Subject: ​Correct The Record Thursday December 11, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 08:07:51 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Thursday December 11, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Bloomberg: “Chris Christie Would Lose Badly to Hillary Clinton in New
Jersey, Poll Finds”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-11/chris-christie-would-lose-badly-to-hillary-clinton-in-new-jersey-poll-finds>*

“Clinton is the only candidate listed who gets a positive favorability
rating, 58—35 percent. The Republicans all have negative scores in New
Jersey.”

*FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters for America: “Fox Resurrects
Distorted Version Of Hillary Clinton's Benghazi Testimony”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/10/fox-resurrects-distorted-version-of-hillary-cli/201835>*

“Fox News hosts criticized a distorted version of Hillary Clinton's
congressional testimony on the 2012 Benghazi attacks, falsely suggesting
that the former secretary of state had been indifferent to the cause of the
attack.”

*New York Times: “Torture Report Puts Presidential Hopefuls in Quiet Mode”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/us/politics/torture-report-puts-politicians-in-quiet-mode.html>*

“On Wednesday, Mr. Christie, the New Jersey governor and potential
Republican presidential candidate in 2016, was hardly eager to revisit the
torture issue. Among presumptive candidates in both parties — including
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jeb Bush — he had company in his reticence.”

*Associated Press: “Delays Plague Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Files”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HILLARY_CLINTON_STATE_DEPARTMENT_FILES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

“The State Department has failed to turn over government documents covering
Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state that The Associated
Press and others requested under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act ahead
of her presumptive presidential campaign.”

*Wall Street Journal opinion: Karl Rove: “Why Does Hillary Want to Be
President, Anyway?”
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/karl-rove-why-does-hillary-want-to-be-president-anyway-1418258533?mod=trending_now_5>*

[Subtitle:] “So far it looks like Mrs. Clinton would have at least as many
problems in 2016 as she did in 2008.”

*MSNBC: “Ted Cruz rips ‘Obama-Clinton’ foreign policy in 2016 preview”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-rips-obama-clinton-foreign-policy-2016-preview>*

“In a potential preview of the 2016 presidential contest, Senator Ted Cruz
lit into the ‘Obama-Clinton foreign policy’ in a speech before the
conservative Heritage Foundation on Wednesday.”

*Politico: “Poll: Clinton leads among wealthy voters”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/poll-hillary-clinton-support-millionaires-113471.html?hp=l5_4>*

“In a CNBC survey of the wealthy released on Wednesday, 31 percent of those
with assets of $1 million or more said that they would vote for former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.”

*People: “PEOPLE Magazine Rounds Up the 25 Most Intriguing People of 2014”
<http://www.people.com/article/people-magazine-year-end-2014-most-intriguing-people>*

“Hillary Rodham Clinton paid tribute to the poet, author and activist,
telling PEOPLE: ‘We're a better country today because of Maya Angelou. Our
country's struggles, triumphs and progress over the past century are
written all over her life.’”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Why Elizabeth Warren is liberals’ dream
2016 candidate, in 49 seconds”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/10/why-elizabeth-warren-is-liberals-dream-candidate-in-49-seconds/>*

“Speeches like the one Warren gave Wednesday will just fuel chatter about
why she should challenge Hillary Rodham Clinton in two years. And she knows
it.”

*The Hill opinion: Lanny Danny: “Why I am ready for Hillary”
<http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/226723-lanny-davis-why-i-am-ready-for-hillary>*

“With Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic Party nominee in 2016, it’s
time. And it will happen.”

*Articles:*

*Bloomberg: “Chris Christie Would Lose Badly to Hillary Clinton in New
Jersey, Poll Finds”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-11/chris-christie-would-lose-badly-to-hillary-clinton-in-new-jersey-poll-finds>*

By John McCormick

December 11, 2014, 6:02 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Half of New Jersey's voters don't want to see Christie run for
president.

A Jersey Guy in the White House? Fuggetaboutit. New Jersey voters say that
America isn't ready for one of their own as the commander-in-chief, and
would pick Hillary Clinton over their state's governor, Chris Christie, by
a margin of 11 points, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll released
Thursday.

A slim majority in the survey say Christie wouldn't make a good president,
while half of the state's voters don't think the U.S. is ready for a
"Jersey Guy" in the White House. New York neighbor Clinton would, for now,
beat all of the prospective Republican 2016 candidates in the state.

Fifty-three percent of the state's voters said Christie wouldn't make a
good White House occupant, while 40 percent say he could do the job. Even
among Republicans, a fifth hold the view that he isn't presidential
material.

The trepidation over electing Christie president might have something to do
with an open question about his potential candidacy: Whether his brash
style would be accepted in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, where
politics tends to be more genteel. Christie made national news in October
when he told a constituent who was critical of New Jersey's response to
mega-storm Sandy to “sit down and shut up.”

By a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent, the state's voters say they
wouldn't like to see Christie run for president. If he does, 62 percent say
he should resign as governor.

“If Christie does run—and his New Jersey neighbors say he shouldn’t—he
should quit his day job,” Maurice Carroll, assistant director of the poll,
said in a statement.

In late January, Christie is scheduled to return to Iowa, where the
nomination voting will start in early 2016. The moderate Republican will
speak at an event that has so far attracted RSVPs from only the most
conservative of prospective GOP presidential candidates, as well as Sarah
Palin and Donald Trump.

Electing a president from New Jersey wouldn't be unprecedented, although
it's rare. Grover Cleveland is the only New Jersey native to become
president, while Woodrow Wilson served as the state's governor and
president of Princeton University before occupying the White House,
according to the state's website.

On the question of whether Americans are ready for a Jersey president, 49
percent of the state's voters say no and 43 percent say yes. Men are nearly
evenly divided, while women are more doubtful, 51 percent to 41 percent.
Younger voters think the nation could be open to the idea, while those 35
and older disagree.

"The last Jersey guy who got elected president did not carry the state in
his 1916 reelection," Carroll said in a reference to Wilson. "This poll
shows we haven't changed in the last century."

If Christie and Clinton run, she would beat him at this point 50 percent to
39 percent. In New Jersey, she would also easily beat former Florida
Governor Jeb Bush, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and 2012 Republican
nominee Mitt Romney.

Clinton is the only candidate listed who gets a positive favorability
rating, 58—35 percent. The Republicans all have negative scores in New
Jersey.

"She beats all the probable Republican candidates, including the governor,"
Carroll said. "He does better than the other Republicans but he still loses
his home state."

New Jersey voters give President Barack Obama a negative job approval
rating in the survey, with 46 percent approving and 50 percent
disapproving. That's slightly better than the same poll found in August.

Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac interviewed 1,340 registered voters
for the survey, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage
points.

*FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters for America: “Fox Resurrects
Distorted Version Of Hillary Clinton's Benghazi Testimony”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/10/fox-resurrects-distorted-version-of-hillary-cli/201835>*

By Emily Arrowood

December 10, 2014, 3:11 p.m. EST

Fox News hosts criticized a distorted version of Hillary Clinton's
congressional testimony on the 2012 Benghazi attacks, falsely suggesting
that the former secretary of state had been indifferent to the cause of the
attack.

On December 10, the hosts of Outnumbered recalled former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton's January 2013 congressional testimony in a discussion on
the day's hearing of the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Co-host Andrea Tantaros alleged Clinton said, "It doesn't really make a
difference what happened on that night" of the attack, and continued,
"whether it was men out for a walk." Co-host Kennedy agreed, suggesting
Clinton's "strange and insulting line of reflection" evidenced indifference
to the lives lost in the attacks. Kennedy went on, "[I]t actually makes a
very big difference. If you've got a systemic problem with Al Qaeda who's
ready to attack a vulnerable U.S. embassy, then yeah, that's vastly
different than a couple people that just get together with some incendiary
devices."

That's an egregious stretch of Clinton's remarks.

During her congressional testimony, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) asked Clinton
about the State Department's role in editing Obama administration talking
points to remove a reference to the Benghazi attackers' motive. In
response, she dismissed the relevance of debating who edited a government
memo, saying, "[T]he fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of
a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided
they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it
make?" She emphasized, "It is our job to figure out what happened and do
everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again."

Fox figures have tirelessly attempted to scandalize Clinton's innocuous
response, even jumping off the remarks to imagine her hypothetical
assassination. The distortion has proved too egregious even for other
members of the right-wing media -- Weekly Standard writer (and Fox
contributor) Stephen Hayes called out his fellow conservatives for
misrepresenting her remarks, saying Clinton's critics have "badly
mischaracterized the now infamous question." According to Hayes, Clinton's
"question, which came in the middle of a heated back-and-forth with U.S.
senator Ron Johnson, was not so much a declaration of indifference as it
was an attempt to redirect the questioning from its focus on the hours
before the attacks to preventing similar attacks in the future."

*New York Times: “Torture Report Puts Presidential Hopefuls in Quiet Mode”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/us/politics/torture-report-puts-politicians-in-quiet-mode.html>*

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Michael Barbaro

December 10, 2014

WASHINGTON — In 2002, not long after President George W. Bush named him the
top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, Chris Christie emphatically and
unexpectedly denounced torture as a means of gathering evidence.

“I cannot believe, given the history of this country, that no matter what
the threat to our country that we would forsake our protection of liberties
to the extent that we would advocate torture as a way of getting evidence,”
he said then, adding, “You have to be coolheaded in times of crisis to be
able to not go too far.”

But on Wednesday, Mr. Christie, the New Jersey governor and potential
Republican presidential candidate in 2016, was hardly eager to revisit the
torture issue. Among presumptive candidates in both parties — including
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jeb Bush — he had company in his reticence.

Most of the possible presidential candidates have not plunged into
Washington’s debate over the Senate Intelligence Committee’s withering
report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s brutal interrogation tactics —
and some are ducking questions entirely, illustrating the delicate politics
of national security.

One senator who did agree to talk, Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida,
criticized the public release of the Senate report but also decried torture
as an interrogation technique. Asked specifically about the use of
waterboarding and rectal feeding, which were both documented in the report,
Mr. Rubio said he did not want to discuss “specific methods” but suggested
that he did not support such practices, noting that they have been
discontinued. “And I’m not advocating that we continue those practices.”

But Mr. Rubio struck the same theme as many in his party, condemning the
report and its release for being “conducted in a way that was partisan and
unfair.” Releasing it, he said, “puts in danger the lives of Americans.”

Few would-be candidates want to be seen as defending torture, particularly
in the aftermath of the graphic techniques depicted in the panel’s
findings. At the same time, Republican candidates in particular do not want
to be seen as soft on terrorism. The report puts one Republican, Mr. Bush,
in an especially unenviable position, because it resurrects the most
controversial policies of his brother’s administration.

For Mrs. Clinton, the challenge is different: She must balance her desire
to be seen as tough on national security against pressure from her party’s
liberal wing to not only condemn the gruesome tactics but punish those
involved. The report provides an opportunity for potential Clinton
challengers to stake out a position to her left — and one Democrat, Gov.
Martin O’Malley of Maryland, took it.

While Mrs. Clinton has previously said she did not want to see the
officials who conducted the interrogations prosecuted, Mr. O’Malley, in an
interview, called on the Justice Department to name a special prosecutor to
investigate.

“I think there needs to be some accountability so this doesn’t happen
again,” he said.

The likely Republican candidates and their advisers recognize that their
party base still has a hawkish impulse when it comes to terrorism,
especially given the warnings that the publication of the report could
prompt new threats on Americans.

“Look at the polling, and elected Republicans pretty much reflect where
their constituents are: largely supportive of the C.I.A. program with
little interest in the details, a small minority opposed as a matter of
principle, but no one shedding any tears for the terrorists who got roughed
up,” said Michael Goldfarb, a neoconservative strategist.

Yet Mr. Christie’s refusal to weigh in — the governor said in a brief
interview that it would not be “responsible to comment” on a report he had
not read — irritated Mr. Goldfarb, who said in a post on Twitter that the
governor was “irresponsible” in avoiding questions Wednesday about the
interrogation methods.

For presidential hopefuls outside Washington, there is little upside in
commenting, said Kevin Madden, who advised Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican
nominee. Mr. Romney did not comment. Three other Republican governors —
Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John R. Kasich of
Ohio — also declined to comment on the report.

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, issued a statement calling the
report “a highly partisan attack on the previous administration” that “puts
Americans at grave risk as it fuels propaganda efforts of radical Islamic
terror groups and sympathizers already trying to destroy our nation.”

But among senators who might run for president, there was more pressure to
respond, Mr. Madden said, because it is “part of their day-to-day job.”

Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, on Wednesday delivered a blistering
attack on President Obama’s foreign policy — while linking Mrs. Clinton to
it. “Today, the consequences of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy is that
our friends no longer trust us, and our enemies no longer fear us,” he said
in remarks prepared for a speech at the Heritage Foundation.

Of the likely Republican candidates, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of
Kentucky, may have the most difficult balance. Approached outside his
office on Wednesday, he would not answer questions. Mr. Paul’s
libertarian-leaning followers disdain the aggressive Bush-era national
security policies, but the Kentuckian has been careful on foreign policy to
not appear as out of the Republican mainstream.

The awkwardness of his position was on display after the report was
released Tuesday. Speaking to Politico, he said, “I think we should not
have torture,” and he generally praised government transparency, but
questioned whether releasing gruesome details would be “beneficial or
inflammatory.”

Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor, last week gave a speech calling for
a more assertive and muscular American foreign policy, but he has not
spoken out on the interrogations. His silence on the report stands in
contrast to his quick response on Facebook to Mr. Obama’s executive order
on immigration.

Mrs. Clinton has been nearly as quiet. Her memoir from serving as Mr.
Obama’s first-term secretary of state included only a single sentence on
torture, and the words “torture” and “interrogation” are not in the index.
In remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations over the summer, however,
she called for the release of the report, saying, “The American people
deserve to see it,” but she also noted that she opposed prosecuting “people
who were doing what they were told to do.”

Senator Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent who calls himself a
Democratic socialist, denounced the tactics described in the report and
said in an interview that he was especially disturbed by the Senate panel’s
conclusion that the C.I.A. misled the White House and Congress about them.
“If anyone is lying to elected officials, they should be fired
immediately,” he said.

Jim Webb, the Democratic former Virginia senator, was more cryptic. He
posted on Twitter about the report, posing questions: “Were these acts
individual, institutional, or national policy? Did intelligence committee
use its oversight power?”

*Associated Press: “Delays Plague Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Files”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HILLARY_CLINTON_STATE_DEPARTMENT_FILES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

By Stephen Braun

December 10, 2014, 2:42 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The State Department has failed to turn over government
documents covering Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state
that The Associated Press and others requested under the U.S. Freedom of
Information Act ahead of her presumptive presidential campaign. They
include one request AP made four years ago and others pending for more than
one year.

The agency already has missed deadlines it set for itself to turn over the
material.

The State Department denied the AP's requests, and rejected the AP's
subsequent appeals, to release the records sought quickly under a provision
in the law reserved for journalists requesting federal records about
especially newsworthy topics.

In its requests, the AP cited the likely prospect of Clinton entering the
2016 race. The former first lady is widely considered the leading
Democratic contender hoping to succeed President Barack Obama. She has made
scores of recent high-profile speeches and public appearances.

On Wednesday, the conservative political advocacy group Citizens United
sued the State Department for failing to disclose flight records showing
who accompanied Clinton on overseas trips.

Citizens United, which in 2009 mounted a legal battle that led to the
landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning campaign finance limits,
said the department unlawfully was withholding the records it sought nearly
five months ago.

The State Department is among the U.S. government's worst-performing
federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. There is no direct
evidence that political considerations in a Democratic presidential
administration have delayed the release of files about the party's leading
contender for 2016. But the agency's delays, unusual even by government
standards, have stoked perceptions about what could be taking so long.

"There may not necessarily be political interference, but if the department
went out of its way to speed these documents there would be no way for
people to accuse them of it," said Thomas Blanton, who has previously sued
the State Department for access to records as director of George Washington
University's National Security Archive, a research organization.

The department "is stonewalling us," said Citizen United's president, David
Bossie. He asserted that "these decisions are being made with Hillary
Clinton's intentions at heart," but acknowledged he could provide no
evidence of political interference.

Bossie, a former Republican congressional investigator who researched
figures in the Clinton administration, said his group's film unit wants the
records for a sequel to its documentary about Clinton, which spurred the
Citizens United court decision.

The group first asked Air Force officials for passenger lists from
Clinton's overseas trips but was told all flight records were under the
State Department's control. "These were Air Force flights and crews but
State has the records?" he said, adding that his group has submitted 15
Clinton-related requests in the past six months.

The AP's requests go further back.

The AP requested copies of Clinton's full schedules and calendars from her
four years as secretary of state; her department's decision to grant a
special position for longtime aide Huma Abedin; Clinton's and the agency's
roles in the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance
practices; and her role overseeing a major Defense Department contractor.
The AP made most of its requests last summer, although one was filed in
March 2010.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach cited the department's heavy annual
load of FOIA requests - 19,000 last year - in saying that the department
"does its best to meet its FOIA responsibilities." He said the department
takes requests "first in, first out," but noted that timing depends on "the
complexity of the request." He declined to comment on Citizen United's suit.

In a previous communication, a State Department official apologized for its
own delays responding to AP's records requests without offering any
explanation for the delays.

"We sincerely regret the delay," said Lela H. Ross of the Office of
Information Programs and Services, which administers the agency's requests.
The official did not explain the delays but cited the agency's "complex and
lengthy administrative FOIA process."

Last May, the State Department told the AP that its search for records
pertaining to Clinton and the defense contractor would be completed by
August. The agency said it now expects the files to be available later this
month. Similarly, the agency said the Clinton and Abedin records would
likely be completed in September. Now it says it will not finish until next
April. The 4-year-old FOIA request still has no estimated completion date.

The agency's pace responding to requests for Clinton-related files has
frustrated news organizations, archivists and political groups trying to
research her role at the State Department in the months before Clinton
decides whether to formally enter the 2016 race.

At stake is the public's access to thousands of documents that could help
understand and define her activities as the nation's chief diplomat under
Obama.

Other major document repositories have released thousands of pages of files
about Clinton's private and public life.

Since February, lots of previously restricted records from her years as
first lady to President Bill Clinton have been made public by the Clinton
Presidential Library. Last month, the University of Virginia's Miller
Center presidential oral history collection unveiled dozens of interviews
with key players from the Clinton White House.

The State Department generally takes about 450 days to turn over records it
considers to be part of complex requests under the Freedom of Information
Act. That is seven times longer than the Justice Department and CIA, and 30
times longer than the Treasury Department.

An inspector general's report in 2012 criticized the State Department's
practices as "inefficient and ineffective," citing a heavy workload, small
staff and interagency problems. A study in March by the nonpartisan Center
for Effective Government said the State Department was the worst-performing
agency because of its delays and frequent failure to deliver the full
number of files that people requested.

*Wall Street Journal opinion: Karl Rove: “Why Does Hillary Want to Be
President, Anyway?”
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/karl-rove-why-does-hillary-want-to-be-president-anyway-1418258533?mod=trending_now_5>*

By Karl Rove

December 10, 2014, 7:42 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] So far it looks like Mrs. Clinton would have at least as many
problems in 2016 as she did in 2008.

There have generally been two reactions to former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton ’s Dec. 3 statement at Georgetown University that America
should try to “empathize” with our nation’s “enemies.”

One camp holds that Mrs. Clinton simply chose the wrong word to express a
banal thought—that the U.S. must understand its enemies. The other camp
says her State Department record demonstrates she herself lacks the empathy
to know how to deal with America’s adversaries or allies.

Both responses are true, yet I have another observation about her speech:
It is further evidence Mrs. Clinton is at best a mediocre presidential
candidate. She was lackluster in 2008 and worse today. The stiff,
off-putting style is familiar. What’s more surprising is how sloppy,
ill-prepared and tone-deaf she has become.

If Mrs. Clinton intended to say we must understand our adversaries—their
motivations, methods and goals—she should have said so. If her
speechwriter’s draft was unclear, she should have ordered a rewrite. If she
can’t summon warmth and wit now, how will she display a winning personality
in her umpteenth hundred event, assuming she becomes a candidate?

The empathy quote was memorialized on video. It may come back to haunt her:
Sounding like President Obama on foreign policy isn’t going to help her win
in 2016, when the world is likely to be more chaotic and American interests
even more threatened.

This is not Mrs. Clinton’s first political misstep this year. There was her
early summer book tour where she explained she and her husband were “dead
broke” when they left the White House, nearly unable to afford their
“houses,” and then went off on an NPR reporter who was trying to help her
explain away her former opposition to gay marriage.

Campaigning for Democrats in the midterms was no better. On Oct. 24 in
Boston, she uttered the inanity, “Don’t let anybody tell you that, you
know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” By the way, there
are few grateful Democrats whose campaigns she helped since almost all of
them lost.

After the election, more mistakes. At a Nov. 21 black-tie gala in New York,
Mrs. Clinton endorsed Mr. Obama’s executive order on immigration by
suggesting the events’ servers and food preparers were in the country
illegally, as were most construction workers.

Reporters have largely overlooked Mrs. Clinton’s blunders, but it is not
inconceivable that at least some of them may start holding her accountable
to the standard they apply to gaffes uttered by Republican hopefuls.

Meanwhile, Hillary’s operation promises to be entertaining. There have been
news reports of infighting among her proto-campaign high command (never a
good sign) that included the leak of emails thought to be embarrassing to
an aspirant for campaign manager (never a good precedent).

Most telling—and damaging—she still has no core message. This is 22 months
following her resignation as secretary of state. She suggested to Charlie
Rose on July 17 that she might focus on what to do “to tackle growth, which
is the handmaiden of inequality.” That sounds less like a message than a
tactic to placate the Democratic Party’s populist Occupy Wall Street wing
with a pale imitation of Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Even her husband frets she doesn’t have a message. Former President Clinton
recently told CNN that “we’ve reached a point in our life when we think you
really shouldn’t run for office if you don’t have a clear idea of what you
can do and a unique contribution you can make and you can outline that. Now
that the book is done, she wants time to think about that and work through
it. I think so much of politics is background noise, and we don’t need the
background noise anymore.”

The next presidential election is in 23 months. But no amount of time is
likely to be enough for Mrs. Clinton to make herself a much better
candidate. She is who she is and cannot change. In 2008 she could not
articulate a compelling purpose for her run and stressed only her
inevitability and entitlement. So far, it looks like Hillary 2.0 will have
at least as many problems as Hillary 1.0.

It’s hard for a political party to win three consecutive terms in the Oval
Office. Since 1952, only George H.W. Bush was able to do it for his party
after Ronald Reagan ’s two terms. Unfortunately for Democrats, Mr. Obama is
no Reagan—and as they may soon find out, Hillary is no Bush 41.

*MSNBC: “Ted Cruz rips ‘Obama-Clinton’ foreign policy in 2016 preview”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-rips-obama-clinton-foreign-policy-2016-preview>*

By Benjy Sarlin

December 10, 2014, 6:35 p.m. EST

In a potential preview of the 2016 presidential contest, Senator Ted Cruz
lit into the “Obama-Clinton foreign policy” in a speech before the
conservative Heritage Foundation on Wednesday.

“Today, the consequences of the Obama-Ciinton foreign policy is that our
friends no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us,” Cruz said.

In closing his remarks, Cruz added that he was “hopeful and optimistic that
two years form now we will see a very different president whose word can be
trusted by friend and foe alike.”

Cruz and former Hillary Clinton are both considered potential, perhaps
probable, presidential candidates in 2016. The latter’s time as secretary
of state under President Obama would play a central role in her campaign,
for good or ill, making Cruz’s remarks a good indicator of how he and other
Republican candidates might take her on.

The senator suggested Obama and Clinton had too much “empathy” to
effectively confront the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) even as the
president, with Clinton’s support, oversees a campaign of airstrikes to
destroy the group.

“In the Obama-Clinton foreign policy all members of the international
community are equal, be they nations or not, and should be dealt with
respectfully and with empathy,” he said. “Let me be very clear: When it
comes to radical Islamic terrorists who are crucifying Christians, who are
beheading children, what our foreign policy needs is not additional
empathy. It needs clarity and force and resolve to defend the United States
of America.”

Cruz devoted the most attention to the administration’s handling of Russia
and Iran, mocking Clinton for declaring a “reset” in relations with Russian
leader Vladimir Putin. He called on the administration to provide arms to
Ukraine to battle Russian-backed separatists, withdraw from the START
missile treaty with Russia the Senate ratified in 2012, and install new
missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.

Russia’s economy is currently backsliding into recession thanks to weak oil
prices and a suite of international sanctions organized by Obama. Cruz
waved away the administration’s efforts to punish Putin with only a passing
mention, saying they “had no discernable effect.”

He accused the administration of playing into Iran’s hands by engaging in
negotiations over its nuclear program, instead proposing instituting new
sanctions attached to a demand that the country dismantle any semblance of
a nuclear program unilaterally.

“Here’s a hint: if a nation calls you the Great Satan, it ain’t good,” he
said.

Cruz tied the Iran sanctions to reports in the Israeli press, recently
dismissed by the State Department as “unfounded,” that the United States
was considering sanctions against Israel over its announcement of new
settlements in Palestinian territories.

“It’s difficult to imagine a more stunning indictment of the Obama/Clinton
foreign policy than the notion that they might believe we should be
sanctioning the nation of Israel and lifting sanctions on the nation of
Iran,” he said.

In a Q&A with audience members afterwards, Cruz also weighed in on the
recent bombshell report by the Senate Intelligence Committee that accused
the CIA of engaging in, and covering up, a widespread program of torture
against detainees. Cruz said torture is “wrong, unambiguously” and Congress
was right to ban the practice, but accused the Democratic Senators behind
the report of harming America’s image abroad by releasing it.

“It endangered Americans across the globe and the risk of retaliation, of
violence is real,” he said. “But even more broadly it demonstrates an
approach that has characterized this administration for six years, which is
that everything everything everything is George W. Bush’s fault.”

*Politico: “Poll: Clinton leads among wealthy voters”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/poll-hillary-clinton-support-millionaires-113471.html?hp=l5_4>*

By Kendall Breitman

December 10, 2014, 1:39 p.m. EST

Millionaires are ready for Hillary.

In a CNBC survey of the wealthy released on Wednesday, 31 percent of those
with assets of $1 million or more said that they would vote for former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. Former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush came in second place with 18 percent, followed by New Jersey
Gov. Chris Christie with 14 percent.

Thirty-eight percent of female millionaires support Clinton for president,
while 27 percent of males expressed support for the potential candidate.

Other potential contenders named in the survey included Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.), Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker.

Bush took the lead for support among Republican millionaires, gaining 36
percent of the support among the group. Democrats overwhelmingly support
Clinton, with 72 percent of Democratic millionaires supporting the former
secretary of state while Warren only gained the support of 14 percent.
Twenty-three percent of Independents also supported Clinton, while Christie
followed closely behind with 19 percent.

The poll also found that 74 percent of millionaires didn’t donate any money
to any candidate in 2014 and only about 4 percent donated amounts over
$1,000. Democrats reported giving more money to candidates than Republicans.

The CNBC poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

*People: “PEOPLE Magazine Rounds Up the 25 Most Intriguing People of 2014”
<http://www.people.com/article/people-magazine-year-end-2014-most-intriguing-people>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

December 10, 2014, 3:25 p.m. EST

Director, actress and mom-of-six Angelina Jolie may top PEOPLE magazine's
list of 25 most intriguing people – but she isn't the only newsmaker who
made headlines in 2014.

On the big screen, Reese Witherspoon, 38, turned books into blockbuster
hits (producing both Gone Girl and Wild) and Chris Pratt, 35, exploded into
stardom with summer's megahit Guardians of the Galaxy.

Meanwhile, Matthew McConaughey, 45, made a more than alright, alright,
alright comeback in his Oscar-winning role in Dallas Buyers Club – and
everyone's BFF Jennifer Lawrence, 24, continued her leading-lady status in
the high-grossing Hunger Games franchise.

And, of course, PEOPLE's Most Beautiful cover girl Lupita Nyong'o, 31,
effortlessly took the red carpet by storm during awards season – and took
home an Oscar for her emotional role in 12 Years a Slave to boot!

On the small screen, Orange Is the New Black's Laverne Cox, 30, made
history as the first openly transgender person to be nominated for an
acting Emmy.

TV titan Shonda Rhimes, 44, turned Thursday nights into ShondaLand, adding
How to Get Away with Murder to a lineup that already included longtime hit
Grey's Anatomy and Scandal. And 40-year-old Jimmy Fallon, who took over the
hosting duties on The Tonight Show, became the king of late night with his
post-prime time hilarity.

Behind the scenes, comedian and 30 Rock star Tracy Morgan, 46, is still
bravely fighting to recover from the injuries sustained in a car crash in
June.

And not-so-behind the scenes, hearts broke everywhere when London-based
attorney Amal Alamuddin, 36, took longtime bachelor George Clooney, 53, off
the market and became Mrs. Clooney during a glamorous September soirée.

PEOPLE also remembers beloved luminaries we lost in 2014, with friends and
family sharing memories. Among them: The great Maya Angelou, who died on
May 28 at the age of 86. Hillary Rodham Clinton paid tribute to the poet,
author and activist, telling PEOPLE: "We're a better country today because
of Maya Angelou. Our country's struggles, triumphs and progress over the
past century are written all over her life."

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Why Elizabeth Warren is liberals’ dream
2016 candidate, in 49 seconds”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/10/why-elizabeth-warren-is-liberals-dream-candidate-in-49-seconds/>*

By Chris Cillizza

December 10, 2014, 3:21 p.m. EST

In case you've been hiding under some coats this week, liberals are keyed
up on the idea of recruiting Elizabeth Warren to run for president in
2016.  Warren showed why in a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday,
protesting the inclusion of a measure that would loosen restriction on
derivative trading in a $1 trillion spending bill Congress is expected to
approve this week.

It's worth watching the entire speech -- it's less than eight minutes from
beginning to end -- but if you are either super busy or an easily
distracted millennial, pay particular attention to the first 49 seconds of
this clip.

Here's the key line:  "I come to the floor today to ask a fundamental
question -- who does Congress work for? Does it work for the millionaires,
the billionaires, the giant companies with their armies of lobbyists and
lawyers? Or does it work for all of us?"

Warren's anti-Wall Street, populist rhetoric, heavily focused on reducing
or eliminating income inequality, sits at the core of the Democratic base's
belief system at the moment. In a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll,
almost six in 10 Democrats (58 percent) agreed with the idea that economic
and political systems are stacked against them. As WSJ's Neil King notes,
that sense of a rigged system is far from a Democrats-only belief; "51
percent of Republicans; 55 percent of whites; 60 percent of blacks; 53
percent of Hispanics; as well as decent majorities of every age and
professional cluster, including blue-collar workers, white-collar workers
and retirees," all hold it, according to King.

But, the sense of not only a widening gap between haves and have-nots but
also a sort of a built-in institutional unfairness to it runs extremely
strong within the Democratic base. That goes double when the very likely
nominee for the party in 2016 is neither a) a populist or b) anti-Wall
Street.

Speeches like the one Warren gave Wednesday will just fuel chatter about
why she should challenge Hillary Rodham Clinton in two years. And she knows
it.

*The Hill opinion: Lanny Danny: “Why I am ready for Hillary”
<http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/226723-lanny-davis-why-i-am-ready-for-hillary>*

By Lanny Davis

December 10, 2014, 7:52 p.m. EST

Last week, on Dec. 4, I helped organize a Ready for Hillary fundraiser in
Montgomery County, Md., in the immediate suburbs of Washington, D.C. The
organization, an independent grassroots committee, has been at work for the
past year gathering millions of names and small donations in support of
Hillary Rodham Clinton for president — that is, just in case she decides to
run in 2016.

When I began working on this event, I was not sure many prominent statewide
or local elected officials would be willing to sign up on the invitation as
members of the host committee, especially because the outgoing Maryland
governor, Martin O’Malley, has made it apparent that he is running for
president.

But what happened surprised me. Many of the major Maryland statewide
elected officials signed up, including the attorney general, state
treasurer and state Senate president. Early in the week at a Baltimore
event, so did Maryland’s two popular U.S. senators: Barbara Mikulski and
Benjamin Cardin. In Montgomery County, also leading the host committee were
the current popular and recently reelected African-American county
executive, Ike Leggett; the revered former county executive Sidney Kramer;
and six out of seven members of the county council, including the incoming
council president.

The guest of honor was the congressman representing the location of the
fundraiser (Potomac), Rep. John Delaney. The congressman offered three
facts about Clinton — the reasons she should be our next president.

First, Clinton’s record and vision for America’s future focuses on economic
growth and job creation — and, particularly, on addressing economic
challenges still faced today among the working poor and the broad middle
class across the nation.

Second, she is a progressive Democrat who knows how to work with the
private sector and with Republicans to find solutions. This is what she did
again and again, Delaney pointed out, when she served in the Senate from
2001 to 2009.

And third, she is by far the most qualified of all potential candidates,
Democratic or Republican. No one has Clinton’s combination of years in
public service and experience at the state and federal levels, combined
with her international and national security/anti-terrorism experience
during four years of able service as secretary of State. In a dangerous
world, she implemented her “smart power” approach: avoiding over-reliance
on U.S. military intervention and, rather, using the “soft power” of
America’s economic strength, trade and human rights and democratic values.

I would add a fourth attribute of Clinton that may be, in terms of
electability and ability to govern, most important of all: She is one of
the kindest, warmest, most empathetic and caring people in public life
today.

Some people don’t see these qualities in her. I have known Secretary
Clinton for more than 45 years. I know that in 2016 more and more people
will come to know her as she truly is.

Proof that this has already begun to happen can be found in her
consistently high ratings on personal characteristics in virtually every
poll in recent years. Just this past Monday, the respected Bloomberg
Politics poll, with a statistically large national voter sample, showed
Clinton with significant leads over every Republican presidential aspirant
on the four crucial personal / electability questions: Who “cares about
people like you?” Who “shares your values?” Who “has a vision for the
future?” And who is “a strong leader?”

Finally, there is the issue of gender. Do I believe that people should vote
for her solely because she is a woman? No. But should she be supported
because she is the most qualified candidate with a vision for the future of
America and the ability to get things done — and she is also a woman? Yes.

I have a daughter and two granddaughters. I want to give them a good answer
to the question they and many women and girls in America ask: How come
there have been women presidents and prime ministers in countries all over
the world but never once in America? Up to now, I have not had a good
answer.

Now I have one: With Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic Party nominee
in 2016, it’s time. And it will happen.

*Calendar:*

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

·  December 15 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton discusses closing gender data
gaps with Michael Bloomberg (AP
<https://twitter.com/KThomasDC/status/542345675493892096>)

·  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>
)

·  March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes  American Camp
Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>)