Subject: ​Correct The Record Friday February 6, 2015 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 08:42:30 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Friday February 6, 2015 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Cleveland.com opinion: Rep. Tim Ryan: “Ohio has always been Clinton
Country”
<http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/02/ohio_has_always_been_clinton_c.html>*

“I believe that Hillary would be the best person to continue the fight and
to strongly and boldly lead Ohio and our country forward.”

*National Journal: Charlie Cook: “The Front-Runner’s Peril”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-cook-report/the-front-runner-s-peril-20150206>*

“Clinton looks awfully strong for the Democratic nomination, and for good
reason. We will see if it is true that politics, like nature, abhors a
vacuum.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Are men afraid to run against Hillary
Clinton BECAUSE she’s a woman?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/05/are-men-afraid-to-run-against-hillary-clinton-because-shes-a-woman/>*

“Clinton, like her or not, has done what many countless men have done
before her. She has plotted a course to the White House, clearing a path
not because of her gender, but because of her strength and her power. To
suggest otherwise is to deny her proper credit and gives too much to those
who haven't ‘manned up.’”

*Mediaite: “Jon Stewart Mocks Dems ‘Scared’ of Daring to Challenge Hillary”
<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-mocks-dems-scared-of-daring-to-challenge-hillary/>*

“Jon Stewart tonight broke down the 2016 ‘invisible primary’ and laughed at
how Democrats are so utterly “scared” of daring to challenge Hillary
Clinton.”

*Washington Post: “Rules for Benghazi panel fuel Democrats’ suspicion of
political motive”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rules-for-benghazi-panel-fuel-democrats-suspicion-of-political-motive/2015/02/05/5524c372-ad67-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html>*

“A congressional investigation of the 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in
Benghazi, Libya, is operating outside rules that require other House
committees to disclose publicly how much money they spend and the issues
they intend to pursue, according to Democrats on the panel.”

*New York Times: First Draft: “Mandy Grunwald to Join Clinton Team”
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/05/mandy-grunwald-to-join-clinton-team/?_r=0>*

“The move to bring Ms. Grunwald onto the nascent campaign also underscores
how unlikely it is that Ms. Warren will run for president.”

*Bloomberg: “Can Jennnifer Palmieri Keep Hillary Clinton's Presidential
Campaign On Message?”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-06/can-jennnifer-palmieri-keep-hillary-clinton-s-presidential-campaign-on-message->*

[Subtitle:] “Battle-hardened during the John Edwards scandal, mind-melded
with presumptive Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, trusted by the
media, the Obama press aide sends a message about Hillary's reset.”

*Articles:*

*Cleveland.com opinion: Rep. Tim Ryan: “Ohio has always been Clinton
Country”
<http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/02/ohio_has_always_been_clinton_c.html>*

By Rep. Tim Ryan

February 6, 2015, 4:00 a.m.

Secretary Clinton understands our working class values, and that Ohio is a
state that is deeply proud of its work ethic and history of innovation. We
vote for candidates who understand our principles and believe in our future.

In the next few years, we must continue to focus on creating good-paying
jobs and building economic opportunity for every citizen. To help make this
goal a reality, I'm joining millions of Democrats across Ohio in my
excitement for a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy and the values she
represents. She knows that when you support middle class workers and
families, you help strengthen the economy and give our citizens the chance
to succeed.

Secretary Clinton has the experience and leadership on the issues that
matter most to Ohioans. In Arkansas, she expanded childhood education
throughout the state. As First Lady, Hillary worked to increase access to
health care for every American. As a senator, she repeatedly fought to
increase the minimum wage and extend unemployment benefits and
job-retraining programs. As secretary of state, Hillary worked to
strengthen our country's global standing and gained valuable experience
that will help her eliminate unfair trade practices that could create
thousands of jobs in Ohio alone. Most recently, through the Clinton
Foundation, Hillary has developed initiatives to help children and
low-income families. Simply put, Hillary understands the importance of
investing in the fundamental building blocks that make America great.

After all, being a leader is about assuring the safety of our citizens and
creating an environment that enables our economy to grow and thrive. That
is what I have spent more than a decade fighting for on behalf of Ohioans
in Congress. I believe that one of the best ways to achieve this is by
doubling down on our already strong manufacturing base, including old-line
manufacturing and the newer field of advanced manufacturing.

We must re-establish the United States of America as the world's leading
innovator in manufacturing, and Ohio should lead the way. Youngstown is
home to America Makes, the national additive manufacturing center and the
number one ranked university incubator in the world. In Akron we have the
Bits and Atoms Innovation Center, which gives entrepreneurs a creative
space to build and develop new technologies. In Kent, a federal investment
of $20 million led to over $120 million in other investments that have
transformed their downtown.

These types of ideas and innovations are happening in places like
Youngstown, Kent and Akron largely thanks to the type of long-term vision
and public-private partnerships that Secretary Clinton has spent a lifetime
forging.

Hillary Clinton has consistently been on the frontline of the battles to
put more money in the pockets of middle-class workers, ensuring that all
Americans have the means to support their families. I believe that Hillary
would be the best person to continue the fight and to strongly and boldly
lead Ohio and our country forward.

*National Journal: Charlie Cook: “The Front-Runner’s Peril”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-cook-report/the-front-runner-s-peril-20150206>*

By Charlie Cook

February 6, 2015

While the fight for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination looks like
it will be a wild roller-coaster ride, the Democratic contest, at least
today, looks like a pretty boring affair. History suggests that in open
presidential nomination contests, front-runners rarely go from the starting
line to the finish without losing a few primaries or caucuses along the
way. Usually the leader stumbles, or a protest vote develops somewhere in
the process, or another candidate catches a bit of luck or sparks a bit of
interest. Typically, an element of doubt creeps in at some point, even if
the front-runner ultimately recovers and wins the nomination. But more so
in some races than in others.

In 2012, many of us assumed early on that Mitt Romney would win the GOP
nomination, and he of course ended up with it—but it turned out to be a
pretty rocky trip. In the 2008 Democratic contest, Hillary Clinton started
off as the front-runner. Barack Obama upset her in Iowa, but then she won
in New Hampshire. Back and forth it went, with Obama coming out on top, but
you could have driven from Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to Los Angeles
without passing through a state where Obama won a primary or caucus. (Hint:
It is a Southern route that goes through Arkansas.) Even while George W.
Bush was rolling to the Republican nomination in 2000, he lost seven states
to John McCain. Al Gore's 2000 coronation stands out as an exception to the
rule that front-runners usually face setbacks in some states.

So what about Clinton? Could she really lose somewhere to Sen. Bernie
Sanders or to former Sen. Jim Webb? Sure, it's possible, but it takes a
pretty fertile imagination to picture it right now without Clinton really
face-planting somewhere. What about former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley?
While folks in the Washington area, and certainly those in Maryland, know
that he left office under less-than-auspicious circumstances (you sure
can't blame former Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown entirely for the Democrats' loss
of the governorship in November), that might not hurt him much in a
Democratic fight that is still a long way off. But H-Rod's people probably
aren't losing a lot of sleep worrying about O'Malley. If there is any buzz
at all on the Democratic side about a potential challenge to Clinton, it's
around Sen. Elizabeth Warren, not O'Malley or anyone else. In a recent
lunch conversation with 10 Democratic operatives, I heard more people name
California Gov. Jerry Brown as a long-shot alternative to Clinton than
mention O'Malley.

Warren and her folks insist that she is not going to run in 2016, and I
suspect that if you gave the Massachusetts Democrat a shot of Sodium
Pentothal and wired her to a polygraph machine, the evidence would probably
indicate that she's being forthright (though it would be interesting to see
if there was any change in breathing, skin clamminess, or other indicators
of stress). But at the same time, Warren is 65 years old, just two years
younger than Clinton. If she ever wants to run for president, this might be
her last shot, and there appears to be little love lost between the two
women and their camps. Clinton will have to perform a delicate balancing
act. She must sit far enough to the left to forestall a serious nomination
challenge, but not so far that it would jeopardize winning the general
election.

Let's face it: Hillary Clinton is the least-liberal Democrat who can
plausibly win the nomination in 2016. Indeed, if she is not the nominee, it
probably will be someone to her left—and also to the left of President
Obama, who is seen by the party's more ideological elements as having
compromised too much. While the past two Democratic nomination fights, in
2004 and 2008, were not so much about ideology, if there is a contest in
2016, it very likely will have more such overtones.

Clinton looks awfully strong for the Democratic nomination, and for good
reason. We will see if it is true that politics, like nature, abhors a
vacuum.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Are men afraid to run against Hillary
Clinton BECAUSE she’s a woman?”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/05/are-men-afraid-to-run-against-hillary-clinton-because-shes-a-woman/>*

By Nia-Malika Henderson

February 5, 2015, 3:24 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton is on the glide path to the Democratic nomination, with few
credible challengers stepping forward. And Ross Baker, a political
scientist professor at Rutgers University, thinks he knows why.

Clinton and the political "colossus" that is Nancy Pelosi are scaring away
all the good male rivals, Nurse Ratched-style. They are "towering and
intimidating figures, who have sucked the oxygen out of the spheres they
dominate."

He writes more in USA Today:

“While the Democratic bench isn't as full as it has been, there is still no
shortage of qualified male candidates who will probably not step forward in
2016. In the Senate there are potential hopefuls who could win the hearts
of the very people who consider Clinton too middle-of-the-road: Sens.
Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Jeff Merkley
of Oregon. There are well-regarded governors such as Jack Markell of
Delaware and Andrew Cuomo of New York or former Massachusetts governor
Deval Patrick. None of them has given the slightest hint that they might
consider a run.”

First off, if I was to make a list of who would mount a run for the White
House if Clinton didn't, I'm not sure many of these people would make it
(s0rry, Sen. Merkley). Which leads to this: If these candidates were so
formidable, wouldn't they just run against Clinton? If they thought they
could amass the millions and millions of dollars it would take to mount a
run for the White House -- against Clinton or anyone else -- wouldn't they
do it? She's a clear favorite, yes, but an open primary doesn't come around
every four years.

To Baker, it is Clinton's gender that is a big, big stop sign. He doesn't
seem to see a failure on the part of any of these potential male candidates
to do the years and years of work it requires to become a contender. Nope,
all of them are just afraid to run against Clinton because she is a woman
-- not because she has a much higher profile, much better presidential
resume and political network.

He calls this failure or fear of going "toe-to-toe with a powerful woman
is, in the final analysis, a form of patronizing that ill-becomes a party
that has stood so steadfastly for women."

But haven't male Democrats run against women before, you might ask? Yes,
they most certainly have. Like in 2008, for instance. That contest was
rough and tumble early on, with none of the candidates shaking in their
boots at the thought of challenging Clinton, who after all was a powerful
woman back then, too.

(Baker argues that Obama's race gave him a special angle. He was also a
much better candidate and reshaped the electorate as a result, but never
mind that).

So what to make of Baker's argument, one that doesn't account for the fact
that men dominate every single level of politics and nearly every other
powerful industry you can think of? I have never thought of Clinton scaring
away all the good men because of her gender.

In fact, she is "scaring away" women candidates too: Elizabeth Warren
(Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.). Clinton, like
her or not, has done what many countless men have done before her. She has
plotted a course to the White House, clearing a path not because of her
gender, but because of her strength and her power. To suggest otherwise is
to deny her proper credit and gives too much to those who haven't "manned
up."

*Mediaite: “Jon Stewart Mocks Dems ‘Scared’ of Daring to Challenge Hillary”
<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-mocks-dems-scared-of-daring-to-challenge-hillary/>*

By Josh Feldman

February 5, 2015, 11:27 p.m. EST

Jon Stewart tonight broke down the 2016 “invisible primary” and laughed at
how Democrats are so utterly “scared” of daring to challenge Hillary
Clinton.

Right now, he said, Clinton’s only running against “nobody” and “bupkis,”
and “not a single Democrat wants to pursue the nomination on the off chance
that Hillary may throw her hat in the ring.”

But Stewart also had some jabs at Republicans, from Mitt Romney (“sometimes
unwanted people do self-deport”) to Chris Christie (and his “comfort for
corruption”) to Jeb Bush.

Watch the video below, via Comedy Central:

[VIDEO]

*Washington Post: “Rules for Benghazi panel fuel Democrats’ suspicion of
political motive”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rules-for-benghazi-panel-fuel-democrats-suspicion-of-political-motive/2015/02/05/5524c372-ad67-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html>*

By Greg Miller

February 5, 2015, 5:30 p.m. EST

A congressional investigation of the 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in
Benghazi, Libya, is operating outside rules that require other House
committees to disclose publicly how much money they spend and the issues
they intend to pursue, according to Democrats on the panel.

The arrangement has added to suspicion among Democrats that the
Republican-led committee — with no budget constraints or clear end-date —
is politically motivated and aimed primarily at damaging a likely White
House run by Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time
of the attacks in Libya.

The House investigation of Benghazi “operates with no limit on its budget
or timeframe,” according to a letter of protest submitted by Democrats to
the House Administration Committee, which oversees the chamber’s other
panels.

The letter calls for a “public debate about the amount of additional time
and money Congress plans to spend” investigating Benghazi, and for a public
hearing before the House Administration committee, as is typically required
of other panels.

The Benghazi committee is on course to spend more than $3 million,
exceeding the annual budgets of long-standing committees that oversee
veterans affairs and other issues, according to the letter.

The letter was signed by all five Democrats on the Benghazi panel,
including Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking minority member. A spokesman
for the Republican chairman of the Benghazi committee, Trey Gowdy (S.C.),
declined to comment.

Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Administration
Committee, said in a written response that the issues being raised by
Democrats could have been debated on the House floor, and described the
Democrats' letter as "remarkably odd."

The conflict reflects the extent to which political tensions persist more
than two years after attacks by Islamist militants killed four Americans in
eastern Libya, including the U.S. ambassador to the country at the time, J.
Christopher Stevens.

As many as eight previous investigations have rejected many of the most
politically charged Benghazi allegations.

A two-year inquiry by the House intelligence committee criticized a
“flawed” process that led White House officials to make erroneous
assertions about the nature of the Benghazi attack, and concluded that the
State Department facility where Stevens was killed had been inadequately
protected.

But the committee found no evidence that interference from Washington
undermined efforts to defend the besieged State compound or a nearby CIA
facility, or that there was a politically motivated cover-up afterward.

Despite those findings, House Republicans created a stand-alone panel last
year to focus exclusively on Benghazi. The panel has held three hearings
since its inception in May, and been beset by political skirmishes.

Democrats have said that they were excluded from interviews that Republican
members conducted with Benghazi witnesses, meetings that Democrats said
they found out about only after Gowdy had mentioned them publicly.

Both sides have voiced frustration over the committee’s pace. Gowdy has
accused the Obama administration of being slow to turn over records, and
recently vowed to “ratchet up” pressure on the executive branch.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), who serves on the panel and is also the
ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said during a recent
hearing that the Benghazi inquiry has already taken longer than previous
House probes — including a 2005 examination of the response to Hurricane
Katrina — with no clear finish line.

“This committee has such an indefinite scope, we don’t know exactly what
we’re looking for,” Schiff said.

The letter from Democrats said the funding mechanism for the Benghazi
committee amounts to a “blank check,” bypassing rules that require other
panels to outline their budgets and plans in public.

*New York Times: First Draft: “Mandy Grunwald to Join Clinton Team”
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/05/mandy-grunwald-to-join-clinton-team/?_r=0>*

By Jonathan Martin

February 5, 2015 5:41 p.m. EST

Mandy Grunwald, an adviser to the Clintons for over two decades and a top
strategist to Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, is expected to
serve as a senior adviser for communications to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s
all-but-certain presidential bid.

Ms. Grunwald will advise Mrs. Clinton on strategy and make some of the
television ads along with Jim Margolis, whose firm, GMMB, is expected to
take the lead on producing and buying the commercials. The pollster Joel
Benenson is another senior adviser poised to work for Mrs. Clinton on her
second White House run.

Ms. Grunwald, an original member of Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential
campaign team who also worked on Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 White House bid,
represents a nod to continuity after a stream of recent stories about Mrs.
Clinton’s plans to hire advisers close to her one-time rival for the White
House, President Obama. Mrs. Clinton’s camp has put out word that she will
look to Mr. Margolis, Mr. Benenson, Robby Mook, John D. Podesta and
Jennifer Palmieri — each of whom has worked or now works for Mr. Obama — to
build her campaign. (Some of them, it should be noted, also have ties to
the Clintons.)

The move to bring Ms. Grunwald onto the nascent campaign also underscores
how unlikely it is that Ms. Warren will run for president. Ms. Grunwald
produced Ms. Warren’s TV ads in her 2012 Senate campaign, and the two
remain close; Ms. Grunwald hosted a book party last year to celebrate the
release of Ms. Warren’s autobiography.

The decision to tap Ms. Grunwald, as well as Ms. Palmieri as communications
director, could also address questions about gender diversity in Mrs.
Clinton’s still-developing campaign team. Mrs. Clinton has a number of
women in her inner circle, including Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, but
grumbles have been growing louder in recent weeks from some female
Democratic operatives about the number of men who appear bound to take
senior roles on Mrs. Clinton’s likely campaign.

Ms. Grunwald counts a number of Democratic senators as her clients and is
particularly close to several women in the Senate, including Senators Tammy
Baldwin of Wisconsin, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Jeanne Shaheen of New
Hampshire, who was one of the only Democratic senators last year to fend
off a Republican challenge.

*Bloomberg: “Can Jennnifer Palmieri Keep Hillary Clinton's Presidential
Campaign On Message?”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-06/can-jennnifer-palmieri-keep-hillary-clinton-s-presidential-campaign-on-message->*

By Margaret Talev

February 6, 2015, 5:50 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Battle-hardened during the John Edwards scandal, mind-melded
with presumptive Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, trusted by the
media, the Obama press aide sends a message about Hillary's reset.

Among watchers of Barack Obama's presidency and Hillary Clinton's expected
2016 campaign launch, the coming departures of two top White House aides
got lots of attention: senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, because he's been with
Obama since before his 2008 win, and counselor John Podesta, because he's a
former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton whose move is all but proof
of what everyone already assumed was true about Hillary's plans to run
again.

But a more telling figure in the second-term White House departure lounge
may actually be Jennifer Palmieri, Obama's affable but battle-tested
communications director. Palmieri is leaving this spring to become the
communications director for what doesn't yet exist as but will become the
Clinton 2016 campaign.

Palmieri, 48, is viewed in the White House and national political press
corps as accessible and an honest broker whose loyalty to politicians comes
with expectations of professionalism and propriety by the candidate, but
has its limits (see: John Edwards). Her hiring suggests that Clinton, a
former first lady, U.S. senator, failed 2008 presidential candidate and
secretary of state, either really is serious about wanting to reset her own
infamously antagonistic relationship with the media or at least wants to
send that signal.

Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist and former spokesman for presidential
candidate Mitt Romney, said Palmieri is "as formidable an opponent as I've
ever come across in political campaigns" and is someone so organized that
"everyone in Palmieri's line of sight will know exactly what the campaign
plan is and what they need to do to execute."  She also has the
credentials, Madden said, to push back when she thinks the candidate or
eager-to-please aides are making a mistake.

"She knows her stuff," Madden said. "That's critical when you're the
staffer that has to stare down the sycophants inside every campaign and
offer the candidate unvarnished truths. It's important when you're
developing the message and strategy privately and when you're executing it
publicly." Palmieri declined to comment for the story.

While Palmieri hasn't worked directly for Hillary Clinton before, the two
women have gotten to know one another over the course of the last two
decades because Palmieri worked for the Bill Clinton White House both terms
and during a six-month transition period after he left office. She and
Podesta also are close with a long history of working well, even between
the Clinton and the Obama administrations. Podesta founded the Center for
American Progress, where Palmieri, during her time there from 2005-2011,
built a reputation among Democrats for her ability to stand up a
progressive war room of sorts, with a communications operation of about 50
people. Obama pollster Joel Benenson and Jim Margolis, a media consultant
who has advised the Obama campaign as well as Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid, a Nevada Democrat, are among the other cross-over advisers expected
to join the Clinton effort.

In the world of presidential runs, Palmieri was John Edwards' 2004 campaign
press secretary and in a less formal capacity an adviser in 2008. Before
Edwards' reputation was felled by an extramarital scandal and a trial, the
2004 vice presidential nominee was known for his "two Americas"  speech in
which he addressed the gulf between the wealthy and Americans living to
paycheck to paycheck. With Obama and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren
prodding for income inequality to be a rallying cry for Democrats in 2016,
Hillary Clinton must consider how she wants to address the issue.

Perhaps even more important for the Clintons is the value of Palmieri's
experience with scandal.  A large part of her battle-testing was during the
extended drama surrounding Edwards' affair with videographer Rielle Hunter,
his trial on charges related to allegations of illegal campaign
contributions, and the death from cancer of his embattled wife Elizabeth
Edwards, to whom Palmieri was a devoted friend.

"There's an old saying in campaign world, you learn more from the losing
ones than the winning ones and there's some truth in that," said Mike
Feldman,  a former top adviser to Vice President Al Gore. "You don't
control all the variables."

"If you're looking to establish trust and credibility from the beginning,"
he said of Palmieri, "you couldn't do any better."

Democrat strategist Bill Burton, a former Obama spokesman, said Palmieri
"is one of the greatest communicators in the Democratic Party and a huge
get" for Clinton. "She will help to bridge the White House and the Clinton
campaign in a way that few people could," and be "instrumental to Secretary
Clinton's success."

*Calendar:*

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

·  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 3 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton honored by EMILY’s List (AP
<http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=SUjRlg8K>)

·  March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton
Foundation (WSJ
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/>
)

·  March 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to keynote Irish American Hall of
Fame (NYT <https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/562349766731108352>)

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

·  March 23 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton to keynote award ceremony for
the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting (Syracuse
<http://newhouse.syr.edu/news-events/news/former-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-newhouse-school-s>
)