Subject: Correct The Record Sunday January 11, 2015 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 14:03:18 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Sunday January 11, 2015 Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*The Hill: “Clinton ready to embrace Obama on economy”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/presidential-campaign/229083-clinton-ready-to-embrace-obama-on-economy>*

“Clinton allies say that if the former secretary of State does in fact
announce a second bid for the presidency this year, they expect that she’ll
tether herself to a main slice of Obama’s legacy.”

*Washington Post: Dan Balz: “A signal of distaste for dynasties bodes ill
for Bush, Clinton”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-signal-of-distaste-for-dynasties-bodes-ill-for-bush-clinton/2015/01/10/079258f2-98d3-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html>*

“The two-hour session, moderated by Democratic pollster Peter Hart for the
Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, turned
upside down much of the conversation about the coming presidential
campaign, where Bush and Clinton occupy so much space.”

*Washington Post: “Martin O’Malley blames Anthony Brown’s campaign for Md.
Democrats’ loss”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/martin-omalley-blames-anthony-brown-not-his-own-record-for-md-democrats-loss/2015/01/10/f6f6e976-9874-11e4-927a-4fa2638cd1b0_story.html>*

“O’Malley was ready with the answer: It was all the fault of Brown’s lousy,
negative campaign.”

*Los Angeles Times: “Why Jerry Brown will probably never make a fourth try
at White House”
<http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-california-politics-20150111-story.html>*

“The main reason is his age: 76”

*The Hill: “Trump looking 'very seriously' at 2016 run”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229135-trump-looking-very-seriously-at-2016-run>*

“Real estate mogul Donald Trump says he's looking ‘very seriously’ at a
possible 2016 presidential run.”

*New York Post: “Clinton won’t be fixing rift between de Blasio and NYPD”
<http://nypost.com/2015/01/09/bill-clinton-wont-be-fixing-rift-between-de-blasio-and-nypd/>*

“Former President Bill Clinton is not interested in solving tensions
between the NYPD and Mayor de Blasio, Clinton’s spokesman said Thursday — a
day after his name was floated at a peace summit.”

*Articles:*

*The Hill: “Clinton ready to embrace Obama on economy”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/presidential-campaign/229083-clinton-ready-to-embrace-obama-on-economy>*

By Amie Parnes

December 11, 2015, 1:00 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton is ready to run on President Obama’s record when it comes
to the economy.

Clinton allies say that if the former secretary of State does in fact
announce a second bid for the presidency this year, they expect that she’ll
tether herself to a main slice of Obama’s legacy.

A series of economic reports including Friday’s positive jobs numbers is
adding to Democratic confidence that the economy will finally be a winner
for Obama in his last two years in office, and that it will help the
Democratic White House candidate in 2016.

But even as Clinton embraces Obama’s economic record, they expect her to
telegraph that more needs to be done to help the middle class, a message
Obama will highlight in his State of the Union address later this month.

They also predict that Clinton will present policies distinct from those of
the Obama administration she served, and even her own husband’s
administration, which is regularly credited with presiding over years of
strong economic growth.

This tack, allies say, will allow her to to carve out her own identity and
provide her with the opportunity to speak about education, making housing
more affordable and helping younger Americans find jobs and build her own
narrative.

“She'll be running armed with the current information and with programs and
plans and polices that she wants to support,” said Ellen Tauscher, the
former congresswoman who serves as undersecretary for Arms Control and
International Security Affairs at the State Department under Clinton.

Democratic strategist Jim Manley said that he expects Clinton to “keep
pretty close to the administration’s basic economic policies. But, he
added, “I wouldn’t be surprised if she found ways to exploit the growing
debate on economic equality.”

One longtime Clinton ally agrees with that sentiment. This source said
Clinton would argue for “a Main Street platform that combines certain kinds
of tax reform, trade agreements and investment strategies, perhaps
fashioned around overarching goals.”

“This is an approach that a Republican candidate could choose to take too;
what will matter is who does it best,” the ally said.

Republicans—from the RNC to the superPAC America Rising-- are already
working to portray Clinton as a third term for Obama.

“She has no choice but to own the Obama economic agenda because she has
been in lock-step with him on it ever since 2008,” Tim Miller, the
executive director for America Rising, said Friday.

Miller said healthcare will fall under Obama’s economic package and Clinton
has no choice but to own that piece as well. The bookHRC State Secrets and
the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton, revealed that the secretary of state played
a role in pushing along Obamacare. She voiced her support for it in a
cabinet meeting and spoke to lawmakers about the issue, even though
Secretaries of State rarely get involved in domestic matters.

“He took her healthcare plan and then she whipped votes for it,” Miller
said. “There is no path for her to distance herself from him on it.”

Clinton allies say they are aware that Republicans will do everything to
tie her to Obama's policies.

But as Tauscher cautioned, Republicans have to be careful invoking that
Clinton could be a third term Obama because Democrats could very easily say
that Jeb Bush or other Republican candidates could be a third term for
George W. Bush, who was president during the economic meltdown.

The Democratic National Committee was quick to strike back at Jeb Bush’s
intentions to run for president on Friday, putting out a release accusing
the Bush team of being “the same people who not once but twice were at the
helm as our nation headed into recessions, one of which was our worst
economic crisis since the Great Depression.”

The plan to embrace Obama’s economic record differs from Clinton’s approach
to Obama on foreign policy.

Even though she serves as Obama’s secretary of state, she has made a point
of highlighting her differing views and strategies on Syria. In an
interview with The Atlantic, she said that the administration’s decision
not to get involved in the Syrian conflict was a “failure.”

People in Clintonworld have also signaled recently that she would have
taken a different approach to ISIS.

“You never want to be a Monday morning quarterback on these issues because
who knows how things would ultimately turn out but Obama has been passive
on these issues,” one former Clinton aide told The Hill in September. “She
would have taken a more aggressive approach.”

When it comes to the economy though, Clinton could face a different set of
challenges in a Democratic primary.

Progressives have bashed her support of Wall Street and have insinuated
that she cares more about protecting the well-heeled over the middle class.

But Tauscher pushed back at that notion calling that debate “distracting.”

“The question should be how do we get a Main Street thriving and doing well
and how do we get a responsible Wall Street that is stimulating jobs,” she
said. “It’s not an either or.”

*Washington Post: Dan Balz: “A signal of distaste for dynasties bodes ill
for Bush, Clinton”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-signal-of-distaste-for-dynasties-bodes-ill-for-bush-clinton/2015/01/10/079258f2-98d3-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html>*

By Dan Balz

January 10, 2015, 8:10 p.m. EST

AURORA, Colo. — It’s been a good few weeks for Jeb Bush, who has been
setting the pace among prospective 2016 presidential candidates — at least
in the view of some in the elite world of political donors, strategists and
commentators. But even before the news that Mitt Romney is thinking about a
third campaign, a dissenting view on Bush was registered here Thursday
night.

A dozen Denver-area residents spent two hours dissecting the state of the
country and its politics. The 12 participants — Democrats, Republicans and
independents — are weary of political dynasties. They were dismissive,
sometimes harshly, in their assessments of Bush, the former Florida
governor. They were also chilly toward former secretary of state Hillary
Rodham Clinton.

When the name of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was introduced into the
conversation, however, many of those around the table, regardless of party
affiliation, responded positively. To this group, who spoke in stark terms
throughout the evening about the economic challenges of working Americans,
Warren has struck a chord.

The two-hour session, moderated by Democratic pollster Peter Hart for the
Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, turned
upside down much of the conversation about the coming presidential
campaign, where Bush and Clinton occupy so much space.

It is important to emphasize that this was simply one group of 12 people.
They are not necessarily a representative cross section of the entire
population, any more than a dozen donors or a dozen strategists would be.
But as with all recruited focus groups, the collective impressions and
individual observations provide a valuable counterpoint to the conversation
that is taking place among political insiders.

The participants in Aurora have barely begun to engage with their 2016
choices; most are not even close to the starting line. But they are
underwhelmed by the prospect of a race pitting another Bush against another
Clinton. When Charlie Loan, an IT program manager and Republican-leaning
independent, said half-seriously that he would be happy if Congress would
pass a law banning anyone named Bush or Clinton from running, half the
people in the room agreed.

Reactions to Bush were viscerally negative. When the participants were
asked for short impressions of him, the responses included the following:
“Joke.” “No, thank you.” “Clown.” “Don’t need him.” “Greedy.” “Again?” One
said, “intriguing” and another said, “interesting.” That’s as close as
anyone came to outright enthusiasm for Bush.

Hart asked the group which individual from a long list of current
politicians they would least like to have as a next-door neighbor. Eight
named Bush. “I’m tired of it,” said Brandon Graham, an IT systems engineer
and Democratic-leaning independent. Jenny Howard, who works in accounting
and voted for Romney in 2012, said, “He’s running off the Bush name and
thinks that means something.”

Clinton fared slightly better. Instant impressions included the following:
“Don’t like.” “Strong.” “Spitfire.” “Untrustworthy.” “More of the same.”
“Politician, but gets things done.” The reactions echoed what has been
found in polls and in other focus groups, which is that Clinton has stature
but remains a polarizing figure.

Most of the prospective presidential candidates were only vague figures to
these Coloradans. When names such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) or Gov.
Scott Walker (R-Wis.) or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) or Mike Huckabee, the
former Republican governor of Arkansas, were raised, many indicated they
didn’t know enough to have even a superficial impression.

Of those in the Republican field, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) drew positive
comments, not necessarily because the members of the group know that much
about him, but because they find him new and intriguing. New Jersey Gov.
Chris Christie (R) was better known but not admired.

Warren proved the exception to all this. Quick impressions voiced about her
were highly positive: “Passionate.” “Smart.” “Sincere.” “Knowledgeable.”
“Intelligent.” “Capable.” One person said, “questionable.” That was as
close to a negative reaction as she got in that round.

There were other signs that Warren, who has said repeatedly that she is not
running for president in 2016, had caught the eyes and ears of people in
the room. She was the popular choice as a next-door neighbor, seen as
genuine and personable. Even one of the most conservative members of the
group said this.

Several said that if they could pick from a long list of national
politicians, they would prefer to have the chance to have a long
conversation with Warren, describing her as both articulate and down to
earth. “She’s a strong woman, and I’d like to sit down and pick her brain,”
said Susan Brink, an independent who backed President Obama.

Howard, an independent who voted Republican in both 2012 and 2014, was
among those who offered an admiring view of Warren. “If she ran, I think
she could be the next president,” she said.

What’s behind all this? The rest of the discussion on Thursday helped to
explain why the participants feel the way they do, from the lack of
enthusiasm for Clinton to the obvious disaffection with Bush to the
comments about Warren.

These voters distrust elected officials and are disgusted by what they
regard as the privileged lives they lead. To them, Bush and Clinton
represent a political class that is seen as living lives apart from those
they represent, people who are seen as out for themselves rather than for
ordinary people.

“They want your vote, but I feel like once they have that, the American
citizens end up being voiceless,” said Karstyn Butler, a homemaker and
caterer who voted for Obama.

Just as significant was the feeling that the economic recovery has not
touched most people. Rick Lamutt, a cable company technician who said he
leans Republican and voted for Romney, said he sees the problem every day.

“I’m in 10, 12, 15 homes a day, every day,” he said. “People are hurting. .
. It’s just crazy to see what people are doing just to pay their bills.” He
scoffed at talk of a rising economy with plentiful jobs available. “If you
want to make $9 an hour, you can get a job,” he said. “But if you want to
make a wage that can support your family, good luck.”

Howard offered her situation as evidence. She said her husband has been out
of work for more than a year. Meanwhile, she carries a hefty student-loan
debt, with monthly payments that she said are nearly twice what she spends
for housing.

Those realities are shaping the qualities these voters say they are looking
for in the next president. Andrew Regan, a beekeeper and Democratic voter,
said the next president should be “someone who understands what everyone in
America is going through — someone that we can relate to, someone who we
understand and someone who understands us.”

After the group had departed into the freezing drizzle outside, Hart stayed
behind to sum up what he had taken away from the conversation. The group
had started predictably, he said, and then turned quite unpredictable. He
found several things to be notable.

“One is [that] the political classes told us it’s going to be Bush against
Clinton. But these people are hundreds of miles away from that choice,” he
said. “Essentially what they’re telling us is, ‘I don’t trust these people.
They’re part of an establishment that I don’t like.’ ”

That was one turning point, he said. The other was Warren. “Elizabeth
Warren, from every part on the compass, had a level of support,” he said.
“She’s not invisible. She’s not unknown. She’s not undefined.” And, he
added, she has reached them on the issue that so many spoke about, which
was their own economic concerns.

“You couldn’t leave this without feeling how hard-pressed these people are
and how they’re looking for someone who will be a voice for their cause,”
he said. “And Elizabeth Warren has broken through.”

That, he added, was wholly unexpected when the focus group was organized.

*Washington Post: “Martin O’Malley blames Anthony Brown’s campaign for Md.
Democrats’ loss”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/martin-omalley-blames-anthony-brown-not-his-own-record-for-md-democrats-loss/2015/01/10/f6f6e976-9874-11e4-927a-4fa2638cd1b0_story.html>*

By Robert McCartney

January 10, 2015, 5:35 p.m. EST

Martin O’Malley has accomplished so much in eight years as Maryland’s
governor that it seemed a shame to start an interview about his legacy by
focusing on where he came up short.

There was no getting around it. The question of the hour: If O’Malley (D)
did such a great job, why did the state’s voters reject his handpicked
successor, Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown (D)?

Moreover, how does a man who is “very seriously considering” running for
president in 2016 explain Brown’s loss to Democratic primary voters across
the country?

O’Malley was ready with the answer: It was all the fault of Brown’s lousy,
negative campaign.

The governor, who steps down from office in 1 1/2 weeks, insisted that
voters had not repudiated his performance, especially on the economy.
Instead, he contended, the Brown team effectively ceded the issue to
Republican Larry Hogan, the governor-elect.

“They made a tactical decision not to defend the record or talk about it,
and we saw the results that we saw,” O’Malley said in a half-hour phone
conversation Friday.

It’s an understandable answer, for a politician, and there’s some truth in
it. But it’s ultimately unsatisfying and leaves O’Malley vulnerable to the
charge that he delivered at best a mixed record on jobs and taxes.

After all, voters are savvy enough to know whether they’re satisfied with
the economy. They don’t need politicians’ ads to tell them.

The bottom line: O’Malley either should have handled the economy better, or
exerted more control over Brown’s campaign. Probably both.

The Free State Democrats’ November fiasco adds a burden to what is already
a long-shot potential presidential candidacy for O’Malley. He barely
registers in national polls and is still working to develop an inspiring
stump speech.

O’Malley acknowledged that Brown’s defeat was a distasteful conclusion to
his term.

“It turned the sweetness to bittersweet,” he said. Although claiming he
didn’t want to second-guess Brown’s campaign, he went right ahead and did
so.

O’Malley said Brown should have copied the playbook from his 2010
reelection victory, when he defended tax increases as necessary to protect
investments in education and other services.

Instead, Brown distanced himself from O’Malley. He tried to discredit Hogan
with ads assailing the Republican over abortion and gun control.

Hogan won perhaps the year’s biggest upset principally by lambasting tax
increases during the O’Malley-Brown administration.

“You have to offer an affirmative economic message to the voters,” O’Malley
said. “If you give voters a choice between a Democrat who promises to do
nothing and a Republican who promises to do nothing, they’re generally
going to side with the Republican, because they’re better at that than we
are.”

O’Malley has amassed an impressive list of achievements with strong appeal
to the liberal activists who vote in Democratic primaries. Highlights
include approval of same-sex marriage, repeal of the death penalty and
granting in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. He also has spent
heavily on education and is one of the nation’s most pro-environment
governors.

He can point to genuine successes in the economy, such as protecting the
state’s triple-A bond rating through a severe recession.

Although Virginia is widely seen as being more friendly to businesses,
Maryland’s job growth since the bottom of the recession by some measures
has exceeded that of its neighbor to the south.

The problem is: Beating Virginia is not much to crow about. With the
cutbacks in federal spending, both states are near the bottom of the list
nationwide for economic growth.

Then there’s the question of why O’Malley is handing off a budget deficit
to Hogan.

“This is a state that despite many tax increases in recent years, despite
increases in tolls, and despite the introduction of gaming, continues to
suffer a structural deficit,” economist Anirban Basu, owner of the Sage
Policy Group in Baltimore, said. (Basu is serving on Hogan’s transition
team, but he didn’t endorse the Republican, and his firm is nonpartisan.)

Basu and other economists faulted O’Malley — along with leaders of the
District and Virginia — for not doing enough to diversify the region’s
economy to reduce its dependence on federal dollars.

It’s not clear whether any of these criticisms are deterring O’Malley from
seeking the presidency next year. He says he expects to decide within “a
couple of months” and isn’t afraid of taking on Hillary Clinton if she
jumps in.

If Clinton opts out, O’Malley’s checklist of liberal activism could serve
him well in a wide-open primary race. But the Brown loss, and reservations
about his economic record, will still need explaining.

*Los Angeles Times: “Why Jerry Brown will probably never make a fourth try
at White House”
<http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-california-politics-20150111-story.html>*

By Mark Z. Barabak

January 11, 2015, 5:00 a.m. EST

Jerry Brown will almost certainly never be president of the United States,
a fact that disappoints no one so much as Jerry Brown himself.

It's not for lack of trying. California's governor has made three attempts
at the White House, the first in 1976, scarcely more than a year after
taking office. He was 38.

Brown ran and lost a second time in 1980, while in his second term as
governor, and again in 1992, campaigning as an insurgent taking on the
system's moneyed interests (a posture long since abandoned by the political
wayside).

Those who know Brown and have discussed the matter with him say the
Democrat's presidential ambitions may have dimmed over the last two
decades, a reluctant bow to reality, but they have never entirely gone away.

But, alas, from Brown's perspective, the four-term governor who delivered a
combined inaugural and State of the State address last week in Sacramento
is no longer considered presidential material, notwithstanding November's
landslide reelection and his stewardship of the nation's most populous and
important state.

The main reason is his age: 76

If Brown were, say, 10 or more years younger, he would doubtless be in the
thick of speculation over the 2016 contest and a serious contender for the
Democratic nomination. It's not hard imagining Monday's speech serving as
his opening salvo. (Instead of live-streaming to eager political insiders
in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, however, Brown had to
settle for national coverage on C-SPAN.)

When he took office, Brown noted, "the state was deep in debt — $26 billion
— and our unemployment rate was 12.1%. Now the state budget, after a decade
of turbulence, is finally balanced…. California has seen more than 1.3
million new jobs created in just four years, and the unemployment rate has
dropped to 7.2%."

Yes, the state faces billions in unfunded pension and other liabilities
that threaten its long-term financial stability, as Brown himself pointed
out. And a 7.2% unemployment rate is hardly cause for dancing in the
streets. But politicians tend to be graded on a curve and contrasted with
those who came before them.

"He can make a pretty good case he's gotten the state out of the fiscal
mess he inherited, which is a good credential for a California Democrat,"
said Bill Carrick, a longtime party strategist who worked for Massachusetts
Sen. Ted Kennedy's presidential campaign when Brown made his second try for
the White House.

But there are other considerations, besides Brown's age, that argue against
another quixotic tilt at the White House.

He is, after all, only nine years older than Hillary Rodham Clinton, the
Democratic front-runner. And if she chooses not to run, it seems highly
likely Vice President Joe Biden would jump into the suddenly wide-open
fight for the party's nomination. He's 72.

One big hurdle facing Brown is the inherent difficulty of running for
president and simultaneously serving as California governor. As Dan Schnur,
a veteran political strategist now teaching at USC, once put it, "There
aren't any direct flights from Sacramento to Manchester [N.H.], and you
can't run the state from a cellphone at O'Hare [airport]."

He should know. Schnur was part of then-Gov. Pete Wilson's administration
when he waged a spectacularly unsuccessful 1996 run for president. It seems
no accident that Ronald Reagan also failed the first time he sought the
White House, in 1968, while serving as California governor.

But beyond age and logistical difficulties, there is another factor that
has helped force Brown to abandon his White House dreams, apparently once
and for all: He is acutely aware of his legacy, according to several who
have taken up the subject with him, and is mindful of the damage he would
suffer were he to launch another unsuccessful campaign for president.

Instead of being remembered as the governor who brought California back
from the brink — a not-insignificant achievement to stack next to those of
his legendary father, former Gov. Pat Brown — he would become the
Democrats' Harold Stassen, a onetime political wonder who turned into a
campaign punch line.

"California feeds on change and great undertakings," Jerry Brown said in
Monday's swearing-in speech, "but the path of wisdom counsels us to ground
ourselves and nurture carefully all we have started."

Intended or not, that may be the best explanation Brown ever gives for why
he's staying put in Sacramento.

*The Hill: “Trump looking 'very seriously' at 2016 run”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229135-trump-looking-very-seriously-at-2016-run>*

By Rachel Huggins

January 11, 2015, 6:00 a.m. EST

Real estate mogul Donald Trump says he's looking “very seriously” at a
possible 2016 presidential run.

Stoking 2016 speculation, the hotel magnate and "Celebrity Apprentice" host
will test the waters in the nation’s first-in-the-south primary state next
weekend, delivering a keynote address to South Carolina's Tea Party
convention on Jan. 17.

“I’m going to Iowa. I’m going to South Carolina. I’m going to New Hampshire
… I do very well in the polls. I do well in that kind of world [politics] …
I’ll be doing it, and I’ll be looking at it [a presidential run] very
seriously,” he said in an interview on "The Cats Roundtable," host John
Catsimatidis's Sunday radio show on New York AM 970.

Trump underscored how Americans are suffering economically, saying “the
real unemployment rate is 20%. It’s not 5.3% or 5.8%. It’s 20%. That’s the
real rate. The people that are most suffering are the ones that don't have
much money to start off with."

Weighing in on the Paris terrorist attack this week that killed 12 people,
Trump called it an "absolutely terrible situation that looks like it will
get worse."

Militant Islamist brothers, who were later killed by police, killed 10
journalists and two police officers –  in an attack on Charlie Hebdo, a
satirical newspaper known for its controversial cartoons that caricatured
the Prophet Muhammad.

*New York Post: “Clinton won’t be fixing rift between de Blasio and NYPD”
<http://nypost.com/2015/01/09/bill-clinton-wont-be-fixing-rift-between-de-blasio-and-nypd/>*

By Kirstan Conley and Lia Eustachewich

January 9, 2015, 2:15 a.m. EST

Former President Bill Clinton is not interested in solving tensions between
the NYPD and Mayor de Blasio, Clinton’s spokesman said Thursday — a day
after his name was floated at a peace summit.

“President Clinton will not be getting involved,” said spokesman Matt
McKenna.

That’s fine with Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, who said Clinton’s help
wasn’t necessary.

“I don’t know if the situation at this junction requires a mediator,”
Bratton said in a segment that will air Saturday on 77 WABC radio,
according to the New York Observer.

*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>)