Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday January 14, 2015 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 13:55:05 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday January 14, 2015 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> launched energy programs that created
economic opportunity #HRC365 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash>
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-fueling-americas-energy-future/ …
<http://t.co/XqzmbDhxgq> [1/13/15, 6:02 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/555137779789615106>]

*Headlines:*

*The Hill: “Paul: Clinton did a 'terrible job' at State”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229352-paul-clinton-did-a-terrible-job-at-state>*

“‘Hillary Clinton took responsibility, took action, and was fully
transparent in her efforts to prevent a tragedy such as Benghazi from ever
happening again,’ Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the pro-Clinton
super-PAC Correct the Record, wrote in an email to The Hill.”

*Associated Press: “Diminished in Congress and Many States, Dems Weigh
Future”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEMOCRATS_IN_RETREAT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

“Presidential politics remain the Democrats' brightest spot. They've won
the popular vote in five of the last six presidential races, and they have
high hopes for a 2016 field that could feature Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

*The Hill: “Benghazi panel meets with Obama officials”
<http://thehill.com/policy/defense/229487-benghazi-panel-meets-obama-officials>*

“The House Select Committee investigating the deadly terrorist attack in
Benghazi, Libya this week held a pair of classified briefings with Obama
administration officials.”

*BuzzFeed: “The GOP’s Univision Problem”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/the-gops-univision-problem#.id3vvMR0q>*

[Subtitle:] “The network’s ties to Hillary Clinton, treatment of Marco
Rubio, and singular focus on immigration give Republicans fits. But for one
big reason: Republicans need Univision.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “No, Hillary Clinton ≠ Mitt Romney when it
comes to 2016”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/14/no-hillary-clinton-%E2%89%A0-mitt-romney-when-it-comes-to-2016/>*

“The logic of Clinton's 2016 candidacy seems to be there.  For Romney, not
so much.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hopes for a Woman President
Split Along Party, Gender Lines”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/14/hopes-for-a-woman-president-split-along-party-gender-lines/>*

"Among Democratic women, 69% say they hope to see a female president."

*Mediaite: “Chuck Todd: Number of GOP Candidates Shows Hillary’s Not
Intimidating”
<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-todd-number-of-gop-candidates-shows-hillarys-not-intimidating/>*

“Meet the Press host Chuck Todd told Morning Joe Wednesday the number of
GOP figures now seriously considering a 2016 run showed Hillary Clinton was
not the formidable candidate the press had made her out to be.”

*Weekly Standard: Jindal to Bash Hillary's 'Mindless Naiveté' in London
Speech
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/jindal-bash-hillarys-mindless-naivet-london-speech_823731.html?page=1>*

“Jindal will use the speech to bash Hillary Clinton, the likely 2016
Democratic presidential candidate, and to go after radical Islam in wake of
last week's Paris terrorist attacks.”

*Articles:*

*The Hill: “Paul: Clinton did a 'terrible job' at State”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229352-paul-clinton-did-a-terrible-job-at-state>*

By Jesse Byrnes

January 13, 2015 7:45 p.m. EDT

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) took a shot at likely Democratic presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, saying she did "a terrible job" as
secretary of State and calling her handling of the Benghazi attacks
"inexcusable."

"I put a lot of blame at the feet of Hillary Clinton for not defending the
consulate in Benghazi," Paul said after comments at the conservative
Heritage Foundation, referring to the 2012 attacks that left four Americans
dead, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

"I think she did a terrible job," Paul added, saying it was "inexcusable"
to not provide help when assistance was requested.

“Hillary Clinton took responsibility, took action, and was fully
transparent in her efforts to prevent a tragedy such as Benghazi from ever
happening again," Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the pro-Clinton
super-PAC Correct the Record, wrote in an email to The Hill.

The group shot back at Paul, accusing the lawmaker of holding "extremist
views" on foreign policy that "would be a big and dangerous gamble."

Paul, also a likely 2016 presidential candidate, has dinged Clinton on
Benghazi in the past and highlighted her support of unsuccessful midterm
candidates.

His latest shot follows developments among high-profile potential
Republican presidential candidates.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he is seriously considering a
third White House bid, telling one Republican in a Washington Post story
published Monday night that he "almost certainly will" jump into the 2016
race.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is also ramping up for a presidential run, and other
Republicans weighing bids include New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, outgoing
Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Paul's comments on Clinton came immediately after responding to a question
on radical Islamic terrorism, saying, “We have to defend ourselves.”

"Printing cartoons shouldn't engender people murdering you," he added,
referring to last week's deadly attack on Charlie Hebdo, a satirical
newspaper in Paris known for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

The two-day Heritage Foundation event will include speeches by conservative
lawmakers including Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), Sen. Mike Lee (Utah) and Rep.
Jeff Duncan (S.C.).

Paul is set to visit the early voting state of New Hampshire on Wednesday,
where he will meet political leaders, business heads and activists.

*Associated Press: “Diminished in Congress and Many States, Dems Weigh
Future”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEMOCRATS_IN_RETREAT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

By Charles Babington and Andrew Taylor

January 14, 2015, 10:25 a.m. EST

Congressional Democrats are in retreat in more ways than one this week.

As Democratic senators gather in Baltimore to talk strategy and lick
election wounds, their party faces diminished powers in Congress, GOP
dominance in many states and a shrinking pool of potential candidates for
future elections.

In the November elections, Democrats lost their eight-year Senate majority,
and saw their House numbers fall to the lowest level in seven decades.

In the states, Republicans will hold 31 governorships, and more state
legislative seats than they've had since 1928. It especially vexes
Democrats to see Republicans dominate the U.S. House delegations and the
state governments in several states that President Barack Obama won,
including huge legislative majorities in Florida, Michigan, Ohio and
Wisconsin.

"I think there's a lot of frustration," said Rep. John Yarmuth, a Kentucky
Democrat who said the party has "failed to do something that I think
represents an opportunity for us. We really haven't talked to the American
people about what government does for them."

The big gap between Democratic success at the presidential level and
elsewhere "is a real dilemma, I think, for democracy really, not just the
Democratic Party," said Rep. David Price of North Carolina, a 14-term
congressman and former Duke University political scientist. He said Ohio,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Virginia display the "most
egregious" examples of gerrymandered districts for congressional and state
legislative races.

This long-practiced brand of partisan map-making, Price said, helps
Republicans control the legislatures of states that vote Democratic for
president. But in a sign of local Democrats' struggles to change voters'
minds, Price said the best prospect for reversing the trend - in the South,
at least - is in lawsuits that allege racial bias in the way Republicans
drew district boundaries.

Obama's veto power, plus Democratic senators' ability to block some bills
with filibusters, will limit GOP success in Congress over the next two
years. Meanwhile, congressional Democrats are limiting their ambitions and
hoping for at least a partial thaw in partisan gridlock.

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia said he hopes both parties will
move beyond campaign rhetoric and "get to a point where we can actually
move the ball on some issues." He pointed to a series of events this year
"that could actually see breakthroughs or another breakdown, from the debt
ceiling to Social Security disability to infrastructure."

Congressional Republicans will naturally take credit for any legislative
achievements, Warner said. However, he said, "a functioning government,
when you've got a Democratic president, actually still helps Democrats."

Many Democrats say the party needs to sharpen its messaging. They note that
voters in several states last fall approved referendums to raise the
minimum wage, and simultaneously ousted Democratic senators who backed the
proposals.

"We believe we're on the right side of the issues, and all we can do is
keeping making the case," Yarmuth said. "Hopefully we'll get better at
that."

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California on Tuesday announced a
new messaging team led by Steve Israel, D-N.Y. "We need a message," Israel
said. "An effective message doesn't tell voters what to think. It builds on
what they feel."

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said Democrats must do a better job
of highlighting economic improvements and a dramatic increase in energy
production under Obama's watch. They should talk about initiatives, such as
a higher minimum wage, and better training for workers, not as government
programs but as common-sense ways to help workers, he said.

"We're not battling to increase government," Kaine said, "we're battling to
help everyday people."

Some Democrats note that their congressional leaders have been around for
decades, and don't personify fresh ideas. The House's top three Democratic
leaders -Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn - are in their mid-70s. So
is Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.

More troubling to Democrats is Republican dominance of local politics in
states that are competitive in presidential and Senate races.

Obama carried Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia twice, and
North Carolina once. Yet Republicans hold big majorities in these states'
legislative chambers, except Virginia, where their Senate majority is
narrow.

Of the 99 U.S House seats in these six states, Democrats hold 30.

These discrepancies can't be blamed entirely on gerrymandering, said Steve
Schale, a top Florida Democratic strategist. Too often, he said, "we've
done a lousy job of recruiting candidates" at all levels. Strong candidate
recruitment - starting with mayors and state legislatures - builds a farm
team of potential candidates for governor and Congress, Schale said.

"We've gotten away from a lot of that basic blocking and tackling," he
said. He said the November election of Democratic Rep. Gwen Graham - who
ousted a Republican House member from the Tallahassee area - proves that a
well-funded and articulate Democrat can prosper even in a strong GOP year.

Presidential politics remain the Democrats' brightest spot. They've won the
popular vote in five of the last six presidential races, and they have high
hopes for a 2016 field that could feature Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Still, some Democrats worry that Clinton might come across as a stale,
too-familiar politician. If Republicans nominate Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney,
however, that issue might be negated.

Price predicts Republican lawmakers will turn off moderate voters by
placating conservative hard-liners.

"We see the most extreme elements of the conference getting their wish
list," Price said. That gives Democrats a natural opening with "more
reasonable and more moderate voters," he said.

"The tea party agenda is energizing," he said, "believe me."

*The Hill: “Benghazi panel meets with Obama officials”
<http://thehill.com/policy/defense/229487-benghazi-panel-meets-obama-officials>*

By Martin Matishak

January 14, 2015, 1:00 p.m. EST

The House Select Committee investigating the deadly terrorist attack in
Benghazi, Libya this week held a pair of classified briefings with Obama
administration officials.

“The Select Committee met in closed session to discuss the facts
surrounding the attacks on our mission facility and annex in Benghazi,"
panel chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said in a statement. “The Department of
State provided new information to the committee and answered questions
raised by committee members.”

The committee also held a closed-door meeting with Justice Department
officials to discuss documents and potential witnesses related to the
committee’s investigation.

“The committee is continuing its probe into all aspects of Benghazi and is
currently focused on ensuring access to all first-hand accounts from those
on the ground that night,” Gowdy said. “This process will be ongoing and in
some respects must remain classified.”

Gowdy said that while the bulk of the committee’s work would have to be
done behind closed doors, he intends to hold additional hearings that are
open the public.

Democrats have labeled the GOP’s Benghazi panel a “political stunt” aimed
at generating negative publicity for Hillary Clinton, the presumed
front-runner for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2016 who
was secretary of State at the time of the deadly assault in Libya.

Republicans have repeatedly attacked Clinton’s handling of the episode,
with several suggesting it should disqualify her for the presidency.

Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, steered clear of the Clinton
controversy during his first two public hearings last year. However, he has
split with Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the panel’s top Democrat, over
whether Clinton should appear before lawmakers.

Clinton is “a witness that we would like to talk to. I cannot tell you
when,” Gowdy told reporters after the panel’s second hearing.

The investigation is proceeding in the wake of a new report published by
the GOP-controlled House Intelligence Committee last year that found no
evidence of an intelligence failure ahead of the attack.

The Intelligence panel concluded that there was no delay in sending a
rescue mission to the consulate when it came under attack, and that there
had been no missed opportunity to launch a rescue by armed forces.

Several Republicans have been harshly critical of that report, with Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) dismissing it as “full of crap.

*BuzzFeed: “The GOP’s Univision Problem”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/the-gops-univision-problem#.id3vvMR0q>*

By Adrian Carrasquillo

January 14, 2015, 11:53 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The network’s ties to Hillary Clinton, treatment of Marco
Rubio, and singular focus on immigration give Republicans fits. But for one
big reason: Republicans need Univision.

The Republican presidential primary got going in earnest this month, but
one of the Republican Party’s biggest, most complex, most painful
challenges still hasn’t been solved: what to do about Univision.

The Spanish-language network has vast reach into America’s Latino
communities, a relentless focus on the Republican Party’s least favorite
issue, and close connections to Hillary Clinton. It’s an immovable feature
of the political landscape, and navigating around or through it is emerging
as a key test for a party desperate to improve its dismal standing with a
vital and growing share of the American electorate — and the subject of
growing alarm among Republican leaders, operatives, and activists.

“It’s highly questionable whether we’re treated fairly on Univision,” RNC
chairman Reince Priebus told BuzzFeed News, adding that the party was going
to keep at it. “You can fight all day long with people, not to say that
that wouldn’t continue, but at the same time you still have to get your
message out.”

Democrats see the dynamic just as clearly.

“The GOP needs Univision more than Univision needs the GOP,” said
Democratic pollster Fernand Amandi. “For a party looking to be competitive
nationally again, they can’t risk alienating the premiere outlet that
caters to the fastest-growing part of the electorate.”

The scale of the Republicans’ problem is hard to question. Univision
reaches three times as many 18- to 49-year-old Hispanic adults with its
flagship national news broadcast as CBS, NBC, and ABC do with their evening
newscasts combined. The network reaches 96% of Hispanic households; 72% of
Univision’s prime time audience does not watch any of the top-rated
English-language newscasts.

“After the Catholic Church, the next thing [American Latinos] trust the
most is Univision,” Univision News senior vice president Daniel Coronell
told BuzzFeed News.

The network has a direct connection to the likely Democratic Party nominee
for president. Univision’s part-owner, Haim Saban, is one of Hillary
Clinton’s staunchest supporters. Of the former secretary of state, Saban
once told an Israeli newspaper, “Seeing her in the White House is a big
dream of mine.” There are also formal connections: Univision partnered with
the Clinton Foundation for an early education initiative in 2014.

Republicans, by and large, declined to criticize Univision on the record,
citing its power. But speaking on the condition of anonymity, Republican
operatives run down a litany of complaints, always returning to Univision’s
emphasis on immigration and the way the network’s highest-profile
journalist, Jorge Ramos, acts as an advocate on the issue.

“Immigration dictates their coverage,” said a senior GOP source, a
complaint made repeatedly to BuzzFeed News by Republicans. “We just took
the House in Colorado, we just took the U.S. Senate, but Univision will
generalize our platform as us not wanting to fund Obama’s executive order,”
the source said of Republican opposition to the president’s immigration
actions.

The senior GOP source pointed to Colorado’s first-ever Spanish-language
debate, which was hosted by Univision in October, between Republican Mike
Coffman and Democrat Andrew Romanoff. Immigration was the only issue raised.

There have also been high-profile battles on other topics. In 2011, the
network planned to report on the decades-old drug bust of Rubio’s
brother-in-law, but offered to approach the story differently — if Rubio
agreed to an interview with Ramos. The story aired and Rubio went on with
Ramos the next year in an interview that became contentious over the issue.

It is the focus on immigration, in particular, that grates on Republicans,
in part because they say it contrasts so sharply with what Univision
executives tell them when they’re asking for ad dollars. In the fall of
2013, less than a year after President Obama carried 71% of the Latino
vote, for instance, Republican officials listened at the Capitol Hill Club
to a presentation from two people: Keith Norman, a vice president from
Univision, and an outside pollster for the network. The message was simple:
Immigration, according to the polling, wasn’t the top issue for Latinos.
Jobs and the economy, education, and health care all ranked higher.

The pitch, the kind party officials had received before and received again
in 2014 was clear — spend money with Univision to reach Latino voters in
competitive congressional races in places like Florida, Arizona, Colorado,
and Texas.

The Republican officials grumbled, then decided they had no choice, and
bought digital ads on Univision.com and 30-second audio ads on Univision’s
music radio app Uforia in Miami, hitting the president on Obamacare.

Univision News’s Coronell, a former high-profile journalist in Colombia,
defended the network’s coverage as fair, saying Republicans aren’t the only
ones complaining. He pointed to Ramos’ sharp coverage of Obama’s
immigration record, and their last sitdown interview as just the latest
example of the Democratic administration’s ongoing frustration with
Univision.

“Some of the members of the White House communications team felt that Jorge
was not respectful enough to the president and very insistent and picky
with his questions,” Coronell said. “Jorge Ramos asked about deportations
numbers, he asked why he took so long to make this decision. The role of
journalism is to ask, to be the counterweight to the politicians.”

Coronell repeated a common refrain: The network has a standing invitation
to top Republican officials. He downplayed the issue of Saban, the Clinton
donor and Univision owner.

“With respect to Mr. Saban, Mr. Saban is not involved with editorial
decisions at Univision,” he said. “This is a serious company, he is very
respectful to our journalistic independence. He’s not connected with our
day to day; we’re not in this to build his happiness.”

Univision representatives told BuzzFeed News the network’s partnership with
the Clinton Foundation also includes former Republican Sen. Bill Frist and
Cindy McCain, the wife of Sen. John McCain, who are part of the Too Small
To Fail leadership advisory council. (Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was
approached for an education partnership, too, a Republican source said, but
the talks never advanced.) The network also pointed to a Hispanic
employment event it did with Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey, as evidence
of broader political cooperation.

But when it comes to the main Republican complaint — that the network
focuses too narrowly on immigration — Ramos and Coronell argue the issue is
tied to the network’s core appeal.

“It’s true that immigration is not the most important issue for Latinos,”
Ramos said. “However, immigration is the most important symbolic issue for
Latinos. Immigration defines who is with us and who is against us.
Immigration is something personal.”

He said half of all Latinos in the United States over 18 are immigrants and
Univision will continue to press on immigration because it is an unresolved
issue. He and Coronell said their approach is influenced by Univision’s
special relationship with its audience, an audience that can’t find
immigration news in English as readily.

“In many ways Univision is different from other networks and it has to do
with the lack of political representation of Latinos,” Ramos said, noting
that Hispanics comprise 17% of the U.S. population but there are only three
Latino senators. “It falls on Spanish-language media to defend and
represent those who have no representation, especially those who are
undocumented.”

And Democrats argue Republicans are using complaints to mask their simple
aversion to talking about immigration — an issue that divides the GOP — at
all.

“Democrats make themselves available so they get hit hard, Republicans do
not,” said Gabriela Domenzain, an Obama campaign veteran who spent years at
Univision. She said there was only one time Republicans would actively seek
out the network. “Unless something said in some newscast ticked them off,
then they would call us until we booked Spanish-speaking Republicans to do
damage control.”

Latino Republicans say the network’s influence makes ignoring Univision a
nonstarter and some see openings for better coverage.

Ken Oliver-Méndez, with MRC Latino, a conservative media watchdog focused
on Spanish-language media, said his organization believes Univision should
either do a programming alliance with a conservative organization to offset
its partnership with Clinton or drop it all together. But he also said
Republicans need to a do a better job of engaging with Spanish-language
media like Univision and Telemundo.

“Conservatives have an obligation to get their message out,” he said.

That’s why MRC Latino provided news organizations with a list of
Spanish-language conservative sources, whom he called “eloquent, serious
policy experts” in August.

For his part, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who many expect to run for president,
and isn’t one to shy away from speaking frankly, didn’t criticize the
network’s ties to Clinton.

“That’s not a question I’ve examined,” he told BuzzFeed News. “I’ve been
interviewed by Univision many times.”

The former RNC official said Republicans should also think about the
high-powered local Univision affiliates which can get more viewers than
national newscasts with Ramos. “People work really long hours,” the source
said. “Somewhere like Las Vegas, the middle-class worker doesn’t get out
till late, they might miss Ramos but they get their news from the local
affiliate.”

The numbers in some cities bear it out. According to statistics provided by
the network, Univision broadcast stations in Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas,
and Fresno ranked number one ahead of ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC among adults
18 to 49 and adults 18-34 during primetime. In Miami, Univision ranked as
the number one broadcast station during primetime among total viewers.

The local opportunity also presents yet another problem, though: While
national Univision is seen as more balanced in their segments, “when it
comes to local coverage, there is more difficulty with local producers,”
the senior GOP source said.

Others point to progress in the relationship, with Univision working hard
to develop relationships in both parties working through internal “red” and
“blue” teams, which led to the RNC developing relationships with network
general managers, for example.

But Ramos told BuzzFeed News that he’s not planning to back off as the 2016
election approaches, and he said the only way the Republicans can fix it is
by acting on immigration.

“I understand why the Republican party is so concerned,” he said.”Latinos
know that Republicans are the ones blocking immigration reform right now
and they’re going to have to deal with that in 2016. Unless they resolve
the immigration issue, they might lose the Latino vote again and then they
will lose the White House again.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “No, Hillary Clinton ≠ Mitt Romney when it
comes to 2016”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/14/no-hillary-clinton-%E2%89%A0-mitt-romney-when-it-comes-to-2016/>*

By Chris Cillizza

January 14 at 11:54 a.m. EDT

After I wrote this piece arguing that it made little sense for Mitt Romney
to run for president a third time in 2016, I got lots -- and lots -- of
tweets like this one:

[Graphic]

Clinton has, after all, been around national politics longer than Romney.
And, she is just as much a throwback as he would be if he ran again.  I get
it. I just don't agree with it. (Cue: Well, that's because you are a
Democrat and rooting for her to win. Um, no.)  Here's why a second Clinton
bid in 2016 makes more sense than a third Romney bid would.

1. It would be her second, not third, run for president.  The more apt
comparison for Clinton 2016 is Romney 2012.  In both cases, they were seen
as the runner-up to the eventual nominee in their party's most recent
competitive primary.  And, there's a clear logic in coming in second and
then running again to try and come in first. It's the logic that installed
Romney as the favorite in 2012, a position he never relinquished. Making a
return bid also allows a candidate -- Clinton in this case -- to make the
"I did it once and learned what to do and what not to do" argument. Running
for a third time in three straight elections, having lost twice before,
makes it a lot harder to make that argument.

2. She's spent 6 years doing other things. Clinton went from her 2008 loss
to serving for four years as the country's leading diplomat.  That allows
her to present herself as something different and new-ish to voters.  She
can draw -- rhetorically and from a policy perspective -- on what she's
done since the last time she ran for president; "Representing the U.S. on
the world stage, I learned that .......," is a sentence you can see Clinton
using -- and using effectively -- as she re-pitches herself to voters.
Romney, on the other hand, is just over two years removed from losing in
2012, and hasn't taken a job (or a position on a major issue) that would
allow him to make the I'm-something-new-and-different argument easily. He's
essentially the same person he was when he lost in 2012; his argument is,
in a nutshell: I came close last time and I was right about lots of
things.  Sure. But, neither of those things re-invent him in any way -- and
his loss in 2012 suggests that some level of reinvention would be necessary
if he wants to run and win in 2016.

3. She has no primary challenge. Clinton is running (or will be running) in
as close to an empty primary field as any non-incumbent president could
hope for in 2016. She is the de facto nominee before she has even said the
words "I'm running". Romney, on the other hand, would face a crowded and
talented field that is, inarguably deeper and better than the one he bested
in 2012.  If Romney had a path even close to as (seemingly) easy as
Clinton's, his third time candidacy would make a whole lot more sense.

That word "sense" is the one that I -- and the Republicans I talk to not
directly linked to Romney -- keep coming back to when talking about his
potential 2016 candidacy.  Typically in winning campaigns -- presidential
or otherwise -- there's a logic behind the bid that not only makes sense to
the candidate and his or inner circle but also to voters.  Whether that's a
re-run after coming in second (the preferred route to the nomination of
most recent Republican nominees) or the need to have a complete break from
the "old" ways of doing things in politics (Barack Obama's "hope" and
"change" in 2008), there's usually a sound logic to the candidacy.

Campaigns without an obvious logic to them -- Ted Kennedy's primary
challenge to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 being the shining example --
tend not to work out so well.  And, the logic of Clinton's 2016 candidacy
seems to be there.  For Romney, not so much.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hopes for a Woman President
Split Along Party, Gender Lines”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/14/hopes-for-a-woman-president-split-along-party-gender-lines/>*

By Eric Morath

January 14, 2015, 10:00 a.m. EST

With possible presidential runs for Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren on
voters’ minds, better than two-thirds of Democratic women say they are
hopeful a woman will be elected to the nation’s top office in their
lifetime.

A poll released Wednesday by Pew Research Center found that 38% of adults
hope the U.S. will elect a female president in their lifetime. But the
answers varied widely by party and gender.

Among Democratic women, 69% say they hope to see a female president. In
contrast, just 20% of Republican women held that view. Among men, 46% of
Democrats said they hoped to see a woman take the oath of office versus 16%
of Republicans.

For many Republicans, their view is likely more about the prospect of a
Hillary Clinton presidency than about a major milestone for women, Pew
said, a perspective that influences the way they respond to the
hypothetical question.

The poll also asked about gender equality in the workplace.

A majority of Republican men, 54%, said the country has already taken the
necessary steps to achieve gender equality in the workplace. In contrast,
66% of Republican women said more changes are needed to achieve
equality—nearly matching the 71% share all those polled who held that
opinion.

Pew’s findings come from two separate November surveys of more than 1,000
adults each.

Women working full-time earned 82 cents, on average, for every dollar a man
earned in 2013, the Labor Department said in December. That finding showed
a very slight narrowing from 2012’s figure of 81 cents and little progress
since the recession ended in 2009, when women earned 80% of average male
wages.

*Mediaite: “Chuck Todd: Number of GOP Candidates Shows Hillary’s Not
Intimidating”
<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-todd-number-of-gop-candidates-shows-hillarys-not-intimidating/>*

By Evan McMurry

January 14, 2015, 10:10 a.m. EST

Meet the Press host Chuck Todd told Morning Joe Wednesday the number of GOP
figures now seriously considering a 2016 run showed Hillary Clinton was not
the formidable candidate the press had made her out to be.

“A lot of Republicans obviously believe 2016 is going to be the best chance
at the presidency in a long time, or they wouldn’t be clamoring to get in,”
Todd said.

“This means a lot of Republicans look at Hillary Clinton and are not
intimidated. I’m sorry, nobody a month ago thought Bush, Romney, and
Christie would be in this race.”

Cohost Joe Scarborough asked if Clinton’s book tour, marred by low sales
and several micro-scandals, had in fact lowered her status as the
inevitable candidate.

Todd agreed. “If she’d had a different type of book tour,” he asked, “do we
think Jeb Bush gets in, do we think Mitt Romney reconsiders?”

Rumors that Clinton’s inevitability was a media creation of shows just like
this one went unconfirmed at press time.

Watch the clip below, via MSNBC:

[VIDEO]

*Weekly Standard: Jindal to Bash Hillary's 'Mindless Naiveté' in London
Speech
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/jindal-bash-hillarys-mindless-naivet-london-speech_823731.html?page=1>*

By Daniel Halper

January 14, 2015 9:05 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] And Declare 'Islam Has a Problem.'

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a likely 2016 Republican presidential
candidate, will give a major foreign policy address next week in London.
According to early excerpts of the address, Jindal will use the speech to
bash Hillary Clinton, the likely 2016 Democratic presidential candidate,
and to go after radical Islam in wake of last week's Paris terrorist
attacks.

Referring to Clinton's recent comment on having empathy for the views of
America's enemies, Jindal is planning to say, "Our former Secretary of
State in America recently said that we need to 'show respect for our
enemies' and 'empathize with their perspective and point of view.' Well,
yes, understanding our enemies as a means of destroying them, I’m all for
that.  But empathizing with them as if perhaps we can find some common
ground, I have no interest in that kind of mindless naiveté."

He'll continue:

Let me be blunt about this. I want America’s allies to trust us and respect
us, and I want our enemies to fear us. Every day our enemies spend their
time trying to avoid our justice is a day they are not plotting against us.
And I fear that in recent years this has not been the case.

The events of the past several years clearly suggest that America’s allies
are often less than certain that they can count on us, and our enemies too
often do not fear us. Of course, as Americans we want all people to live in
harmony, and we do not desire to have any enemies. But the simple truth is
that we do, but that is not of our doing.