Subject: Correct The Record Tuesday December 2, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 08:11:34 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Tuesday December 2, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Baltimore Sun: “Mikulski: 'We need Hillary.'”
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-mikulski-we-need-hillary-20141201-story.html>*

“‘We need Hillary,’ the Maryland Democrat and Senate Appropriations
Committee chairwoman told about 100 people gathered at Goucher College for
a fundraiser organized by the Ready for Hillary PAC, the group laying the
groundwork for her possible candidacy.”

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Clinton, Biden to appear at D.C. event on
Israel”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/225596-clinton-biden-to-appear-at-dc-event-on-israel>*

“Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden will be among the attendees
at a Washington forum on Israeli-U.S. relations this weekend.”

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton to environmentalists: I’m one of you”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-goes-green>*

“Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, thought
Clinton hit it out of the park. ‘You saw her tonight, coming to our
organization and really leaning in to this issue to make it clear how much
she cares about it,’ he told reporters after her speech. ‘She’s always been
committed on it, and she’s voted right very consistently, but with this
audience, she’s now making whole comments and focusing on this.’”

*The Daily Beast: “Hillary Praises Fracking, Stays Silent on Keystone”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/hillary-praises-fracking-stays-silent-on-keystone.html>*

“Exiting the hotel ballroom, philanthropist Tom Steyer also seemed to give
Clinton a pass for not mentioning the pipeline project. ‘I always respect
what Secretary Clinton has to say. She is always smart and she is always
wise. And I thought she did a great job.’”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton avoids Keystone at conservation group event”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/hillary-clinton-keystone-113250.html>*

“Hillary Clinton gave a sweeping speech on the environment Monday night,
criticizing ‘those who doubt the science of climate change’ and strongly
praising President Obama’s record – without ever mentioning the
controversial Keystone XL pipeline.”

*The Guardian: “Hillary Clinton says fracking carries risks in conservation
speech”
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/02/hillary-clinton-says-fracking-carries-risks-in-conservation-speech>*

"Clinton offered praise for Obama’s leadership in international climate
negotiations, especially last month’s agreement between the US and China to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

*The New Republic: “The Economic Forecast for 2016 Favors Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120449/hillary-clinton-can-adopt-obamas-economic-agenda-if-economy-improves>*

“The economy isn’t in great shape right now. Wages are still stagnant. But
there are a number of signs that it may improve significantly during
Obama’s last two years in office.”

*CNN: “Poll: Romney, Clinton top 2016 field”
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/02/politics/poll-hillary-clinton-mitt-romney-2016/>*

“On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton unsurprisingly receives an
overwhelming majority of support, with 65 percent of left-leaning Americans
saying she would be their choice for the 2016 nomination.”

*FiveThirtyEight: “What Might Persuade Hillary Clinton Not To Run In 2016”
<http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-might-persuade-hillary-clinton-not-to-run-in-2016/>*

“Not only are her numbers dropping, but she is running on par with a
Democratic brand in its weakest shape in a decade.”

*Breitbart opinion: “Rand Paul: ‘Benghazi Was The Definition Of An
Intelligence Failure”
<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/29/Benghazi-Report>*

“Yes Hillary, it still matters.”

*The Daily Beast: “Rand Paul Won’t Let Benghazi Die”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/rand-paul-won-t-let-benghazi-die.html>*

Asked on what intelligence Paul has based his conclusion that the
Republican-led committee’s findings were incorrect, his senior aide, Doug
Stafford, deflected by saying, ‘Senator Paul doesn’t believe the questions
have all been answered, nor does he believe those responsible for this
failure have been held accountable, especially Secretary Clinton.’ Asked,
then, whether Paul is under the impression that the House Intelligence
Committee and its Republican chairman fell prey to White House Benghazi
propaganda, Stafford said: ‘We don’t have any comment on why the House
Intelligence Committee issued a bad report, only that they did.’”

*Dayton Daily News: “Portman says no to presidential run”
<http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/portman-says-no-to-presidential-run/njJtY/>*

“Sen. Rob Portman will not run for president in 2016, saying that he will
seek another term as U.S. senator from Ohio instead.”

*Articles:*

*Baltimore Sun: “Mikulski: 'We need Hillary.'”
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-mikulski-we-need-hillary-20141201-story.html>*

By John Fritze

December 1, 2014, 8:30 p.m. EST

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski told a group of Hillary Clinton supporters
gathered in Baltimore County on Monday that Maryland would provide a
"groundswell of grassroots" support for the former Secretary of State
should she decide to run for president in 2016.

"We need Hillary," the Maryland Democrat and Senate Appropriations
Committee chairwoman told about 100 people gathered at Goucher College for
a fundraiser organized by the Ready for Hillary PAC, the group laying the
groundwork for her possible candidacy.

"We've got to organize," she said. "We've got to mobilize."

Not mentioned by Mikulski or anyone else on stage was Martin O'Malley,
Maryland's outgoing governor who is also weighing a run for president in
2016. The fundraiser was expected to draw several other high profile
Democrats -- many of whom have worked closely with the O'Malley
administration for years -- but only Mikulski showed.

"We can't go backward and we can't let anything grow under our feet," said
Mikulski, who co-chaired Clinton's presidential campaign in Maryland in
2008. "We want her to know that there's a groundswell of grass roots
support."

Early signs of support for Clinton among the congressional delegation that
knows O'Malley best demonstrates the challenge the governor faces as he
contemplates a possible White House run. Polls in early primary states show
Clinton eclipsing O'Malley, despite his repeated appearances for
congressional and gubernatorial candidates in the run up to this year's
midterm elections.

Clinton is expected to make a decision early next year.

Mikulski has previously noted her support for Clinton's potential candidacy.

"I'm a Hillary person, so I know Gov. O'Malley is working hard to establish
his national credentials," Mikulski told Politico in an interview earlier
this year.

Maryland's other senator, Ben Cardin, was set to attend the event Monday
but instead remained in Washington for votes on the Senate floor. Rep. John
Delaney, the Montgomery County Democrat first elected in 2012 -- who also
has close ties to the Clinton family -- is expected to host a similar
fundraiser for the draft-Clinton effort this week.

Cardin has typically been cautious in supporting candidates during -- or
ahead of -- primary elections. He did not back Barack Obama in the 2008
presidential campaign until June, a day before Clinton dropped out of the
race. He also declined to engage in Delaney's competitive primary against a
state lawmaker in 2012.

"Senator Cardin thinks Hillary Clinton's energy is positive for our party
and our country," Cardin spokeswoman Sue Walitsky said in a statement. "He
is excited about her potential candidacy."

A spokeswoman for O'Malley's federal committee declined to comment on the
fundraiser.

O'Malley was an early backer of Clinton's 2008 campaign but Obama
ultimately carried the Democratic Primary in Maryland that year with nearly
61 percent of the vote.

Tickets to the fundraiser cost $20.16.

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Clinton, Biden to appear at D.C. event on
Israel”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/225596-clinton-biden-to-appear-at-dc-event-on-israel>*

By David McCabe

December 1, 2014, 2:05 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden will be among the attendees at
a Washington forum on Israeli-U.S. relations this weekend.

Both will speak to the Saben Forum, an annual event organized by the
Brookings Institution and entertainment mogul Haim Saban. Saban is also a
major political donor who has pledged to support Clinton should she run for
president in 2016.

The event willalso  feature Secretary of State John Kerry and Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu will appear via sattalite.

Biden and Netanyahu will be the meeting's keynote speakers.

Attendees will discuss the relationship between the U.S. and Israel "via
candid closed-door dialogue between U.S. and Israeli officials,
policymakers, journalists, and business leaders."

The meeting occurs as debate continues over a potential deal between
Western countries and Iran on the latter country's nuclear program. Israel
has been skeptical of a deal, but is reportedly pleased that an extension
in negotiations might yield a more favorable accord.

It will also come amid an uptick in violence in Israel, including an attack
by two Palestinians on an orthodox synogogue in Jeruselum that claimed the
lives of three Americans.

Clinton has said she will make a decision about whether to run for
president next year. She has appeared regularly in the press this year
while promoting a new memoir about her time at the State Department and
stumping for Democratic candidates.

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton to environmentalists: I’m one of you”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-goes-green>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

December 1, 2014, 10:51 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton came to a League of Conservation Voters fundraiser Monday
to assure the green donors that she is one of them – even if she won’t take
a stand on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline at the moment.

In a forceful speech at the deep-pocketed environmental group’s annual
dinner in New York City, the former secretary of state scolded climate
“deniers,” called for bold leadership on global warming and praised leading
environmentalists – all while touting her own victories in the field.

Clinton’s speech capped an awkward day on the pipeline issue for the likely
2016 presidential candidate. The League of Conservation Voters is strongly
opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sand oil from
Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. But earlier Monday, Clinton raised funds for
a politician on the other side of the issue – Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu,
who recently proposed a bill to approve the pipeline’s construction.

Clinton acknowledged that dealing with climate change will be politically
challenging, but cited the legacy of President Teddy Roosevelt – a new hero
of Clinton’s – as a example of “national leadership that was both decisive
and innovative” on the environment.

“Our economy still runs primarily on fossil fuels and trying to change that
will take strong leadership,” she said. But “we do not have to choose
between a healthy environment and a healthy economy.”

Instead, she said moving to a greener economy will create jobs  and help
make “America the clean energy super-power of the 21st Century.”

Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, thought
Clinton hit it out of the park. “You saw her tonight, coming to our
organization and really leaning in to this issue to make it clear how much
she cares about it,” he told reporters after her speech. “She’s always been
committed on it, and she’s voted right very consistently, but with this
audience, she’s now making whole comments and focusing on this.”

But nowhere did Clinton mention Keystone, the controversial issue she has
shied away from as she weighs another bid for the White House. Clinton has
come under fire for that evasion, but says she can’t comment on it while
the project makes its way through a State Department review process.

In his introductory remarks, Karpinski praised the recent defeat in the
Senate of a bill to approve what he called the “dirty and dangerous”
pipeline sponsored by Landrieu. But Karpinski said he didn’t have a problem
with Clinton’s support for Landrieu. “The Clinton and the Landrieu families
have been friends going way way back,” he said, noting that plenty of other
pals of his organization will raise money for members of the “Democratic
team” they might not always agree with.

As she did when appearing with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a
leader on economic populism, a month ago, Clinton took time to heap praise
on Democratic leaders on the environment. Clinton called Rhode Island Sen.
Sheldon Whitehouse, the Senate’s foremost climate hawk, her “friend” and
looked at him in the audience to say, “Thank you for fighting the good
fight, day in and day out.”

Clinton also touted Karpinski’s work and even gave a special shout out to
Karpinski’s mother, who stood and gave a wave. “We need the LCV as much as
we ever have,” Clinton said, ticking off several of the group’s key
accomplishments over decades. The group is consistently one of the biggest
spenders for Democrats in elections.

After her speech, Clinton sat at a table with Democratic mega-donor Tom
Steyer and several members of LCV’s board to eat and hear the rest of the
program.

Could Clinton offer the leadership she kept calling for? Karpinski
certainly hinted at it, making a joke about “the first Clinton
administration” and referencing the Iowa caucuses, just over a year away.

Carol Browner, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, went
even farther. “Hillary, wherever life takes you in the next few months, we
know we can continue to count on you to raise your voice and your intellect
in the effort to combat climate change,” Browner said. “And we hope you
know you can count on us.”

*The Daily Beast: “Hillary Praises Fracking, Stays Silent on Keystone”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/hillary-praises-fracking-stays-silent-on-keystone.html>*

By David Freedlander

December 1, 2014

[Subtitle:] At a speech to an environmental advocacy group, Clinton came
out in favor of fracking—and ignored the controversial pipeline project.

At a speech to the League of Conservation Voters in midtown Manhattan
Monday night, before hundreds of deep-pocketed donors, Hillary Clinton
praised the environmental legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, touted the prospect of
new green technologies, and had warm words for Barack Obama’s aggressive
efforts to combat climate change.

Absent from the former Secretary of State’s speech? Any sense of where she
stood on the controversial Keystone pipeline project, or what she would do
differently as president to steer the nation towards a more sustainable
future.

But that didn’t mean that Clinton wasn’t clear about where she came down on
environmental matters—she praised both her husband’s record of cleaning up
air and water standards, and the Obama administrations recent efforts to
strike a climate deal with China and to toughen pollution standards.

“We continue to push forward. But that is just the beginning. Science of
climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say,” Clinton
said, reading off of prepared remarks.

The former Secretary of State alluded to the need to wean the nation off of
fossil fuels, but noted that, “the political challenges are also
unforgiving. There is no getting around the fact that the kind of ambitious
response required to effectively combat climate change is going to a be a
tough sell at home and around the world at a time when so many countries
around the world, including our own, are grappling with slow growth and
stretch budgets.”

Clinton was vague about the kind of response needed to address climate
change, coming down neither in favor of the traditional Democratic carbon
tax or the Republican (pre-Obama, at least) cap and trade plan.

Instead, Clinton, much as her husband has done, pushed for market-based
solutions to social problems, arguing that green technologies would enable
economic growth and would slow the effects of climate change. She called
for “next generation” power plants, smarter grids and greener buildings,
describing a “false choice between growing our economy and protecting our
environment.”

Clinton did, however, come out in favor of natural gas drilling, known as
hydrofracking, which has become a key cause for environmental activists,
who say that the risks involved in natural gas drilling are not yet known.

“Yes, natural gas can play an important bridge role in the transition to a
cleaner, greener economy,” Clinton said.

But if Clinton waded into the natural gas debate, she entirely avoided the
Keystone one.

That debate took center stage over the midterms when financier Tom Steyer
pledged $100 million to pro-environment candidates and made the pipeline a
litmus test. Republicans rallied to the cause, arguing that the pipeline
would create jobs. (Nonpartisan experts say that both the pipeline’s
negative environmental effects and positive job creation projections are
overstated.) Last month, embattled Democrat Mary Landrieu pushed for a vote
on Keystone in order to boost her standing in her December run-off
re-election. The measure failed in the Senate in a vote that received warm
praise from LCV president Gene Karpinski in his introduction of Clinton.

Clinton appeared at a fundraiser for Landrieu earlier in the day.

Karpinski, who said that he was confident that Obama would reject Keystone,
said he did not have a problem with Clinton’s support for Landrieu.

“Look, the Clintons and the Landrieu families have been friends going back
in history. And all kinds of friends of ours have raised money for Mary
Landrieu to support her as a candidate. There is nothing surprising. This
is what people do.”

Karpinski wasn’t the only one willing to cut a not-yet-candidate Clinton
some leeway. Exiting the hotel ballroom, philanthropist Tom Steyer also
seemed to give Clinton a pass for not mentioning the pipeline project.

“I always respect what Secretary Clinton has to say. She is always smart
and she is always wise. And I thought she did a great job.”

Asked whether she should have mentioned the pipeline project, he merely
said, “I thought her speech was great.”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton avoids Keystone at conservation group event”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/hillary-clinton-keystone-113250.html>*

By Maggie Haberman

December 1, 2014, 11:11 p.m. EST

NEW YORK — Hillary Clinton gave a sweeping speech on the environment Monday
night, criticizing “those who doubt the science of climate change” and
strongly praising President Obama’s record – without ever mentioning the
controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

“The science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers
may say,” Clinton said during a nearly 30-minute speech at a dinner hosted
by the League of Conservation Voters, criticizing the “old false choice
between protecting our environment and growing our economy.” She argued for
the need to boost economic growth while finding new energy bridges to move
away from fossil fuel dependence.

Clinton praised last month’s U.S.-China climate accord but described it as
a “beginning” instead of an end. And she left open the possibility of
supporting “fracking,” the drilling for natural gas, provided the right
environmental protections are in place. But she never used the word
“fracking,” and said the process shouldn’t happen when the risk to specific
areas is too great.

Fracking has been contentious in her home state of New York. But in swing
states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, it has more support.

Clinton also remarked that the incoming Congress will have more lawmakers
who “want to turn back the clock” on environmental progress.

Clinton’s speech was closely watched ahead of her likely 2016 presidential
campaign, with climate change an issue of growing concern among liberal
donors. In a sign of how the big-money politics around climate change have
developed with Democrats, Clinton was seated next to Tom Steyer, the
billionaire environmentalist who spent heavily in the midterms and is
strongly opposed to the Keystone proposal.

The speech came two hours after Clinton hosted a New York-based fundraiser
for embattled Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, who’s now in a
runoff and recently made an ill-fated push for the Keystone project in the
Senate. Steyer has done nothing to assist the long-serving Democrat, who is
trailing significantly ahead of Saturday’s election.

At the fundraiser, which was closed to reporters, Clinton never mentioned
the Keystone pipeline, according to an attendee. But she made a passing
reference at one point to Landrieu doing what she had to do for her
constituents.

Before Clinton spoke, League of Conservation Voters President Gene
Karpinski slammed the pipeline as “dirty and dangerous,” calling for its
defeat.

“We’re gonna kill that pipeline,” he insisted.

Clinton has been criticized by some environmental groups for not taking a
position on the project, which is being reviewed by current Secretary of
State John Kerry.

But her allies have said in the past that she doesn’t want to get ahead of
the sitting secretary of state by voicing an opinion. The LCV has been
noticeably absent among Clinton critics on the pipeline, and Karpinski gave
her cover for not mentioning it, telling reporters after the speech that
there was no reason for her to take a stand before a decision by the
administration.

“She’s already been asked about that,” Karpinski shrugged when reporters
asked if he was troubled that she didn’t discuss it. “That’s not her
decision right now. You heard her praise president Obama many, many time. …
We’re absolutely confident that (Kerry) will reject that pipeline.”

If anything, the evening was a reminder that, despite the controversy
around the issue, major players in the environmental movement are so far
unwilling to strongly take on the likely frontrunner for the Democratic
nomination.

In her speech, Clinton said she realized that developing clean energy
globally is “going to be a tough sell” with too many nations experiencing
“slow growth and stretched budgets.”

“But I like to remind people that just as this challenge is obvious, so is
the opportunity it represents,” Clinton said, saying there are significant
economic impacts involved.

As she has in other speeches, she invoked Teddy Roosevelt and drew
parallels between the challenges of his era and the current one.

She recalled the famous moment when she and Obama in 2009 crashed a meeting
involving China and other countries at a global environmental summit and
described that as one of many opportunities still to come to affect change.

Clinton was introduced by her husband’s former Environmental Protection
Agency head, Carol Browner, who compared the former first lady’s work on
the environment to work she has done protecting children.

Browner said introducing Clinton was like being the opener “for The Rolling
Stones.” And Karpinski repeatedly alluded to the possibility of another
Clinton in the White House, at one point saying, as he introduced Browner,
that she had served in the Clinton administration.

“I was going to say under the first President Clinton,” said Karpinski, to
laughter.

He later told reporters he was pleased with her overall message.

“She made it clear that climate change is a real threat … if you deal with
it the right way it’s actually gonna create jobs … [and] save the planet,”
he said.

As for her raising money earlier for Landrieu, he said, “ The Clintons and
the Landrieu families have been friends going way way back in history.”

*The Guardian: “Hillary Clinton says fracking carries risks in conservation
speech”
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/02/hillary-clinton-says-fracking-carries-risks-in-conservation-speech>*

By Suzanne Goldenberg

December 1, 2014, 10:48 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Possible presidential candidate draws distinction with Barack
Obama, who has trumpeted boom in gas and oil exploration

Hillary Clinton has offered mild criticism of the fracking boom that has
spread across the US under Barack Obama’s presidency, drawing another small
distinction with his administration.

Clinton, who has yet to declare she is seeking the presidency, kept the
bulk of her speech to a League of Conservation Voters dinner in New York
resolutely vanilla. But she did express concerns about the environmental
costs associated with natural gas and went so far as to suggest there may
be places where it was too dangerous to drill at all.

“I know many of us have serious concerns with the risks associated with the
rapidly expanding production of natural gas,” Clinton told the crowd on
Monday night.

“Methane leaks in the production and transportation of natural gas pose a
particularly troubling threat so it is crucial we put in place smart
regulations and enforce them – including deciding not to drill when the
risks to local communities, landscapes and ecosystems are just too high.”

Clinton’s comments were nowhere near as sharp as her critique of Obama’s
foreign policy last August, when she bluntly said the administration lacked
a coherent strategy.

But they are significant because of Obama’s championship of an “all of the
above” energy strategy – and because they suggest Clinton is trying to
appeal to voters concerned about fracking.

Clinton’s speech was otherwise notable for the degree to which she avoid
mentioning any controversial topics – much like her address to an energy
conference in Nevada during the summer.

She made no mention of the Keystone XL pipeline – the most politically
weighted decision awaiting Obama. She made no mention of Arctic drilling,
or coal. She even avoided the word “fracking”.

But the distinction was evident. Over the years Obama has regularly boasted
about the expansion of oil and gas production under his watch, due to
fracking, much to the frustration of campaign groups.

The president even touted the expansion of natural gas during his milestone
June 2013 speech on climate change.

Natural gas produces far greater greenhouse gas emissions than originally
thought because of methane leaks.

Most environmental groups now dismiss the idea that natural gas could serve
as a bridge to a clean energy future – as Obama once claimed, and as
Clinton repeated on Monday

“If we are smart about this and put in place the right safeguards natural
gas can play an important bridge role in the transition to a cleaner energy
economy,” she said.

Elsewhere Clinton’s remarks hewed very closely to Obama’s positions on
climate and environment.

She called for a strong defence of the new rules cutting carbon pollution
from power plants, which form the central pillar of Obama’s climate action
plan.

Clinton offered praise for Obama’s leadership in international climate
negotiations, especially last month’s agreement between the US and China to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

She also borrowed a page from many of Obama’s recent speeches, taking a
swipe at Republican climate denial. “The science of climate change is
unforgiving – no matter what the deniers may say,” she said.

*The New Republic: “The Economic Forecast for 2016 Favors Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120449/hillary-clinton-can-adopt-obamas-economic-agenda-if-economy-improves>*

By Danny Vinik

December 1, 2014

After the Democrats were roundly defeated in the midterms, pundits blamed
it partly on the left’s stale economic agenda and argued that this agenda
will hurt the party in 2016. The latest example of this argument comes from
Ed Luce, who writes in the Financial Times that Hillary Clinton’s road to
the White House will be damaged by the stale agenda, a disconnect between
Clinton and liberal voters, and a more unified conservative base. “As it
stands, whatever coalition is expected to carry Mrs Clinton over the
finishing line is likely to result from a calculated process of addition,”
Luce writes. “In politics, winning is ultimately about ideas. In the
absence of new ones, Mrs Clinton’s bridge to the White House looks
rickety.” Those are all legitimate concerns. But Luce overlooks a
fundamental reason why she is the early favorite: The economy is quickly
improving under a Democratic president.

The economy isn’t in great shape right now. Wages are still stagnant. But
there are a number of signs that it may improve significantly during
Obama’s last two years in office. Monthly job gains have surpassed 200,000
for the past nine months. The Commerce Department’s estimate for
third-quarter GDP growth was nearly 4 percent. Workers are quitting their
jobs at the fastest rate in more than six years—an indication they have
confidence in the economy. New research from the New York Fed indicates
that Americans may be done deleveraging, or reducing their debt. Gas prices
are also collapsing, leaving more money for consumers to spend on other
goods.

Economic forecasters are expecting those green shoots to lead to stronger
growth over the next two years. The Congressional Budget Office projects
that the economy will grow nearly 4 percent in both 2015 and 2016. The
Federal Reserve’s most recent forecast put growth a bit lower, at 2.6-3.0
percent over the next two years. For comparison, growth hovered around 2
percent in 2013 and 2012.

That’s all good news for Clinton, since political science research
demonstrates the outsized role that the economy plays in presidential
elections: an improving economy benefits incumbents. That's partly why
Obama defeated Mitt Romney.

There is less evidence on how the economy affects presidential elections
without an incumbent, but we know that it still matters. “If the incumbent
president isn’t running, the effect of the economy would be a little bit
smaller, but it’s still important,” George Washington political scientist
John Sides told me earlier this year. “The logic there being that a new
candidate for the party would not get as much credit or blame as the actual
president who was presiding over the economy.” In other words, an improving
economy benefits the candidate of the incumbent party: The more the economy
improves over the next 24 months, the better Clinton’s chances are of
winning the presidency.

None of this is to say that the Democrats don’t currently have a problem
politically with their economic agenda. They do—and there aren’t any clear
solutions to it. But an improving economy will also minimize those
political consequences. If growth is between 3 and 4 percent and wages are
growing—a big “if” that heavily depends on actions at the Federal
Reserve—voters may look more favorably on the Obamanomics. Clinton could
seize on popular policies that Republicans blocked during Obama’s time in
office—minimum wage increases and equal pay legislation, for instance—and
add a few of her own ideas, maybe paid family leave. Thanks to an improving
economy, she could make that stale agenda  look much more appealing to
voters.

The opposite is true as well: If the economy falters, Democrats and Clinton
will receive the brunt of the blame and her chances of winning the
presidency will fall. A lot can change over the next two years, but the
economic data we currently have is indicative of stronger growth over the
next two years. That’s a more important indicator for Clinton than any
message voters sent Democrats this past November.

*CNN: “Poll: Romney, Clinton top 2016 field”
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/02/politics/poll-hillary-clinton-mitt-romney-2016/>*

By Sara Fischer

December 2, 2014

Washington (CNN) -- Mitt Romney may say he's not planning to make a third
run for the White House, but according to a new CNN/ORC national poll,
Republican voters aren't ready to give up on the idea just yet.

While there is no clear frontrunner for the Republican ticket in 2016, most
likely GOP voters say they would choose the former Massachusetts governor
for the nomination, among 16 potential contenders.

According to the survey, 20 percent of voters say Romney would be their
first choice for the nominee, with retired neurosurgeon and conservative
activist Ben Carson coming in second with 10 percent of the vote.

Other big name contenders, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov.
Chris Christie, round out the top four, garnering 9 percent and 8 percent,
respectively. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee takes fifth place with 7
percent of the vote.

In what could be a telling 2016 indicator, when Romney is removed from the
competitive set, the first place spot goes to Bush, whose family has
publicly pressured him to throw his hat in the ring for months.

But even though Bush leads the pack among the hypothetical field of 15, he
only edges Carson in second place by 3 percentage points, and Huckabee in
third by just 4 points.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton unsurprisingly receives an
overwhelming majority of support, with 65 percent of left-leaning Americans
saying she would be their choice for the 2016 nomination. Massachusetts
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a progressive favorite, and Vice President Joe
Biden, fall way behind to take second and third place -- with 9 percent and
10 percent, respectively.

But when Clinton is removed from the vote selection, Biden pulls more
support among voters, who say they would prefer him as their 2016
Democratic nominee with 41 percent, versus 20 percent for Warren.

The poll surveyed 1,045 Americans, including 510 Republicans and
right-leaning independents and 457 Democrats and left-leaning independents.
The survey was conducted by telephone from Nov. 21-23.

*FiveThirtyEight: “What Might Persuade Hillary Clinton Not To Run In 2016”
<http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-might-persuade-hillary-clinton-not-to-run-in-2016/>*

By Harry Enten

December 1, 2014, 2:34 p.m. EST

Most speculation about the 2016 presidential election has taken at least
one thing for granted: Hillary Clinton will run. But the Cook Political
Report’s Charlie Cook recently threw some cold water on that assumption (or
at least some lukewarm water); Cook estimated Clinton has only a 60 to 70
percent chance of running.

I have no clue whether Cook’s estimate is right. But recent data
illustrates why Clinton might balk at running: She no longer looks quite so
invincible, and early indicators point toward a Republican-leaning
political environment.

We’re still a long way from the 2016 election, but Clinton needs to decide
soon whether to run. The political landscape right now is more
Republican-leaning than at a comparable point in the 2012 cycle (when
President Obama, with a 46 percent approval rating, led a generic
Republican 42 percent to 39 percent). Obama’s approval has dropped to 42
percent.

In four polls conducted over the past month, YouGov asked more than 2,500
registered voters whether they would vote for the Democratic or Republican
candidate for president in 2016. The Republican candidate led, on average,
39.2 percent to 36.7 percent. Again, these results are among registered,
not likely, voters, so this lead has nothing to do with turnout.

The current environment suggests Clinton would need to be stronger than a
generic Democratic candidate to be considered the favorite. Instead, her
standing has deteriorated. YouGov has been polling Clinton’s favorable
ratings among adults over the past six years (adults overall tend to be
more Democratic leaning than just registered voters).

[CHART]

Clinton was quite popular during her days as secretary of state. But since
leaving that nonpartisan post in 2013, her net favorable rating has been
falling. The most recent YouGov poll put her at an all-time low.

YouGov’s results have been echoed by other pollsters, including NBC/Wall
Street Journal and Quinnipiac University. The most recent NBC survey found
Clinton’s net favorable rating at +3 percentage points; Quinnipiac had it
at +5 percentage points.

Clinton’s edge against Republicans in a potential 2016 matchup has also
taken a hit. She once led by double-digits in matchups against most
Republicans. But recent live telephone polls in the key swing states of
Iowa and New Hampshire have Clinton neck and neck with 2012 Republican
nominee Mitt Romney. Nationally, Quinnipiac found Romney leading Clinton 45
percent to 44 percent among registered voters. At a comparable point in the
2012 cycle, Romney was down 7 percentage points to Obama. Clinton led New
Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 1 percentage point, and she holds leads of 4
to 9 percentage points on the other Republican candidates.

Any lead Clinton does have is almost entirely attributable to being better
known. In the Quinnipiac survey, 95 percent of respondents recognized her
name. Only Romney, with 86 percent name recognition, comes close to being
as well-known (and he’s the only candidate who leads Clinton). The rest of
the GOP field has name recognition at 71 percent or below.

Among the seven Republican candidates listed by Quinnipiac, the correlation
between Clinton’s lead (or lack thereof) over each Republican and that
Republican’s name recognition was 0.94. In other words, other Republicans
should gain ground as they become better known. In fact, a simple
regression between name recognition and a Republican’s standing against
Clinton in the Quinnipiac poll suggests that she isn’t performing much
better than a generic Democrat.

None of this means that Clinton would lose if she ran. Polls at this point
are not very predictive. Obama may become more popular. The Republicans
could nominate an extreme candidate. Any number of other things could
happen.

Clinton, however, no longer looks like such a juggernaut. Not only are her
numbers dropping, but she is running on par with a Democratic brand in its
weakest shape in a decade.

*Breitbart: “Exclusive: Rand Paul: ‘Benghazi Was The Definition Of An
Intelligence Failure”
<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/29/Benghazi-Report>*

By Sen. Rand Paul

December 1, 2014, 7:01 a.m. PDT

The House Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited Benghazi report
Friday, claiming, “There was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.”

This one sentence tells us how seriously we should take this report.

Benghazi was the definition of an intelligence failure. It was, in fact,
one of the worst intelligence failures in our history, a strategic blunder
that resulted in the murder of a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans.

The ultimate blame lies with the Obama Administration and more directly
with Hillary Clinton who oversaw this tragedy during her tenure as
Secretary of State. No rational person has ever disputed that our
government failed horribly in protecting the U.S. embassy and our diplomats.

Americans just wanted to know who was responsible.

Now, a Congressional Committee chaired by Rep. Mike Rogers is telling us no
one is responsible because there was no intelligence failure to begin with.

It might be time to rename the House “Intelligence” Committee.

This administration has changed the talking points and ignored important
questions about Benghazi throughout—when the administration knew what was
happening, why did it happen, was it terrorism, who ignored Ambassador
Christopher Stevens security requests, who told Susan Rice the consulate
was secure, the list of questions goes on. These questions remain
unanswered or insufficiently answered and are crucial to getting to the
bottom of what really happened.

The Associated Press claims the report debunks, “A series of persistent
allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the 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.”

None of these accusations contain even a modicum of truth?

Three CIA security members have said their team was intentionally delayed
by the administration in conducting a rescue effort. Are they being
untruthful, or is this report perhaps not telling the full story? Multiple
highly-respected news outlets reported on arms possibly being smuggled from
Libya to Syria, before and after the attacks in Benghazi. Were all these
stories fabricated? Or did they contain some useful or pertinent
information related to this investigation?

The Obama Administration has tried to paint members of Congress who ask
these questions as somehow being extreme or crazy—and perhaps the House
Intelligence Committee will now follow suit,

But remember, this is the same administration that called the investigation
into the IRS scandal a product of a “conspiracy theory.”

When Clinton was asked during her Benghazi testimony almost two years ago
who first floated the story about an anti-Islamic video supposedly being
the catalyst for the attacks, she shot back, “What difference at this point
does it make?”

It makes a huge difference, Mrs. Clinton. All of these questions make a
difference—about your judgment and the basic competency of this
administration. They make a difference to the families of the victims.

They make a difference to the American people who deserve to know the truth.

From the beginning of this controversy, Obama officials have used smoke and
mirrors at every opportunity to evade blame. They have ducked and weaved to
avoid anything that could possibly cast the administration in a bad light.

“C.Y.A.” is a term many Americans are familiar with that was invented by
U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War. This new Benghazi “intelligence”
report is little more than a C.Y.A. attempt designed to protect incompetent
politicians and government agents at the expense of justice for the victims
of September 11, 2012.

They will continue to cover up. I will continue to seek the truth until
those at the top of this two-year chain of deception are finally held
accountable.

And yes Hillary, it still matters.

*The Daily Beast: “Rand Paul Won’t Let Benghazi Die”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/rand-paul-won-t-let-benghazi-die.html>*

By Olivia Nuzzi

December 1, 2014

[Subtitle:] Lashing out at a House report saying there was ‘no intelligence
failure’ before the 2012 attack allows the Kentucky senator to jab at
Hillary Clinton—and appeal to his father’s base.

When the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee concluded in late November
that there had been “no intelligence failure” before the 2012 attack on the
U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, it threatened to pry from Republicans
one of their favorite vehicles for sniping at the Obama administration and
former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Rand Paul does not appear to be willing to let that happen.

The junior Kentucky senator and likely presidential candidate attacked the
committee’s findings in an op-ed that is part first-stage-of-grief and part
letter to Clinton.

“Benghazi was the definition of an intelligence failure,” Paul begins,
dismissing the entire committee report as unserious.

“It was, in fact, one of the worst intelligence failures in our history, a
strategic blunder that resulted in the murder of a U.S. Ambassador and
three other Americans…The ultimate blame lies with the Obama Administration
and more directly with Hillary Clinton who oversaw this tragedy during her
tenure as Secretary of State.”

Paul then asks of the “persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies”
noted by the Associated Press, “None of these accusations contain even a
modicum of truth?”

Later, Paul quotes Clinton’s notorious line, “What difference, at this
point, does it make?” referring to what served as the catalyst for the
attacks, an anti-Muslim video or a push by radical Islamists. “It makes
huge difference, Mrs. Clinton,” Paul writes. “This new Benghazi
‘intelligence’ report is little more than a C.Y.A. attempt designed to
protect incompetent politicians and government agents at the expense of
justice for the victims of September 11, 2012…And yes, Hillary, it still
matters.”

Asked on what intelligence Paul has based his conclusion that the
Republican-led committee’s findings were incorrect, his senior aide, Doug
Stafford, deflected by saying, “Senator Paul doesn’t believe the questions
have all been answered, nor does he believe those responsible for this
failure have been held accountable, especially Secretary Clinton.”

Asked, then, whether Paul is under the impression that the House
Intelligence Committee and its Republican chairman fell prey to White House
Benghazi propaganda, Stafford said: “We don’t have any comment on why the
House Intelligence Committee issued a bad report, only that they did.”

Paul has consistently used Benghazi as a device to stake out high ground on
foreign policy. He broaches the subject of Benghazi with ease, almost as if
it’s become its own form of small talk—and it’s not hard to figure out why
he doesn’t want to let it go.

For one thing, Benghazi allows Paul to attack Clinton without having to
acknowledge why he’s doing it—were he to win the Republican nomination, he
would likely face Clinton in the general election.

But perhaps more important than that, taking the
the-government-is-hiding-the-truth-from-you position on Benghazi permits
Paul to appeal to the base he inherited from his father, former congressman
and presidential candidate Ron Paul: conspiracy-prone libertarians. It’s a
group that sometimes expresses skepticism about the younger Paul—he is,
after all, the more mainstream (i.e., willing to sell out) version of his
father. In his own words, he is just “libertarian-ish,” more likely to
stake out positions outside the mainstream than the average Republican but
ultimately someone who may muddy his own convictions in an effort to appeal
to generic right-wing primary voters.

Infowars.com, an entertainingly deranged conspiracy-mongering website run
by Bill Hicks-lookalike Alex Jones, a friend of the Paul family, seemed to
praise Paul for not buying into the House Intelligence Committee’s Benghazi
report, with the screaming headline “Rand Paul Slams Benghazi ’Cover Your
Ass’ Report.”

Paul is not the only one unwilling to accept the committee’s findings.

In the latest Weekly Standard can be found an editorial under the headline
“The Benghazi Whitewash.” that aren’t damning are a classic Washington
whitewash…and one of the central facts confirmed by the report is an
indictment of the mainstream media coverage of Benghazi.”

The publication chides National Journal’s Ron Fournier, Politico’s Michael
Grunwald, and The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf for taking the committee’s
report to mean what the committee reported.

Perhaps to Paul’s dismay, he has an ally in Sen. Lindsey Graham, with whom
he has frequently sparred.

On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Graham said the committee is “full
of crap.”

While Paul will likely continue to address Clinton via Breitbart, Stafford
said he is eagerly awaiting the result of the Select Committee on Benghazi,
led by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy. “Senator Paul looks forward to having
more information brought forward about Benghazi and the failures of this
administration, particularly Secretary Clinton.”

*Dayton Daily News: “Portman says no to presidential run”
<http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/portman-says-no-to-presidential-run/njJtY/>*

By Jessica Wehrman

December 2, 2014, 12:12 a.m.

Sen. Rob Portman will not run for president in 2016, saying that he will
seek another term as U.S. senator from Ohio instead.

Announcing his decision to a small group of Ohio reporters in his Capitol
Hill office Monday, Portman said he decided to remain in the Senate because
he felt energized by the new GOP Senate majority, saying “there is a good
chance for us to do something” on a broad array of issues, such as
overhauling the tax code and expanding international trade.

Portman, who had been lauded as a credible candidate by a wide variety of
media outlets including the Washington Post and ABC News, said he made his
decision during the past few days after talking to his family during the
Thanksgiving holidays.

“If you run for president, it’s just not practical to be involved in policy
issues here,” he said. “You can’t do both. At least for me, I couldn’t do
both.”

Although Portman said he was “not interested” in being a vice presidential
candidate for the eventual Republican nominee, he did not flatly rule out
being on the ticket in 2016.

With the Republicans holding their 2016 convention in Cleveland, Portman
clearly would be regarded as a potential running mate for the Republican
nominee. No Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio.

“I’m not seeking that and as you know that’s not something you can seek
anyway,” Portman said. “I’m not interested. I’m not putting myself out
there. I’m interested in running for re-election and continuing to serve
Ohio in what will be a more productive Senate.”

By declining to run, Portman is opting out of joining no fewer than a dozen
GOP contenders who are reportedly mulling a 2016 bid, among them Sens. Ted
Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida; Govs. John
Kasich of Ohio, Rick Perry of Texas, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chris
Christie of New Jersey and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush.

Portman’s decision will now shine increased spotlight on the other Ohio
contender, Kasich, who drew positive attention last month after an
appearance at the Republican Governors Association conference in Florida.

Portman’s decision came after months of speculation that he was preparing a
run for the presidency in 2016. Privately, some in Portman’s camp had gone
so far as to mull the best way to raise money for a presidential campaign.

But Portman all along said he would not make a decision until after the
November 2014 elections, saying the results of those elections would help
influence his decision.

Portman served as the vice-chairman for finance for the National Republican
Senatorial Committee, a role which involves him raising money for Senate
candidates across the country.

Portman indicated he might have entered the presidential race had the
Democrats retained control of the Senate in last month’s elections, which
would have meant that Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., would have remained majority
leader.

“I think it would be much harder for me to feel as though I was making a
significant difference in the lives of my fellow Ohioans if Harry Reid had
stayed in there, because we wouldn’t be doing tax reform or expanding
exports or budgets or some of the other oversight responsibilities that we
have and are not doing here in the Congress,” he said.

In particular, he said he is likely to be named to chair a subcommittee on
investigations, which will provide him with the chance to launch serious
oversight probes of the Obama administration.

Portman said his family did not influence his decision, and would have been
supportive either way, although he admitted they were “relieved” to not
have to be in the limelight. Portman’s family garnered national attention
in 2013 when he announced that he was supportive of gay marriage after his
son, Will, came out as gay. Will, he said, “was OK either way.”

Although his support of gay marriage has sparked the ire of some
conservatives, Portman said he was not particularly worried that it would
cost him votes.

“Some say it would hurt, some say it would help,” he said. “I think it’s
unpredictable and I think it is for anybody running by the way. This is
going to be wide open. And who knows how it all sorts out.”

In the end, he said, he decided that he could get more done in the Senate.

“This is what feels right,” he said.

*Calendar:*

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

·  December 3 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton helps launch the “Security
Through Inclusive Leadership” event at Georgetown (International Peace and
Conflict
<http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/forum/topics/call-for-note-takers-security-through-inclusive-leadership-event>
)

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

·  December 5 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Saban Forum (CNN
<https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/539475682183880705>)

·  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>
)

·  January 21 – Saskatchewan, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce’s “Global Perspectives” series (MarketWired
<http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/former-us-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-address-saskatoon-1972651.htm>
)

·  January 21 – Winnipeg, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Global
Perspectives series (Winnipeg Free Press
<http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Clinton-coming-to-Winnipeg--284282491.html>
)

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