “Hard Choices,” contains not a single
mention of Keystone. When the Senate this week debated a bill to force
Obama to build the pipeline—rallied by Mary Landrieu, the Democratic
senator from Louisiana, who faces a runoff election in December—Clinton
still had nothing to say.

To be sure, the sensitive review process for Keystone is ongoing, and
Clinton might feel that, by discussing her personal views, she would be
prejudicing the outcome. Then again, if she has strong feelings one way or
the other, shouldn’t she use her influence to affect the final decision?

N.S.A. reform is mentioned in “Hard Choices,” but only cursorily, in a
summary of the public reaction to Edward Snowden’s leaks. “Scrutiny focused
on the bulk collection of telephone records, not the content of the
conversations or the identities of callers but a database of phone numbers,
and the time and duration of calls, that could be examined if there was a
reasonable suspicion that a particular number was associated with
terrorism,” she writes, with clinical detachment, in assessing the fallout.
“President Obama has since called on Congress to implement a number of
reforms so the government will no longer keep such data.”

What does Clinton think of those reforms? She doesn’t say. She offers the
usual platitudes about balancing security and liberty but gives no
indication of whether she believes that the program under which the N.S.A.
collects Americans’ phone records should be continued as is, modified, or
scrapped. When the Senate killed the main N.S.A.-reform bill this week,
Clinton remained silent.

For months, she also maintained silence on immigration, but on Thursday,
after the President announced that he would use his authority to prevent as
many as five million undocumented immigrants from being subject to
deportation, Clinton released a rare statement endorsing the proposal. She
did something similar in August, when, after being pressured from the left,
she spoke about the events in Ferguson, Missouri.

But, despite the clear remarks about Ferguson and immigration, Clinton’s
views on many crucial issues remain opaque. She seems to be repeating the
same mistake that she made in 2008, when the inevitability of her candidacy
overwhelmed its justification.

At the Ready for Hillary festival, Mitch Stewart, one of Obama’s top
organizers in the 2008 contest, suggested that Clinton needed to be careful
to develop a message and stick to it. He noted that she had failed to do
that in the 2008 primaries. “Every six weeks, there seemed to be a new
slogan, and there was nothing people could wrap their arms around,” Stewart
said.

But when he and others at the event were asked what that message should be,
nobody really had any idea.

*Calendar:*

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

·  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/>)

·  December 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton honored by Robert F. Kennedy
Center for Justice and Human Rights (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-ripple-of-hope-award-112478.html>
)

·  February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at
Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire
<http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html>
)