Subject: Correct The Record Sunday December 7, 2014 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 14:19:28 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Sunday December 7, 2014 Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Roll Call blog: 218: “Democrats Irrelevant? Don’t Be So Sure, Pelosi
Promises”
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/nancy-pelosi-democrats-irrelevant-just-watch/?dcz=>*

“‘Let me say this about Hillary [Rodham] Clinton: When she runs, she will
win. And when she wins, she’ll go to the White House as one of the most
prepared people in modern history to go there,’ Pelosi said, stopping just
short of an endorsement that would be significant for Clinton, the former
first lady and ex-secretary of State.”

*New York Times column: Frank Bruni: “Hillary 2.0 Would Be Hillary XX”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-hillary-2-0-would-be-hillary-xx.html?_r=1>*

“If she runs, she’ll do so with more focus on her gender and a greater
emphasis on making history than she did in 2008.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Republicans tie Landrieu loss to Hillary”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/226237-republicans-tie-landrieu-loss-to-hillary>*

“On the heels of Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-La.) crushing loss in Louisiana
Senate, Republicans were quick to tie her defeat to the Democratic Party's
heir apparant: Hillary Clinton.”

*Washington Post: Dan Balz: “Is Jeb Bush really prepared to lose in order
to win?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-jeb-bush-really-prepared-to-lose-in-order-to-win/2014/12/06/fdaec470-7d51-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html>*

“Bush’s comments provide a contrast to those of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who
is going through the same decision-making process as he is. He has been
more open about his considerations and is seemingly farther along in
knowing what he would make his campaign about and how it would conduct it,
should he decide to run."

*CNN: “The 'Inside Politics' forecast: Friends say Hillary leaning towards
a later 2016 decision”
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/07/politics/ip-forecast-hillary-later/>*

“There is nothing certain when it comes to Clintonland, but the safer bet
appears to be later rather than sooner as to when we will get official word
about her 2016 intentions.”

*Articles:*

*Roll Call blog: 218: “Democrats Irrelevant? Don’t Be So Sure, Pelosi
Promises”
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/nancy-pelosi-democrats-irrelevant-just-watch/?dcz=>*

By Emma Dumain

December 7, 2014, 8:00 a.m. EST

Nancy Pelosi insists she doesn’t gloat when House Republicans can’t shore
up the votes among their own members to pass any number of critical bills,
and it’s Democrats who get to swoop in and call themselves the heroes.

“I would rather they did the responsible thing so we wouldn’t have to bail
them out every time,” the California Democrat quipped of her GOP
counterparts.

But the minority leader, who sat for an interview in her Capitol Hill
office with CQ Roll Call, must be feeling gratified.

The government is on the precipice of a shutdown, and if Republicans can’t
get to 218 votes on their side of the aisle, Pelosi will get to call in the
cavalry once again.

It would be the second time in a matter of weeks that she’s gotten to flex
her muscle: She successfully squelched a pre-Thanksgiving deal on a tax
extenders package negotiated exclusively by Senate Democrats and House
Republicans — a deal that would have been a nonstarter for her caucus and
President Barack Obama.

“The minute we got wind of what [it] would be and that it had a path,
before it gained any respectability, I called our members and said, ‘This
is what I think is happening … but I have to know that I can say to the
president that this will sustain a veto,’” Pelosi recalled.

With Obama still in the White House, Pelosi remains a player, as her impact
on the tax extenders package showed. But how much leverage she retains in
the 114th could come down to how she fits into the Republican-controlled
Congress over the next two years.

“I don’t think anyone is irrelevant. We have leverage if they don’t have
the votes,” she said. “They have leverage because they know we will be
responsible. And that allows them to be irresponsible to a certain extent.”

And 2016? Well, that’s a whole new ballgame. By then, the country could see
its first female president, said the nation’s first female speaker.

“Let me say this about Hillary [Rodham] Clinton: When she runs, she will
win. And when she wins, she’ll go to the White House as one of the most
prepared people in modern history to go there,” Pelosi said, stopping just
short of an endorsement that would be significant for Clinton, the former
first lady and ex-secretary of State.

A favorite parlor game of political observers and operatives, members and
aides is wondering when Pelosi might retire.

For the past 12 years, she’s been her caucus’s most senior leader, and
during that time she’s cemented her legacy as a master vote-counter,
consensus-builder and fundraiser.

She’s said she’s continuing to serve because she does so at the pleasure of
her members, and because she wants to protect the landmark, and perpetually
embattled, health care legislation she helped draft and pass in 21010.

Could 2016 be the year she steps aside, especially if Clinton runs and wins?

Pelosi, 74, offers no hints, but she doesn’t pretend she’ll be around
forever.

Reminded that she said she’d stay on as leader as long as the caucus wants
her, Pelosi joked, “Well, maybe not that long.”

Asked whether anybody else could now do what she does, she drew in a breath
and laughed: “I certainly hope so.”

“Tooting my own horn, … the support I have in the country, originating in
the great state of California, is substantial, and enables me to amass
resources because they believe in what I believe in and also want to see a
Democratic majority,” said Pelosi, who has raised more than $400 million
since she entered leadership in 2002.

Despite some grumblings that she has an inner circle and doesn’t like to
expand it, Pelosi insisted she is and has always been laying the groundwork
for a next generation of leadership to ascend when the time comes for her —
and Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer and Assistant Leader James E. Clyburn,
also in their mid-70s — to step aside.

“That’s always a responsibility that we have,” Pelosi said. “I’ve probably
appointed more women to be, where I had the discretion, to be chairs of
committees, or place them in positions where they would become chairs.”

The same is true, she said, for members of color, such as Rep. Bennie
Thompson of Mississippi, whom she tapped to be top Democrat on the Homeland
Security Committee. “There were people more senior who wanted that
position, but it was a new committee so I had the ability to put that
lineup in place,” she said.

“It’s not just about leadership,” she added. “This place is competitive in
some ways, but there’s so much opportunity, and beyond having a role, it’s
what your standing is on the issue.”

Pelosi tried recently to help elevate a woman to serve as ranking member of
Energy and Commerce — a fellow Californian and her close friend, Rep. Anna
G. Eshoo. Her endorsement ended up not being enough for Eshoo to defeat the
more senior Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, and it was one of a series of
personal obstacles Pelosi faced in the immediate aftermath of an Election
Day drubbing, when members were looking for someone to blame and targeted
the minority leader for not taking ownership of the losses.

She regained some goodwill, however, when she surprised nearly everybody
and selected New Mexico Democrat Ben Ray Luján to be the next chairman of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

With members expecting Pelosi to promote someone already firmly installed
in her circle, the gesture was met with enthusiasm. Even her critics saw it
as a sign their leader was open to singling out lawmakers who were outside
the box, had put their heads down and worked hard and who didn’t
necessarily have household names.

“He has a beautiful reputation,” Pelosi said of Luján.

Pelosi said members would have to answer the question of what has earned
her the loyalty she enjoys, but she described herself as “a weaver of a
loom just … pulling together all the threads of different opinion in our
caucus.

“My job is to make sure that we have the strongest possible fabric woven
from all those different threads,” she continued. “If I have to say to
people, ‘This is a path that we have to go, to vote with the Republicans to
get something done, you don’t have to vote for it, but I have to give it
some support,’ then they understand that. If you’re saying to people, ‘This
is terrible, but you have to vote for it,’ that’s a harder sell than if
you’re saying, ‘We just need to be helpful and you can … make your own
judgment.’

“And they always do make their own judgment,” she said.

*New York Times column: Frank Bruni: “Hillary 2.0 Would Be Hillary XX”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-hillary-2-0-would-be-hillary-xx.html?_r=1>*

By Frank Bruni

December 6, 2014

November 2016 is still a long way off, but it’s hard to imagine that the
presidential campaign will provide any bit of advertising as strangely
entertaining and revealing as a video put online recently by Stand With
Hillary, a new “super PAC.”

Haven’t seen it? Oh you must. Right now. I give you leave from this column
to go take a look, but hurry back. There’s a lot to talk about.

It spotlights a man in a cowboy hat who croons in a country-and-western
twang about how darned much he adores that there Hillary Clinton.
“Hindsight’s always right,” he sings, a clear dig at Barack Obama, the
candidate chosen over her in the Democratic primaries. There are images of
construction work, a welder, a pickup truck, a tractor, a big red barn,
cows. It’s the unveiling of Hard-Hat Hillary. Rodeo Hillary. Hillary,
Patron Saint of the Prairie.

But it positions her first and foremost as all woman. The references are
incessant. The chorus goes like this: “Thinking about one great lady like
the women in my life. She’s a mother, a daughter and through it all, she’s
a loving wife.”

A man with a sledgehammer shatters a panel of glass — twice. And the cowboy
exhorts his brethren: “Put your boots on and let’s smash this ceiling.”
Just in case there was any doubt about what that glass meant.

The video wasn’t produced by Clinton or her aides. But the people who did
put it together clearly followed the cues that they felt they were getting,
and they read her intentions right. If she runs, she’ll do so with more
focus on her gender and a greater emphasis on making history than she did
in 2008.

And that’ll be the smart move, because her gender is precisely what offsets
certain of her weaknesses as a candidate. To double down on the double X
may be her best way to mitigate several otherwise big vulnerabilities.

Back in 2008, “Clinton seemed to develop a tortured approach toward her
gender on the campaign trail, sometimes embracing it, sometimes dismissing
it, sometimes appearing to overcompensate for it — but rarely appearing at
ease with it,” wrote Anne Kornblut of The Washington Post in her 2009 book
about that race, “Notes From the Cracked Ceiling.”

She observed that some of Clinton’s key advisers felt that partly because
of her gender, she had to routinely assert toughness and be America’s own
Iron Lady. There were boxing gloves at her events, along with music from
“Rocky.”

Kornblut recalled the time when she was told by a proud Clinton adviser
that it was “as though his boss were running with a penis.” And at one
campaign event, a labor leader introduced her as “the candidate with
‘testicular fortitude,’ ” Kornblut wrote.

Clinton never gave a gender speech that rivaled Obama’s race speech.

Additionally, “When Obama won the Iowa caucuses, everybody wrote and talked
about it as historic,” Kornblut told me last week. “But Jesse Jackson had
won primaries. When Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire, it was historic. But
the coverage was, ‘Hillary made a comeback. She’s the comeback kid, just
like her husband was.’ ”

Kornblut said that, belatedly, a few members of Clinton’s inner circle came
to believe that her frequently gender-neutral approach wasn’t just “a big
mistake of the campaign. That was the big strategic mistake.”

But with an even longer résumé now, Clinton could emphasize her
trailblazing womanhood for 2016 without the worry that many voters would
misinterpret it as the main qualification that she’s claiming. And after
four years as a secretary of state more hawkish than the president she
served, she wouldn’t have to push the image of a dauntless world leader.

Americans’ economic anxieties will almost surely be at the center of the
race, and with the right language, Clinton might have “the ability to talk
as mom and grandmom about the need to make sure government is on the side
of our families,” Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who recently
addressed the group Ready for Hillary, told me.

“Being a woman translates into great politics,” he said.

Clinton seemingly agrees. Over the last year she has weighed in strongly on
issues like equal pay and child care. She has done women-themed events
galore.

In a speech at Georgetown University last week, she said: “We know when
women contribute in making and keeping peace, entire societies enjoy better
outcomes. Women leaders, it has been found, are good at building coalitions
across ethnic and sectarian lines and speaking up for other marginalized
groups.”

IT’S possible that Clinton has noticed polls. In one by Gallup early this
year, when Americans were asked what about a Clinton presidency would be
most exciting, the answer given more than any other was that she would be
the first woman in the job.

It’s her “unique selling proposition,” wrote Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor
in chief, in an analysis of those results.

And that proposition is potentially an inoculation.

Yes, she’s been around forever and isn’t a fresh face. But she can’t be
yesterday’s news when she’s tomorrow’s precedent.

Yes, there’s a whiff of dynasty about her. But maybe she gets some of the
“new car smell” that Obama said voters were looking for by promising a new
altitude of female accomplishment.

Yes, a contest between her and Jeb Bush would be one of two surnames from
the past. But only she can claim to represent an uncharted future, at least
in one sense.

Yes, detractors will say that she’s a third term of Obama: business as
usual. Her supporters can answer that she’s history’s unfinished business.

Yes, she’s now wealthy and well-connected, and would be starting the race
with titanic advantages. But if she’s willing to talk about her experience
as a woman, she can talk about what it’s been like to make her way in a
man’s world. She’s a leader of the pack who can make some underdog noises,
an ultimate insider who can potentially connect with outsiders — thanks to
gender.

Lehane called it “a sword and a shield.”

When she ran the last time around, Rush Limbaugh asked, “Will Americans
want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?” It was
a sexist question, but this can be a sexist country, and even some
Democrats had that concern.

It’s more than six years later, and Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post
recently noted Clinton’s “full-on embrace of grandma-hood, tweeting out
pictures of her new granddaughter despite the twin pitfalls of gender and
age.” For Clinton 2016, gender might not be a pitfall at all.

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Republicans tie Landrieu loss to Hillary”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/226237-republicans-tie-landrieu-loss-to-hillary>*

By Jonathan Easley

December 6, 2014, 10:09 p.m. EST

On the heels of Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-La.) crushing loss in Louisiana
Senate, Republicans were quick to tie her defeat to the Democratic Party's
heir apparant: Hillary Clinton.

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus crowed that
Louisianans had “rejected the Democrat agenda and the Obama-Clinton
policies that have produced higher healthcare costs and job-killing
regulations.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a likely Republican presidential contender in 2016,
also sought to hang the loss around Clinton, the frontrunner for the
Democratic nomination.

The RNC said its new majority would allow it to pass the “pro-jobs
legislation that was stalled in the Senate when Democrats were in control.”

“Bill Cassidy will be a champion for policies that create jobs and grow the
economy, especially building the Keystone Pipeline,” Priebus said in a
statement. “And as a doctor treating the uninsured, he has seen firsthand
how ObamaCare has hurt healthcare in this country and will work toward
market-driven, patient-centered reforms. Americans’ priorities will be
Republicans’ priorities in the new Senate.”

*Washington Post: Dan Balz: “Is Jeb Bush really prepared to lose in order
to win?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-jeb-bush-really-prepared-to-lose-in-order-to-win/2014/12/06/fdaec470-7d51-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html>*

By Dan Balz

December 6, 2014, 3:31 p.m. EST

Jeb Bush might or might not run for president in 2016. If he runs, he might
or might not emerge as a winner. But his formulation for how to think about
waging a successful presidential campaign suggests he already is ahead of
some of his potential competitors — in both parties.

Bush, the former governor of Florida, spoke last week at a Wall Street
Journal conference in Washington. In an interview conducted by Jerry Seib,
the Journal’s Washington bureau chief, he said that anyone running for
president should be prepared “to lose the primary to win the general
[election] without violating your principles.”

What Bush said is the opposite of the oft-stated idea that presidential
candidates run to the left or the right to win their party’s presidential
nomination and then scamper back to the center as best they can for the
general election. That prescription, while sometimes successful, can easily
contribute to cynicism among the voters, who watch and wonder whether their
politicians have any principles beyond the desire to win at any cost.

Bush offered a different concept, one grounded less to the machinations of
typical political campaigns and more dependent on the power of ideas and
the confidence to test them in the marketplace. At its core, what Bush was
saying is that the best candidates are those who know what they believe,
are not afraid to take risks to articulate those convictions and, in some
measure, use their campaign to help redefine their party rather than
becoming a prisoner of party orthodoxies and constituencies.

Bush said last week that he would decide “in short order” whether to run.
Advisers say there is nothing imminent, that his timetable is the same as
it has been all year: get through the midterms and then sit down with his
family before making a final decision.

Bush’s strengths and weaknesses as a possible presidential candidate are
well known. He governed effectively and conservatively in a populous and
diverse state for eight years. But he’s been out of office since early
2007, in which time both his party and the nature of political campaigns
have changed. He’s the son and brother of former presidents, so he’s seen
the inside of two different presidencies. But the Bush name remains a mixed
blessing with the general electorate.

Bush’s major liabilities in the nomination battle would be his positions on
immigration reform and education reform. He is at odds with many
conservatives because he supports a path to some kind of legal status for
millions of illegal immigrants and because of his advocacy for Common Core
educational standards.

Bush sounded as if he knows what he would talk about if he ran — from
education reform and entitlement reform to an overhaul of the tax system
and a paring of the regulatory apparatus to what he called an economically
driven reform of immigration laws — and what he thinks about them.

Being prepared to lose the nomination in order to win the general election
does not necessarily mean an in-your-face campaign designed to poke his
conservative critics unnecessarily. Instead, presumably it means a
willingness to stand his ground on issues where he believes he is closer to
the views of the broader electorate without, as he put it, violating his
conservative principles.

Bush for a long time has been prodding his party to put its stamp on the
future rather than looking to its past. He was an early debunker of the
wave of Reagan nostalgia that took hold during the 2008 presidential
primaries — the notion that a return to Reaganism was the path to success
in presidential elections. Bush argued that the party needed to adapt its
conservative principles to a new time and a new America.

Republicans just won the majority in the House and Senate; they control 31
governorships and have unified control in almost two dozen states. What
they lack is the White House. As Bush said last week, Republicans are past
the point of having to make a point. They need to show they know how to
govern. Some governors are doing that. But this has been particularly
challenging in Washington for a party that has come to power as the
anti-Washington party.

Bush’s comments provide a contrast to those of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who
is going through the same decision-making process as he is. He has been
more open about his considerations and is seemingly farther along in
knowing what he would make his campaign about and how it would conduct it,
should he decide to run.

At a time of political dysfunction and deep public dissatisfaction, neither
party needs to offer a nominee wedded to ideological orthodoxy. Being
respectful of a party’s constituencies and coalition is not the same as
being beholden to them. Nomination battles, however, tend to require
candidates to adhere even more closely to those orthodoxies. Clinton is
buffeted by the debate within her party about just how populist the
Democrats should be in 2016. If she runs, she owes voters an explanation of
her true convictions.

In the establishment wing of the Republican Party, there is enthusiasm for
a Bush candidacy; in more conservative precincts, there will be opposition.
Some Republicans believe that if Bush were to announce his candidacy, he
would become the front-runner for the nomination by dint of his name, his
experience and his presumed capacity to raise money.

Surveys of Republicans suggest obstacles. Bush is hardly a dominant figure
in those measures. The undeclared field of candidates is so fractured right
now that no one among the prospective candidates, save for Mitt Romney,
comes close to getting even a fifth of the GOP support.

In the exit polls from last month’s midterms, voters were asked to rate
various prospective presidential candidates. Bush did worse than Clinton
but better than any of the other Republicans tested — Chris Christie, Rick
Perry and Rand Paul. Still, just 49 percent of Republicans who voted last
month (and just 25 percent of independents) said they thought he would make
a good president. At least he had more positives than negatives from
members of his own party — something the other three tested could not say.

Many months ago, Bush said he would consider running if he could do it
“joyfully.” What he said last week was slightly different, that what would
be important would be to find a way to “lift people’s spirits and not get
sucked into the vortex,” according to a Journal account of his appearance.

It’s difficult to believe that, in the often toxic environment of today’s
politics, anyone could run for president joyfully. Avoiding the vortex of
negativity is a more realistic goal. Bush has clearly been thinking about
all this as he nears a decision. He sounds almost ready for the next step.
But will he take it?

*CNN: “The 'Inside Politics' forecast: Friends say Hillary leaning towards
a later 2016 decision”
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/07/politics/ip-forecast-hillary-later/>*

By John King

December 7, 2014

Washington (CNN) -- Internal tensions in both political parties dominated
this week's final trip around the 'Inside Politics' table.

John King and other top political reporters empty out their notebooks each
Sunday to reveal five things that will be in the headlines in the days,
weeks and months ahead.

1. Seething over Schumer

Look for more open battles between the Obama White House and congressional
Democrats as we move into 2015.

Julie Hirschfeld Davis of The New York Times described White House
officials as "privately still pretty angry" at New York Democratic Sen.
Chuck Schumer for saying the President was wrong to prioritize health care
legislation over other issues in his first term.

And there is also bad blood after the White House pulled the plug on Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid's effort to negotiate a tax package with
congressional Republicans.

"I think we're going to see in the weeks and months ahead a real sort of
division starting to emerge, especially as the White House starts to really
press on trade, which is an issue that divides Democrats," said Hirschfeld
Davis. "I think we're going to see that daylight get even brighter."

2. Boehner's secret weapon

House Speaker John Boehner makes clear he has no interest in shutting the
government down, and is no question in stronger political shape than he was
in some past battles with the conservative grass roots.

But stronger doesn't mean he doesn't appreciate a little help, and Robert
Costa of The Washington Post took us inside efforts by the newest member of
the leadership team to help keep the GOP troops in line.

At issue: the work of House Whip Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana.

"He has been able to finagle this thing for the last few days and make sure
that conservatives feel like they are part of the process in the House
leadership and that they're not looking for a showdown the way they did a
year ago when they got a shutdown over health care reform," said Costa.

3. Room for a "nerd" in the GOP 2016 pack?

There are a half dozen GOP governors mulling 2016 presidential runs,
including the CEOs of Texas, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Wisconsin and New
Jersey.

But Jonathan Martin of The New York Times says keep an eye on the
self-described "nerd" who was just re-elected in the blue state of Michigan.

Martin talked to Snyder when he was in Washington this past week getting an
award from Governing Magazine.

"It's this great dance, John, as you know," said Martin. "You talk to these
politicians and they are waiting for you to ask the question and finally
you do: 'So do you want to run for president?'"

"And of course he has to answer that right now he is fully focused on
Michigan and telling the Michigan story and chief in that is that the
unemployment rate has dropped in that state that was so hard hit during the
recession. But he is someone that at the very least wants to be in the mix
for 2016."

4. A 2016 litmus test for Christie?

President Barack Obama's executive actions on immigration are not only
infuriating key conservatives in Congress -- they are triggering legal
challenges from many states, and in a way that could ripple into the 2016
presidential race.

Nia-Malika Henderson of The Washington Post notes that the governors of
Indiana, Wisconsin and Louisiana are signatories to the suit, as is the GOP
governor of South Carolina. All factor into 2016 talk of potential
candidates or maybe vice presidential picks on the GOP side.

But Henderson notes one glaring name not on the list: New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie.

"Christie has said so far that he doesn't want to talk at all about
immigration reform -- he won't do that unless he decides to run," said
Henderson. "But it is a question of whether or not this lawsuit will be
kind of a litmus test going forward in 2016 and whether or not he is going
to be pressured to sign on and how he's going to navigate that."

5. Hillary 2016 announcement -- maybe later

There is nothing certain when it comes to Clintonland, but the safer bet
appears to be later rather than sooner as to when we will get official word
about her 2016 intentions.

The timing debate has been going on for months. Some allies believe an
early announcement -- as in by the end of 2014 - is best, to end the doubts
and bring early order to the organization.

Others say there is little reason to rush, noting the lack of a formidable
opponent and the added scrutiny and requirements that come with being a
candidate in the eyes of the law.

The former secretary of state is holding meetings to discuss her team, but
is described by friends as not in too much of a hurry to make a final
decision and then let it be known. So, for now anyway, the betting is she
will wait a bit into 2015.

*Calendar:*

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

·  December 8 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton attends a wildlife conservation
event co-hosted by The Royal Foundation and the Clinton Foundation (The Hill
<http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/226134-prince-william-to-visit-white-house>
)

·  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>
)