Subject: ​Correct The Record Wednesday December 17, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 08:07:42 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday December 17, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*New York Times: “U.S. Should Shun Torture, Clinton Says in New York”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/us/us-should-shun-torture-clinton-says-in-new-york.html?smid=tw-share>*

“Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday made an impassioned argument against the
use of torture in her first remarks about the issue since the Senate
Intelligence Committee released its scathing report last week about
interrogation tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency.”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton: Pass laws forbidding torture”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/hillary-clinton-pass-laws-forbidding-torture-113631.html>*

“Hillary Clinton on Tuesday heaped praise on the Obama administration for
banning ‘brutal interrogations’ and called for legislative action – the
first comments from the former Secretary of State since the CIA torture
report was made public.”

*Associated Press: “Clinton denounces torture, says black lives matter”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/315de241654d45468a2af264a9e45d37/clinton-among-those-being-honored-kennedy-gala>*

“Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she's proud to have been part of an
administration that "banned illegal renditions and brutal interrogations"
and said the U.S. should never be involved in torture anywhere in the
world.”

*Bloomberg: “Al Franken is Ready for Hillary Clinton, Too”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-16/al-franken-is-ready-for-hillary-clinton-too>*

“The Hillary Clinton train just picked up another passenger. Senator Al
Franken said Tuesday that he is ‘ready for Hillary.’”

*Wall Street Journal: “Half Say They Would Back Clinton—and 48% Wouldn’t”
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/half-say-they-would-back-clintonand-48-wouldnt-1418792402>*

“Mrs. Clinton shows strengths that so far elude Republicans weighing 2016
White House bids—half of Americans say they could see voting for her.”

*Fox News: “Fox News Poll: Romney, Clinton lead potential 2016 presidential
pack”
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/17/fox-news-poll-romney-clinton-lead-potential-2016-presidential-pack/>*

“Former Massachusetts Gov. and 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney leads
the growing pack for the GOP presidential nomination, while former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remains far ahead among Democrats.
That’s according to a Fox News poll released Tuesday.”

*Media Matters For America: “Media Obsessed Over Hillary Clinton's Wealth,
Will They Do The Same For Jeb Bush?”
<http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/12/16/media-obsessed-over-hillary-clintons-wealth-wil/201901>*

“Media outlets have described Hillary Clinton's wealth and the speaking
fees she has earned as a ‘potentially serious political problem’ and a
‘potential political liability.’ Will they describe the financial dealings
of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush the same way now that he is exploring a
presidential run?”

*The New Republic: “Elizabeth Warren Is a Much Bigger Underdog Against
Hillary Than Obama Was in 2006”
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120580/2016-primary-hillary-clinton-has-huge-lead-over-elizabeth-warren>*

“These analyses all overstate the odds that Warren actually defeats
Clinton.”

*The Hill: “Chaffetz: Hillary could be called in as witness”
<http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/227348-rep-chaffetz-hillary-could-be-called-in-as-witness>*

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could be called as a witness to
a House Oversight Committee hearing next Congress, incoming Chairman Jason
Chaffetz (R-Utah) said on Tuesday.”

*MSNBC: “What would a Jeb Bush-Hillary Clinton matchup in 2016 look like?”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/what-would-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-matchup-2016-look>*

“Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced Tuesday that he will ‘actively
explore’ a presidential bid, potentially setting up a 2016 battle against
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband unseated Bush’s
father, George H.W. Bush, 22 years ago.”

*The Hill: “Lobbying Hillary”
<http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/227356-lobbying-hillary>*

“Pressure groups are making moves to bend Clinton’s ear in hopes of shaping
the policy platform she would use to run for the White House in 2016.”

*Washington Post: “O’Malley gathers with backers but makes no mention of
2016 White House plans”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/omalley-gathers-with-backers-but-makes-no-mention-of-2016-white-house-plans/2014/12/16/9d925eda-858f-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html>*

“Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) huddled in Annapolis on Tuesday with
more than 100 supporters from across the country but gave no indication of
whether he plans to move forward with a 2016 presidential bid, according to
several participants.”

*Articles:*

*New York Times: “U.S. Should Shun Torture, Clinton Says in New York”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/us/us-should-shun-torture-clinton-says-in-new-york.html?smid=tw-share>*

By Amy Chozick

December 16, 2014

Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday made an impassioned argument against the
use of torture in her first remarks about the issue since the Senate
Intelligence Committee released its scathing report last week about
interrogation tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Accepting the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award in New York, Mrs.
Clinton said she was “proud to have been a part of the Obama administration
that banned” some torture practices.

The nation “should not practice or condone torture anywhere in the world,”
she said. “That should be absolutely clear as a matter of both policy and
law.”

The Senate report has led to intense debate on brutal tactics and their
effectiveness in gleaning information from terrorism suspects, but few
potential 2016 presidential candidates have addressed the issue since the
report’s release.

Mrs. Clinton, as a former secretary of state, was under particular pressure
to comment. “It is possible to keep us safe from terrorism and reduce crime
and violence without relying on torture abroad or unnecessary force or
excessive incarceration at home,” she said.

She said that she supported Senator John McCain’s plea against torture and
that banning such practices “should not be an issue of partisan politics.”
New polls from CBS News, Pew Research Center and ABC News/Washington Post
show that, on balance, Americans think the C.I.A. was justified in its
interrogation of suspected terrorists after Sept. 11, 2001, and that the
techniques were successful.

Strong majorities of Republicans say torture was justified, but less than
half of Democrats agree. All three polls were conducted Dec. 11-14 and have
margins of sampling error ranging from plus or minus three to four
percentage points.

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton: Pass laws forbidding torture”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/hillary-clinton-pass-laws-forbidding-torture-113631.html>*

By Maggie Haberman

December 17, 2014, 12:22 a.m. EST

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday heaped praise on the Obama administration for
banning “brutal interrogations” and called for legislative action – the
first comments from the former Secretary of State since the CIA torture
report was made public.

In a speech before a well-heeled crowd honoring a liberal hero, Clinton
took a sharp swing at the George W. Bush era while appealing to her party’s
growing coalition of black and Hispanic voters, who propelled President
Barack Obama to the White House.

“There’s no doubt that at home and abroad America is at our best when our
actions match our values,” Clinton said as she was honored at the Robert F.
Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights gala in Midtown Manhattan.

“Yes the threat of terrorism is real and urgent - scores of children were
just murdered in Pakistan. Beheadings in the Middle East. A siege in
Sydney. These tragedies not only break hearts but should steel our resolve
and underscore that our values are what set us apart from our adversaries.
I am proud to have been a part of the Obama administration that banned
illegal renditions and brutal interrogations.

“Today we can say again, in a loud and clear voice, the United States
should never condone and practice torture anywhere in the world,” said
Clinton, adding that it should be reflected in “both policy and law … if
that requires new legislation, then Congress should work with President
Obama to quickly enact it and it should not be an issue of partisan
politics.”

In her speech, in which she repeatedly invoked Kennedy, the slain civil
rights icon, she referred repeatedly to the protests over the deaths of two
black men at the hands of police.

“We can stand up together and say yes, black lives matter,” said Clinton, a
reference to the slogan used by protesters nationally in the wake of the
deaths of unarmed black men in Staten Island and Ferguson, Missouri.

But she made only a glancing reference to the legislative fight in her own
party led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) last week over the so-called
“cromnibus” bill and a provision stripping some power from the Dodd-Frank
financial reform bill. Warren is being urged by some progressives to
challenge Clinton if she seeks the 2016 Democratic nomination.

Instead of speaking in strictly economic terms, Clinton talked more broadly
about championing the have-nots in the United States’ racial and financial
divide. That message, and her deference to Kennedy, a revered liberal
figure, could appeal to her party’s base, which increasingly comprises
black and Hispanic voters.

Still, Clinton strongly denounced torture methods employed during the
George W. Bush era against possible terror suspects on the same day the
former president’s brother, Jeb Bush, edged ever closer to a presidential
run of his own. It made clear the early contours of a policy debate that
would in part pit the second Bush White House years against the Bill
Clinton era. Jeb Bush has not yet publicly commented on the torture report.

She quoted Sen. John McCain, one of her Republican opponents in 2008 and a
war hero who was tortured while captive, in denouncing the use of such
practices.

She said the United States needs to keep the country safe and “reaffirm”
the “strength of its character … without relying on torture abroad or
unnecessary force or excessive incarceration at home.”

Kennedy “understood everyone in every community benefited when there is
respect for the law and when everyone in every community is respected by
the law.”

Clinton spoke at length about racial disparities in the post-Kennedy era.

She said that she wonders what Kennedy would think “when 16 million
children live in poverty in the richest nation on earth … [when] such a
large portion of economic gains have gone to such a small [group] …
progress we have made has not closed the wealth gap between black and
Hispanic families and white families, it’s actually grown wider.”

Clinton described the interconnection between economic disparities and
“gaps” in how blacks and Hispanics are treated versus whites, saying people
need to stand up and say “that inequality is not inevitable.”

Clinton, who was criticized by some for speaking out on the Ferguson and
Garner cases late in the process, cited statistics showing
“African-American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched
by police … a third of all black men face the prospect of prison (at some
point and black men are) 20 times more likely to be shot dead by a police
officer than a young white man.”

“What would Robert Kennedy say to the thousands [of people] marching in our
streets demanding justice for all … young people with their eyes open and
their hands up,” she said, later praising the hard-working officers who set
the model for good police work.

She said she too many people have shuddered at images of excessive police
force but “read reports about torture done in the name of our country [and]
see too many representatives in Washington quick to protect a big bank from
regulation, but slow to take action to help working families facing ever
greater pressures.”

Of Kennedy, she said, “I’d like to believe that he would remind us that in
America there have often been wide and tragic gaps between promise and
performance ideal and reality and that the calling of our country is to
extend and enlarge the meaning and the practice of freedom to all of our
people.”

She said that remnants of segregation and discrimination don’t need to be
“perpetuated,” and that even though “some of the economic disparities may
stem from long-term trends in globalization … we don’t have to give in to
them … the choices we make matter.”

“I believe Robert Kennedy would be telling us to restore a sense of
security and potential to families struggling and worrying,” she added.

Americans, she said, “are understandably frustrated by all the division and
polarization … it’s easy to get discouraged; it’s also easy to get angry to
lose sight of the common” humanity.

In words that could apply to what voters are looking for from both Clinton
and Bush, the former Secretary of State said, “Robert Kennedy was the
privileged heir to a famous name yet that never stopped him from finding
the humanity in everyone … he had the great gift of seeing the world
through [other people’s] eyes, imagining what it was like to walk in their
shoes.”

The event also honored actor Robert De Niro and singer Tony Bennett.
Clinton sat with them at a head table alongside Ethel Kennedy, Robert
Kennedy’s widow.

Throughout the evening, people made references to Clinton potentially
running for president, from De Niro to Kerry Kennedy, Robert Kennedy’s
daughter.

During a break for dinner, the crowd looking to squeeze Clinton’s hand or
take selfies with her swelled so large that a Hilton hotel staffer came
over the intercom and said the Secret Service had asked people to clear the
aisle around the head tabel.

*Associated Press: “Clinton denounces torture, says black lives matter”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/315de241654d45468a2af264a9e45d37/clinton-among-those-being-honored-kennedy-gala>*

By Jill Colvin

December 17, 2014, 2:50 a.m. EST

NEW YORK (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she's proud to have
been part of an administration that "banned illegal renditions and brutal
interrogations" and said the U.S. should never be involved in torture
anywhere in the world.

Clinton spoke about the importance of the nation acting in accordance with
its values after receiving an award from The Robert F. Kennedy Center for
Justice & Human Rights at a gala in New York.

"Today we can say again in a loud and clear voice that the United States
should never condone or practice torture anywhere in the world," Clinton
told the audience. "That should be absolutely clear as a matter of both
policy and law, including our international treaty obligations."

The remarks marked Clinton's first on the subject since the release of a
Senate report last week investigating the CIA's interrogation techniques
after 9/11. The report has sparked questions about the appropriate use of
force in the war against terrorism.

Clinton said that recent world events, including the mass murder of
children in Pakistan and the siege in Sydney, Australia, "should steel our
resolve and underscore that our values are what set us apart from our
adversaries."

Clinton said Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1968, would agree that it's
"possible to keep us safe from terrorism and reduce crime and violence
without relying on torture abroad or unnecessary force or excessive
incarceration at home."

Clinton, a former first lady, New York senator and U.S. Secretary of State,
is considering another run for president and is viewed as the likely
Democratic nominee if she runs. She was honored at the Kennedy
organization's star-studded Ripple of Hope Award ceremony.

Clinton also addressed the recent protests that have raged across the
country, and drew links between violence at home and abroad.

She declared, "yes, black lives matter," a mantra of demonstrators around
the country who have been protesting recent grand jury decisions not to
indict white police officers involved in the deaths of unarmed black men in
Ferguson, Missouri, and in New York.

She wondered what Kennedy would say about "the thousands of Americans
marching in our streets demanding justice for all," and "the mothers who've
lost their sons."

"What would he say to all those who have lost trust in our government and
our other institutions, who shudder at images of excessive force, who read
reports about torture done in the name of our country, who see too many
representatives in Washington quick to protect a big bank from regulation
but slow to take action to help working families facing ever greater
pressure," Clinton said.

Entertainers Robert De Niro and Tony Bennett and Physicians Interactive
Chairman Donato Tramuto also were honored.

The nonprofit says the award is meant to laud business leaders,
entertainers and activists who demonstrate commitment to social change and
"reflect Robert Kennedy's passion for equality, justice, basic human
rights, and his belief that we all must strive to 'make gentle the life of
this world.'"

*Bloomberg: “Al Franken is Ready for Hillary Clinton, Too”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-16/al-franken-is-ready-for-hillary-clinton-too>*

By David Knowles

December 16, 2014, 3:30 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The Minnesota senator joins several colleagues who support
Clinton, even though she hasn't formally announced her campaign.

The Hillary Clinton train just picked up another passenger. Senator Al
Franken said Tuesday that he is "ready for Hillary."

In an interview on MSNBC's "The Cycle," Franken explained why he was
publicly backing Clinton over progressive favorite Elizabeth Warren.

"I think that I'm ready for Hillary," Franken said. "I mean, I think that
we've not had someone this experienced, this tough, and she's very, very
impressive. People have asked me about Elizabeth Warren. She is great, but
she's not running. She says she's not running. So I don't—I think Hillary
would be great."

Franken, who was joined by both Clinton and Warren on the campaign trail
this year, joins more than 60 members of Congress who have pledged their
support to Clinton. Among the Senate Democrats that have taken sides, even
though Clinton herself has not formally declared she is running for
president, are California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein,
Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand,
and, yes, Senator Warren, the Hill reports.

Of course, the thing about prospective endorsements of candidates yet to
actually hop into the race is that they are subject to revision.  "I think,
I certainly feel I haven't announced that I'm supporting her, but does this
count? I guess, maybe this counts," Franken said of his support for Clinton.

With every big-name Democrat who voices support for a Clinton candidacy,
Warren's prospects for an unlikely presidential run seem that much more
unlikely.

*Wall Street Journal: “Half Say They Would Back Clinton—and 48% Wouldn’t”
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/half-say-they-would-back-clintonand-48-wouldnt-1418792402>*

By Reid J. Epstein

December 17, 2014, 12:00 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Potential Republican Contenders for White House Also Face
Skepticism

Hillary Clinton faces a major challenge ahead of her potential presidential
campaign: 48% of Americans say they couldn’t see voting for her, a new Wall
Street Journal/NBC News poll found.

At the same time, Mrs. Clinton shows strengths that so far elude
Republicans weighing 2016 White House bids—half of Americans say they could
see voting for her. Asked whether they could support any of nine potential
GOP candidates, no Republican drew backing from more than one-third of
voters.

Mitt Romney , who has twice sought the White House and was the GOP’s 2012
nominee, carries the strongest numbers within the party. Some 63% of
Republican voters would consider voting for him—more than the 55% for Jeb
Bush, 47% for Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), and 47% for former Arkansas Gov.
Mike Huckabee .

Mr. Bush—who said Tuesday he would actively explore a presidential
campaign—drew tepid marks from voters overall, with 57% saying they
couldn’t see backing him while 31% saying they could. Among GOP voters, 34%
said they couldn’t support him to the 55% who could.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie , Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Texas Gov.
Rick Perry all scored between 35% and 40% potential support among
Republican voters. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was at 34%, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker notched 29% of GOP backing.

Notably, several of those potential GOP candidates drew more negative than
positive responses among Republican voters.

Asked about Mr. Christie, some 40% of Republicans said they could see
themselves supporting his candidacy, while 43% said they couldn’t. For Mr.
Perry, the numbers were 35% saying they could back a candidacy and 39%
saying they couldn’t.

Mrs. Clinton remains the clear Democratic front-runner. Despite a small
band of liberal activists clamoring for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.)
as a potential challenger, 82% of Democratic voters surveyed said they
could see themselves voting for Mrs. Clinton, compared with 37% for Ms.
Warren.

Pollsters said that for potential candidates other than Mrs. Clinton, a
fixture in public life for two decades, the “yes’’ number was more
important than the share saying “no’’ at this point in the contest.

“A year from now we’re going to see a lot of Republican candidates that
will be doing much better,” said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster who
helped conduct the survey. “People are using ‘no’ as a place holder rather
than necessarily as a verdict.”

Mr. Romney has said he won’t mount a third presidential campaign in 2016,
but some of his former aides and advisers are touting him.

The split between the Republican Party’s conservative and moderate wings is
starkest in Mr. Cruz’s numbers. Among tea-party supporters, 61% said they
could back the first-term senator for president. Only 23% of Republicans
who don’t identify with the tea party said they could support him.

Ms. Warren, who hasn’t ruled out a campaign and has liberal groups pouring
resources into an effort to draft her into the race, still isn’t known by
wide swaths of the electorate. One-third of all Democrats said they don’t
know her name. Just 37% of Democrats younger than 45 said they would
consider backing her. Of nonwhite Democrats, the number fell to 30%.

Meanwhile Mrs. Clinton’s grip on the Democratic electorate, for now,
appeared tight. Among every segment of Democratic primary voters, at least
84% said they would consider supporting her. Only Mr. Romney managed at
least 70% of any GOP demographic group.

*Fox News: “Fox News Poll: Romney, Clinton lead potential 2016 presidential
pack”
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/17/fox-news-poll-romney-clinton-lead-potential-2016-presidential-pack/>*

By Dana Blanton

December 17, 2014

Former Massachusetts Gov. and 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney leads the
growing pack for the GOP presidential nomination, while former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton remains far ahead among Democrats.

That’s according to a Fox News poll released Tuesday.

Romney dominates the field for the 2016 Republican nomination. He comes in
at 19 percent among self-identified Republicans, followed by former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush at 10 percent. No other candidates garner double-digit
backing.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul each receive eight percent. Next, Wisconsin Gov.
Scott Walker captures seven percent, followed by retired neurosurgeon Ben
Carson and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan each at six percent and Texas Sen. Ted
Cruz at five percent.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (four percent), Ohio Gov. John Kasich (two
percent), Texas Gov. Rick Perry (two percent), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
(one percent) and former Penn. Sen. Rick Santorum (one percent) each
receive the backing of less than five percent of Republicans.

This is the first time that Fox News has included Romney, Huckabee and
Carson in its 2016 national GOP primary ballot test.

"Rumors about Romney running again are likely to get a further boost with
these numbers," says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox
News poll with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson.

Shaw adds, "With Romney and Bush running one and two among GOPers, you
wonder if John McCain or Bob Dole want to get in on the action."

Voters who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement are most
likely to back Paul (13 percent), Cruz (12 percent), Romney (11 percent)
and Carson (10 percent).

The top choices among white evangelical Christians include Romney (14
percent), Paul (10 percent), Bush (9 percent) and Carson (9 percent).

On the Democratic side, Clinton is still 50 points ahead of her nearest
rival -- even though support for her is down somewhat from previous polls.
Clinton receives the backing of 62 percent of self-identified Democrats.
That’s down from 64 percent in July and a high of 69 percent in April.

The support Clinton has lost since April appears to be going to
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who captures 12 percent. That’s up
from 9 percent in July -- and double the 6 percent she received in April.
Vice President Joe Biden comes in close behind at 10 percent. All other
possible Democratic candidates tested garner three percent or less.

"With the field of candidates still growing, the GOP primary holds
potential for an extended freewheeling contest,” says Anderson, “while the
Democrats continue to track toward an efficient yet boring primary season."

“At the same time,” Anderson adds, “I remember Clinton looking somewhat
inevitable eight years ago too.”

Clinton led the Democratic primary pack with 33 percent to Barack Obama’s
12 percent and Al Gore’s 11 percent in a December 2006 Fox News poll.

Reminder to readers: the Iowa precinct caucuses are (some say “still,”
while others say “only”) about a year away.

The new poll finds that if the 2016 general election “were held today,”
Clinton would top Paul by 11 points, Christie by 12 and Kasich by 16.

Bush is the only GOP candidate tested in the hypothetical matchups to keep
Clinton under 50 percent -- and to keep her advantage under double digits.
She leads him by just 7 points in a head-to-head matchup (49-42 percent),
which makes this the best Bush has performed against Clinton so far.
Clinton was up by 13 points in March (51-38 percent).

Independents split their support, 41 percent for Clinton and 38 percent for
Bush.

"One thing about Clinton that stands out is that despite a book, a world
tour, numerous controversies and several distinctly different possible
opponents, her support hasn't changed much over the past two years -- and
doesn't depend much on who the Republican is,” adds Shaw. “Right now,
Clinton is the defining feature of the 2016 race."

People think -- if they were to run -- that Clinton and Bush are more
likely to be helped (41 percent) than hurt (30 percent) by being related to
previous presidents. Another 16 percent say it’s a mixed bag and 2 percent
volunteer that it depends on if they run against each other.

Bush announced Tuesday that he “will actively explore the possibility of
running” for president.

While there’s no gender gap, Democrats (50 percent) are more likely than
Republicans (37 percent) and independents (32 percent) to say the
Clinton-Bush candidacies would be helped by their family connections.

What about Clinton’s role in Benghazi? Most people -- 63 percent -- say if
she runs it won’t make a difference to their vote that Clinton was the head
of the State Department when the U.S. consulate there was attacked and four
Americans died. Among those saying it matters, by a 29-6 percent margin
they say Benghazi would make them less likely to vote for her.

Almost all Democrats, fully 86 percent, say the Benghazi attacks won’t
matter to their vote if Clinton runs. For independents, 55 percent say it
won’t make a difference, while 36 percent say it would make them less
likely to support her.

Among veterans and those currently serving in the military, 56 percent say
Benghazi won’t matter, while for 40 percent it would hurt Clinton’s chances
of getting their vote.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,043
randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the
joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company
Research (R) from December 7-9, 2014. The full poll has a margin of
sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The results among
Democrats and Republicans have an error of plus or minus five points.

*Media Matters For America: “Media Obsessed Over Hillary Clinton's Wealth,
Will They Do The Same For Jeb Bush?”
<http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/12/16/media-obsessed-over-hillary-clintons-wealth-wil/201901>*

By Oliver Willis

December 16, 2014

*Media outlets have described Hillary Clinton's wealth and the speaking
fees she has earned as a "potentially serious political problem" and a
"potential political liability." Will they describe the financial dealings
of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush the same way now that he is exploring a
presidential run? And will they do in-depth reporting on the controversial
business deals Bush has been involved in?*

*Jeb Bush Announces Plan To "Explore" Whether He Should Run For President*

*Bush: "I Have Decided To Actively Explore The Possibility Of Running For
President."* On December 16, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush announced he
would "actively explore the possibility of running for president of the
United States" and revealed plans to establish "a Leadership PAC" for that
purpose. [ABCNews.com,*12/16/14*
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeb-bush-actively-explore-possibility-running-president/story?id=27633330>
]

*Media Have Repeatedly Portrayed Hillary Clinton's Wealth And Speaking Fees
Described As Possible Liability*

*Washington Post: Clinton Wealth Is "A Potentially Serious Political
Problem."* In a June 22 news story,*The* *Washington Post* reported, "On
her current book tour, the former secretary of state has traveled the
country by private jet as she has for many of her speaking engagements
since stepping down as secretary of state last year," adding, "Her fee is
said to be upwards of $200,000 per speech." The *Post* speculated that
"Such scenes reveal a potentially serious political problem for Clinton as
she considers a 2016 presidential run: She and her husband are established
members of the 1 percent, leading lives far removed from the millions of
middle-class voters who swing elections." [*Washington Post*, *6/22/14*
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-democrats-fear-clintons-wealth-and-imperial-image-could-be-damaging-in-2016/2014/06/22/526746e6-f7eb-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html>
]

*Washington Post: Clinton Wealth "Now Seen As A Potential Political
Liability." *In a June 26 news story, *The* *Washington Post* reported that
President Clinton "has delivered hundreds of paid speeches," taking the
Clinton family "to a point of such extraordinary wealth that it is now seen
as a potential political liability if [Hillary Clinton] runs for president
in 2016." [*Washington Post*, *6/26/14*
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-clintons-went-from-dead-broke-to-rich-bill-earned-1049-million-for-speeches/2014/06/26/8fa0b372-fd3a-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html>
]

*Washington Post's Marcus: Clinton Has "A Money Problem.*" *Washington
Post* columnist
Ruth Marcus wrote in a June 27 column that Hillary Clinton has "two money
problems," arguing that "The first is how you talk about it. The second is
how you collect it -- or, to be more precise, the fact that you're still
frenetically collecting it." [*Washington Post*, *6/27/14*
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-hillary-clintons-money-woes/2014/06/27/54587598-fe2f-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html>
]

*NBC's Todd: Ex-Presidents Make Money Like This, Not Candidates Before They
Run." *In a July 17 appearance on MSNBC's *Morning Joe*, Chuck Todd stated
of Clinton, "All of this book tour; all of these decisions to go out and
basically make your post-presidential money before you run for--before you
actually are president? Which is really what's going [on]. Ex-presidents
make money like this, not candidates before they run." [MSNBC, *Morning Joe*
, *7/17/14*
<http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2014/07/aristotles-error-morning-joe-moves.html>
via
The Daily Howler]

*Bloomberg News: Clinton Earnings "At Odds With" Party Focus On Income
Inequality. *In a July 21 article, Bloomberg News reported: "Hillary
Clinton has earned at least $12 million in 16 months since leaving the
State Department, a windfall at odds with her party's call to shrink the
gap between the rich and the poor." [Bloomberg News, *7/21/14*
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-21/clinton-earns-12-million-speaking-writing-after-service.html>
]

*Washington Post's Cillizza: Clinton "Still Hasn't Found A Good Answer To
Questions About Her Wealth."* In a July 29 blog post anchored by a video
clip provided by the pro-Republican America Rising PAC, *The Washington
Post*'s Chris Cillizza wrote a post headlined, "Hillary Clinton still
hasn't found a good answer to questions about her wealth." Cillizza
concluded, "Until she finds three sentences (or so) to button up any/all
questions about her wealth, those questions will keep coming. And that's
not the way Clinton wants to run-up to her now all-but-certain presidential
bid." [*Washington Post*, *7/29/14*
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/29/hillary-clinton-still-hasnt-found-a-good-answer-to-questions-about-her-wealth/>
]

*Jeb Bush Earned Millions In Speaking Fees, "Unapologetic" About
"Expand[ing] Wealth"*

*Bush Earns "Around $50,000" Per Speech, Has Generated Millions Since
Leaving Office.* The *New York Times* reported on April 20 that Bush's
corporate speech-making "appears to have generated millions" since he left
office and that he "commands about $50,000 for his speeches, delivering
more than 100 since 2007." [*New York Times*, *4/20/2014*
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/politics/jeb-bushs-rush-to-make-money-may-be-hurdle.html>
]

*Bush Opposed Affordable Care Act, Was Paid $2 Million By Company That
Supported It.* Bush opposed the Affordable Care Act, calling it "flawed to
its core," but the *New York Times* reported on April 20 that he "has
earned more than $2 million for sitting on the board a company, Tenet
Health Care, that has loudly endorsed the legislation." [*New York Times*,
*4/20/2014*
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/politics/jeb-bushs-rush-to-make-money-may-be-hurdle.html>
]

*Bush Oversees Private Equity Funds Worth Millions.* Bloomberg reported on
December 11 that Bush is the chairman of several private equity funds:

“Documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
27 list Bush as chairman and manager of a new offshore private equity fund,
BH Global Aviation, which raised $61 million in September, largely from
foreign investors. In November the fund incorporated in the United Kingdom
and Wales--a structure, several independent finance lawyers say, that
operates like a tax haven by allowing overseas investors to avoid U.S.
taxes and regulations.

“BH Global Aviation is one of at least three such funds Bush has launched
in less than two years through his Coral Gables, Fla., company, Britton
Hill Holdings. He's also chairman of a $26 million fund, BH Logistics,
established in April with backing from a Chinese conglomerate, and a $40
million fund involved in shale oil exploration, according to documents
filed in June and first reported on by Bloomberg News.” [Bloomberg,
*12/11/14*
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-12-11/jeb-bush-has-a-mitt-romney-problem>
]

*Bush: "Unapologetic" About "Expand[ing] Wealth."* *The* *New York
Times* reported
that since leaving public office in 2007, Bush has made an "unapologetic
determination to expand his wealth, telling friends that his finances had
suffered during his time in government." [*New York Times*, *4/20/2014*
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/politics/jeb-bushs-rush-to-make-money-may-be-hurdle.html>
]

*Bush Earned "At Least $3.2 Million" Sitting On Corporate Boards.* The *New
York Times* reported that Bush earned "at least $3.2 million in board fees
and stock grants from publicly traded companies alone, records show." [*New
York Times*, *4/20/2014*
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/politics/jeb-bushs-rush-to-make-money-may-be-hurdle.html>
]

*Bush's Current Salary "Exceeds $1 Million A Year."* The *New York
Times* reported
that Bush's current salary from Barclays, where he works as an adviser,
"exceeds $1 million a year." [*New York Times*, *4/20/2014*
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/politics/jeb-bushs-rush-to-make-money-may-be-hurdle.html>
]

*Bush's Ties To Wall St Described As "Controversial"*

*Fox Business: Bush The "Only Major Candidate" With Direct Ties To Wall
Street.* Fox Business reported on April 9 that Bush is "only major
candidate who has a direct tie to a big Wall Street investment bank as a
paid advisor," a reference to Bush's employment by Lehman Brothers and
Barclays. [FoxBusiness.com, *4/9/14*
<http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2014/04/09/jeb-bush-ties-to-street-could-be-hurdle-in-presidential-run/>
]

*Bush "Participated In" Efforts "To Prop Up Lehman Brothers."* The *New
York Times* reported that Bush "participated in the fevered, last-ditch
efforts to prop up Lehman Brothers, a Wall Street bank weighed down by
toxic mortgage-backed securities." In his role as a paid adviser, Bush "met
with Carlos Slim Helú, a Mexican billionaire, as Lehman sought to persuade
Mr. Slim to make a sizable investment in the firm, emails show." [*New York
Times*, *4/20/2014*
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/politics/jeb-bushs-rush-to-make-money-may-be-hurdle.html>
]

*Bush Involved With Questionable Companies, Including One Engaged In Fraud*

*Bush Sued For Stock Manipulation After Serving On Board of Ideon Group.** The
St. Petersburg Times *reported on September 20, 1998, that Bush served on
the board of Ideon Group, a credit card fraud notification company. After
Bush and seven other directors "agreed to sell Ideon to CUC International,"
the company was sued "for stock manipulation and weak oversight." Those
suits were settled for $15 million. [*St. Petersburg Times*, *9/20/1998*
<http://www.sptimes.com/State/92098/Make_The_Money_and_Ru.html>]

*Bush Served On Board Of InnoVida, Whose Founder Pleaded Guilty To Fraud.*
 The *New York Times*reported that after leaving office in 2007, Bush was
hired as a paid consultant by InnoVida, later becoming a board member. He
was reportedly hired to "confer[] credibility on the young start-up."

It was later uncovered "that the leaders of InnoVida, a manufacturer of
inexpensive building materials, had faked documents, lied about the health
of the business and misappropriated $40 million in company funds." The
company "went bankrupt in 2011, its founder eventually went to jail and
investors lost nearly all of their money."

A lawyer who represented several of the company's investors argued that
members of InnoVida's board of directors "had exercised little meaningful
oversight of the company" in an interview with the *Times*. [*New York
Times*, *4/20/2014*
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/politics/jeb-bushs-rush-to-make-money-may-be-hurdle.html>
]

*Bush Served On Swisher Hygiene Board When Executives Said "Financial
Statements Were Unreliable" And Accounting Practices Were "Inadequate."* *The
New York Times* reported that "Mr. Bush sat on the board of Swisher
Hygiene, a soap maker, at a time when, its executives acknowledged, their
financial statements were unreliable and their accounting practices
inadequate. That admission contributed to a plunge in stock price that has
wiped out more than three-quarters of Swisher's value and touched off a
wave of shareholder lawsuits." [*New York Times*, *4/20/2014*
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/politics/jeb-bushs-rush-to-make-money-may-be-hurdle.html>
]

*The New Republic: “Elizabeth Warren Is a Much Bigger Underdog Against
Hillary Than Obama Was in 2006”
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120580/2016-primary-hillary-clinton-has-huge-lead-over-elizabeth-warren>*

By Danny Vinik

December 16, 2014

Warren-mentum is upon us. The Massachusetts senator still says that she is
not running for president but won’t say that she will not run. At the same
time, she has dominated the airwaves over the past two weeks with multiple
speeches excoriating Wall Street and criticizing the White House as too
close to the banks. That’s led many people—myself included—to argue that
the chances Warren runs for president are quickly rising.

In fact, some journalists have gone further and declared that Warren has a
legitimate shot at winning the Democratic nomination. “[I]t seems clear
that she has a significant and growing chance of being nominated,” David
Brooks writes in the New York Times Tuesday. Commentary’s Peter Wehner
agreed with Brooks’ analysis. “[O]ne can imagine that Warren’s anti-Wall
Street stand will be in 2016 what Barack Obama’s anti-Iraq war stand was in
2008–an issue that ignites a political fire that consumes Hillary Clinton,”
he writes. Others on the left have made similar comments.

These analyses all overstate the odds that Warren actually defeats Clinton.
To understand that, look at the polls from November 2006 through January
2007. In the 20 polls during that time, Clinton’s lead over then-senator
Barack Obama had already narrowed to an average of 16.1 percentage points.
There have been only four polls so far in November and December of this
year, but Clinton’s lead over Warren is an average of 49.3 percentage
points—three times larger now than in 2006.

That doesn’t mean she’s unbeatable, of course. And Brooks, Wehner and
others certainly wouldn’t call Warren the favorite. But it means that her
chances of winning the nomination are still exceedingly small. Until the
polling narrows—and it likely will—there’s no reason to think Warren has a
real shot at victory, no matter how much she dominates news headlines.

*The Hill: “Chaffetz: Hillary could be called in as witness”
<http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/227348-rep-chaffetz-hillary-could-be-called-in-as-witness>*

By Molly K. Hooper

December 16, 2014, 7:36 p.m. EST

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could be called as a witness to a
House Oversight Committee hearing next Congress, incoming Chairman Jason
Chaffetz (R-Utah) said on Tuesday.

Chaffetz promised his committee will look at the issue of embassy security
in the next Congress, and signaled he intends to put his focus on Clinton,
who is expected to be preparing for a White House bid next year.

He said Clinton “changed the way we do embassy security and how we build
the infrastructure there and she created a mess. It's a disaster!"

Asked if Clinton could be asked to testify, Chaffetz said: “I'm not going
to rule that out.”

Chaffetz did say he’d leave further investigation of the 2012 attack on the
U.S. compound in Benghazi to a special committee.

Chaffetz sat down with The Hill for an exclusive on camera interview
following a less formal roundtable with reporters in his new Capitol Hill
digs.

During the roundtable, Chaffetz announced a restructuring of subcommittees.

The new subcommittees will include panels on information technology, which
will be led by incoming freshman Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas); National
Defense, led by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.); Interior, led by Rep. Cynthia
Lummis (R-Wy.); Transportation and Public Assets, led by Rep. John Mica
(R-Fla.); Government Operations, led by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.); and
Health Care, Benefits and Administrative Rules, led by Rep. Jim Jordan
(R-Ohio).

Chaffetz also said he’d dismissed 60 percent of the staff that worked under
his predecessor Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who will no longer sit on the
panel.

Here’s a look at Chaffetz’s comments on Benghazi and Hillary Clinton. The
Hill will release more of the interview later in the week.

*MSNBC: “What would a Jeb Bush-Hillary Clinton matchup in 2016 look like?”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/what-would-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-matchup-2016-look>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

December 16, 2014, 3:18 p.m. EST

It’s beginning to feel a bit like 1992.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced Tuesday that he will “actively
explore” a presidential bid, potentially setting up a 2016 battle against
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband unseated Bush’s
father, George H.W. Bush, 22 years ago.

But unlike 1992, the potential clash between two of the biggest political
dynasties in American history would have the air of a family feud – both
personally and in the politics each represents.

In their respective party primaries, Bush and Clinton would run on parallel
tracks – close to the middle while taking flack from the flanks – and in a
general election, they might neutralize each others’ biggest strengths and
weaknesses, since they share so many.

The Bush and Clinton families have become close since either one occupied
the White House. Bill Clinton has made a habit of visiting George H.W. Bush
at his home in Maine every summer, while Jeb Bush literally presented
Hillary Clinton with an award.

“Bill’s father wasn’t around,” Barbara Bush told CSPAN of the man who
pushed her husband out of office. “I think he thinks of George a little bit
like the father he didn’t have.” She added: “I love Bill Clinton.”

George W. Bush calls Bill Clinton his “brother from another mother” and
Hillary Clinton his “sister-in-law,” while he and his predecessor clearly
enjoyed each others’ presence at a joint appearance in September to launch
a scholars program run jointly by their presidential libraries.

Jeb Bush chairs the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, which
presented Hillary Clinton with an award in March. “Hillary and I come from
different political parties, and we disagree about a few things, but we do
agree on the wisdom of the American people — especially those in Iowa and
New Hampshire and South Carolina,” Bush joked.

And some observers think this bonhomie could make for a more substantive
presidential race than any in recent memory. Mark McKinnon, a top adviser
to John McCain’s 2008 presidential run, thinks Clinton vs. Bush would be
“great for America.” They’re both qualified, both represent the ideological
middle of their parties, and would both engage in civil and substantive
policy debates in a time of hyper-partisanship, he wrote in a widely read
column for The Daily Beast.

McKinnon founded a group that promotes bipartisanship in Washington called
No Labels, along with Nancy Jacobs, a longtime Clinton adviser and
strategist. They succeeded in getting bipartisan groups of lawmakers to sit
next to each other at State of the Union addresses.

But on the other hand, there will be plenty of people in both parties
unhappy with another Clinton-Bush face-off. Liberals and conservatives
alike might view the matchup as lacking real contrast, while others –
including Bush’s own mother – worry about the corrosive effect of political
dynasties on American democracy.

“We’ve had enough Bushes,” Jeb Bush’s mother told the “Today” show in
April. (She has apparently come around on another Bush since then.)

And polls consistently show Americans fed up with their current leadership,
suggesting there’s a desire for a fresh face and new thinking.

“It’s great that George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and the Bush and Clinton
families get along so well these days, but the Republican Party’s base is
not going to entrust the task of beating Hillary Clinton to her
metaphorical brother-in-law,” wrote National Review’s Jim Geraghty.

Meanwhile, many Clinton allies view Bush as her most formidable potential
opponent. “The presidential will be in my view a very tough race. I would
think that a Jeb Bush and a Rob Portman – just as a hypothetical – would be
a strong ticket for them,” former Clinton White House political director
Craig Ickies told reporters last month.  “Can a Democrat win the White
House without both of Ohio and Florida? The answer is yes, but it then has
to be a perfect storm.”

Both would be strongly favored by their party’s establishment and
ideological center, and both would face opposition from their party’s base,
though Bush’s primary fight would be infinitely more difficult. While
Clinton is leading the handful of other Democrats looking at a run by more
50 percentage points, Bush is locked in a crowded race and faces a
Republican base that disagrees with him on key policies.

In a Bush vs. Clinton general election, partisan attacks on either
candidate would take on a new layer of awkwardness as the caricature they
try to point of their opponent might look familiar in the mirror.

For instance, Republicans have been trying to portray Clinton as an
out-of-touch elitist who has spent her whole life in politics – a difficult
charge to level if their own candidate is the multi-millionaire son of a
former president.

American Bridge, the Democratic opposition research super PAC run by a key
Clinton ally, has attacked Bush for “his involvement with several
questionable private sector companies,” and dismissed Bush’s political
career as a product of  “the Bush family’s political prestige and deep
connections to Republican Party donors and influencers.”

Of course, Republicans could say the same could of Clinton.

“There are some people that’ll say there’s no way I’m going to vote for
somebody with that name,” George W. Bush said last month of his last name.
“Of course if he were to run against Hillary Clinton then I think the name
issue would somewhat dissipate.”

On Tuesday, Democrats and Clinton allies were loathe to speak publicly
about Bush, but said privately that the difference would be in Bush’s
policies. Even if Clinton and Bush have some similarities in their
biographies, Clinton supports policies that help average Americans, while
Bush would not.

Bush’s early announcement timing also represents an alternative approach to
Clinton’s. Some top strategists around Clinton pushed her to announce an
exploratory committee as early as November or December of this year, but
they lost the argument to the group advocating a slower schedule.

“Some in the orbit argued that Hillary should form an early exploratory
committee. The winning argument was that her timeline should be
well-thought-out and personal,” said one Clinton ally who opposed the early
effort.

Bush lacked the pre-campaign outside infrastructure Clinton has now, which
may have pushed him to get in sooner.

*The Hill: “Lobbying Hillary”
<http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/227356-lobbying-hillary>*

By Tim Devaney

December 17, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EST

The lobbying of Hillary Clinton has begun.

Pressure groups are making moves to bend Clinton’s ear in hopes of shaping
the policy platform she would use to run for the White House in 2016.

On issues ranging from energy policy and immigration to gay rights and
medical marijuana, advocacy groups are increasingly tailoring their public
campaigns toward Clinton in hopes of winning her early support.

Environmentalists, for instance, are pressing Clinton to take a stand
against the Keystone XL oil pipeline. As secretary of State, Clinton
refused to weigh in on the issue.

Before backing her for a potential presidential bid, some environmental
groups are insisting she publicly oppose Keystone, even as the Obama
administration continues to delay a decision on the highly controversial
oil pipeline.

“Secretary Clinton, will you stand with us against Keystone XL?” dozens of
environmental groups wrote in a letter to Clinton this year.

Clinton has remained coy about her intentions regarding Keystone, a
strategy that keeps her from getting backed into a corner. By standing with
environmental groups, Republicans would paint her as an “anti-jobs”
candidate. But siding with business groups, would infuriate Democrats’
environmental base of supporters.

Her silence is concerning for environmentalists. The CEO of one green
company told The Hill earlier this year that “environmental voters will
know she cannot be counted on” if she does not come out against Keystone.

But Clinton is also facing pressure from coal groups to support rolling
back controversial power plant regulations from the Environmental
Protection Agency.

The industry group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)
called on Clinton to be a “voice of reason” ahead of her speech to an
environmental group earlier this month

“As Mrs. Clinton considers another run for the White House, we hope that
she continues to be the voice of reason for coal-powered electricity,”
ACCCE spokeswoman Laura Sheehan said.

Sheehan pointed out that the former presidential contender supported an
all-of-the-above energy policy during her 2008 campaign.

“We are going to use coal,” Clinton told voters during campaign stop in
Indiana.

“There’s no doubt about that,” Clinton added. “It’s just that we’ve got to
figure out how to make it as clean as coal can be.”

The industry group says it plans to hold Clinton to her word, if she runs
again.

On immigration, advocates are warning Clinton that she’ll be in “big
trouble” if she does not take a stronger stance on the hot-button issue.

They’re calling on her to push comprehensive immigration reform in Congress
during what would be her first year in office.

In the meantime, they want her to commit to enforcing President Obama’s
recent executive order delaying deportations for millions of illegal
immigrants.

“If I was Hillary Clinton, I would be concerned because her statements so
far are not as conclusive and supportive as Latinos would like to see,”
said Arturo Carmona, executive director of the Latino advocacy group
Presente.org.

Other Hispanic leaders have called on the former first lady to push for
driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

According to a recent survey by the polling firm Latino Decisions, 85
percent of Hispanic voters would cast their ballots for Clinton if she were
to commit to upholding Obama’s executive order.

“But it will be much harder to mobilize the Latino vote in 2016, if you
don’t have a candidate who strongly supports the Latino community,” said
Matt Barreto, co-founder of Latino Decisions.

Meanwhile, other special-interest groups are courting Clinton’s super-PAC,
Ready for Hillary, in hopes of gaining influence with her potential
campaign.

Ready for Hillary has raised more than $11 million and built a base of 3
million supporters that it intends to turn over to her campaign, if and
when she announces her candidacy.

The group has had conversations with leaders in the LGBT, Latino American
and African-American communities, though its efforts are more focused on
grassroots-level organizing, Ready for Hillary spokesman Seth Bringman said.

“That’s been our focus identifying those Hillary supporters out there to
encourage her to run,” Bringman said.

Tico Almeida, president and founder of the gay rights organization Freedom
to Work, confirmed he has reached out to Ready for Hillary to discuss her
potential campaign.

“Our ask of Hillary Clinton is that if she is elected president, in her
very first State of the Union address, we would like her to call for
Congress to pass federal legislation protecting LGBT Americans from all
forms of discrimination,” Almeida said.

One foreign policy group is even calling on the former secretary of State
to lift what critics say is an outdated Cuban embargo.

The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) spoke with Ready for Hillary
this week to discuss Clinton’s foreign policy.

“What I’ve conveyed to the Ready for Hillary camp is that we’d like to see
Hillary come out and say the Cuban embargo has failed,” said Marc Hanson,
WOLA’s senior associate for Cuba.

A number of special-interest groups say they’re waiting until Clinton
announces her candidacy before they begin their lobbying efforts.

Marijuana lobbyists, for one, are hoping to encourage Clinton to take pot
decriminalization laws “into serious consideration.”

Mike Liszewski, director of government affairs at Americans for Safe
Access, says he plans to speak with Clinton’s staff about marijuana laws
sometime next year after she announces whether she will run for president.

The group is planning to keep a scorecard of where Clinton and other
presidential candidates stand on the issue.

“If Clinton doesn’t seize upon this issue, other candidates can make
significant in-roads by seizing upon it,” Liszewski said. “It’s an issue
that’s going to resonate with voters across the country in 2016 like it
never has before.”

In the wake of the CIA report on enhanced interrogation, the Americans for
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would like to see Clinton, as well as other
presidential candidates, commit to broader reforms within the nation’s
intelligence community, said Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff at the
ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office.

Once the campaigns heat up, the ACLU plans to “nail candidates down on” on
where they stand on torture, as well as other issues such as the
militarization of police and domestic surveillance activities.

For some groups, however, it’s never too early to make sure their issues
are on Clinton’s radar.

“From our perspective, it’s never a bad time to reach out to Hillary
Clinton,” said Hanson, of the Latin America group. “Whether or not she’s
going to run, she commands a lot of attention and she’s still someone who
can make an impact on the national debate.”

*Washington Post: “O’Malley gathers with backers but makes no mention of
2016 White House plans”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/omalley-gathers-with-backers-but-makes-no-mention-of-2016-white-house-plans/2014/12/16/9d925eda-858f-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html>*

By John Wagner

December 16, 2014, 9:35 p.m. EST

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) huddled in Annapolis on Tuesday with more
than 100 supporters from across the country but gave no indication of
whether he plans to move forward with a 2016 presidential bid, according to
several participants.

The private gathering, hosted by O’Malley’s political action committee,
featured several political briefings, remarks by the governor and a
reception at an Annapolis-based energy company where O’Malley’s first chief
of staff, Michael R. Enright, works as managing director.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that O’Malley, who is weighing a 2016
White House bid, will probably not make an announcement about his
intentions until spring. That timetable could allow him to get a better
sense of how Hillary Rodham Clinton, the dominant Democrat in the field, is
faring among party activists and the media.

During his remarks Tuesday at a hotel near the State House, O’Malley spoke
of the need for “moral clarity” in American leadership, according to
participants at the gathering, which was closed to the press. He and his
staff also reflected on O’Malley’s accomplishments during the past eight
years.

There was a lengthy discussion, those in the room said, of O’Malley’s work
on several issues of importance to the Latino community, including
implementation of the so-called “Dream Act” in Maryland. The law allows
undocumented immigrants to receive in-state college tuition rates under
some circumstances.

O’Malley also relayed an anecdote about a 13-year-old boy who had fled
violence in Central America and was being housed in Maryland. O’Malley, who
has criticized the White House for a lack of compassion in response to the
flood of unaccompanied child migrants, said that upon meeting the boy, he
threw his arms around O’Malley and hugged him.

Among those who presented political briefings on Tuesday was Colm
O’Comartun, the outgoing executive director of the Democratic Governors
Association, who previously worked as a senior aide to O’Malley.
O’Comartun’s presentation focused on how Democrats fared in the 2014
mid-terms, participants said.

Supporters of O’Malley’s PAC also heard from several staffers whom O’Malley
dispatched around the country to help with 2014 races in battleground
states, including Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Wisconsin.

O’Malley boosters sought to downplay the significance of Tuesday’s
gathering, noting that the governor has held similar meetings in the past
with supporters — including one in Baltimore in the spring and another on
the Eastern Shore over the summer.

*Calendar:*

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

·  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>)