Subject: Correct The Record Tuesday February 10, 2015 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:05:32 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Tuesday February 10, 2015 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines*:

*Politico: “David Brock resigns from Hillary Clinton PAC”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/david-brock-resigns-priorities-usa-action-115028.html>*

“David Brock on Monday abruptly resigned from the board of the super PAC
Priorities USA Action, revealing rifts that threaten the big-money
juggernaut being built to support Hillary Clinton’s expected presidential
campaign.”

*Washington Post: “Activist David Brock considers rejoining pro-Clinton
super PAC Priorities USA”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/activist-david-brock-considers-rejoining-pro-clinton-super-pac-priorities-usa/2015/02/09/d4fd57b0-b0b1-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html>*

“A clash that threatened to fracture a network of independent groups
mobilizing to back a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential run was partially
defused late Monday when liberal activist David Brock agreed to consider
rejoining the board of a pro-Clinton super PAC.”

*Politico: “RNC launching ‘Hillary’s hiding’ campaign”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/rnc-hillary-clinton-campaign-ads-115052.html>*

“The latest front in Republicans’ anti-Clinton effort will launch on
Tuesday morning, with the Republican National Committee’s ‘Hillary’s
Hiding’ campaign designed to highlight the former secretary of state’s
recent lack of straightforward political activity despite her presumed
pre-candidate status.”

*New York Times blog: The Upshot: “The Parent Agenda, the Emerging
Democratic Focus”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/upshot/the-parent-agenda-the-emerging-democratic-focus.html?abt=0002&abg=0>*

“It’s far too early to know how these themes will resonate with voters, or
even the extent to which Mrs. Clinton will emphasize this agenda, but it
does have the potential to give the Democrats a more coherent message for
the middle class than the party had in 2014 or even 2012.”

*National Journal: “The Democrats’ Secret Staffing Advantage in 2016”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/the-democrats-secret-staffing-advantage-in-2016-20150209>*

[Subtitle:] “With Hillary Clinton facing minimal opposition, some of the
party’s top operatives are focusing on winning back a Senate majority
instead.”

*Washington Post: The Debrief: “Democrats suffering from Clinton fatigue
say they’re ready for Warren”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-may-look-inevitable-but-some-iowa-democrats-are-ready-for-warren/2015/02/09/1f0063fe-b083-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html>*

“Thirteen Iowa Democrats wearily took their seats here this weekend and
discussed among themselves the source of their angst: Hillary Rodham
Clinton.”

*Articles*:

*Politico: “David Brock resigns from Hillary Clinton PAC”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/david-brock-resigns-priorities-usa-action-115028.html>*

By Kenneth P. Vogel

February 9, 2015

David Brock on Monday abruptly resigned from the board of the super PAC
Priorities USA Action, revealing rifts that threaten the big-money
juggernaut being built to support Hillary Clinton’s expected presidential
campaign.

In a resignation letter obtained by POLITICO, Brock, a close Clinton ally,
accused Priorities officials of planting “an orchestrated political hit
job” against his own pro-Clinton groups, American Bridge and Media Matters.

Those groups — along with another pro-Clinton group, the super PAC Ready
for Hillary — had their fundraising practices called into question last
week by a New York Times report. It pointed out that veteran Democratic
fundraiser Mary Pat Bonner got a 12.5 percent commission on funds she
raised for Brock’s groups and a smaller percentage commission on cash she
raised for Ready for Hillary.

In his letter to the co-chairs of Priorities’ board — former Michigan Gov.
Jennifer Granholm and former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina — Brock
alleged that “current and former Priorities officials were behind this
specious and malicious attack on the integrity of these critical
organizations.”

The letter — and Brock’s resignation — offer a rare glimpse into a network
of groups upon which Democrats are relying to keep the White House and
stave off increasingly robust big-money efforts on the right. The public
airing of dirty laundry comes as sources say Priorities is struggling to
live up to the hopes of some Clinton allies, who had argued it should aim
to raise as much as $500 million to eviscerate prospective Clinton rivals
in the primary and general elections.

Brock, who spent his early career in Washington as a self-described
“right-wing hit man” before experiencing a political awakening and emerging
as the leader of an empire of hard-hitting liberal attack groups, contends
in his letter that Priorities is trying to damage his groups’ fundraising
efforts, “while presumably enhancing Priorities’ own. Frankly, this is the
kind of dirty trick I’ve witnessed in the right-wing and would not tolerate
then. Our Democratic Presidential nominee deserves better than people who
would risk the next election — and our country’s future — for their own
personal agendas.”

Brock did not respond to requests for comment about the letter, his group’s
relationship with Bonner or with the other big-money groups boosting
Clinton.

Craig Smith, a senior adviser to Ready for Hillary, said his group is still
working with Bonner, as well as with Priorities and Brock’s groups. “We
have worked with them for almost two years. We continue to work with them.
We all do very different things, so there’s not a lot of overlap.”

Asked whether he thought rivals on the left were circulating negative
information on Bonner, he said, “I would hope not. Not that I’m aware of.”

Priorities spokesman Peter Kauffmann denied that Priorities had anything to
do with the Times story, which also noted that his group paid fundraising
commissions on at least $2 million worth of checks, including contributions
from California tech billionaire Irwin Jacobs. Sources say Jacobs was upset
by the revelations.

Kauffmann said Priorities no longer pays fundraising commissions and that
it maintains close working relationships with the other groups boosting
Clinton.

“Priorities USA Action and allied organizations demonstrated a clear
ability to work together effectively in 2012 and we look to replicate that
success again in 2016,” he said.

By early evening — hours after POLITICO broke the news of Brock’s
resignation — Priorities USA Action issued a conciliatory statement from
Granholm saying that the group was “working to address” Brock’s concerns,
while Brock issued one saying he was “open to returning to the board.”

Brock in his statement said he’d talked “to several leaders of Priorities
USA Action” and was “confident they want to address the situation.” The
parties planned to meet “to work on establishing that path and
strengthening our relationship and getting back to the important work we
need to do in this election cycle,” he said.

Sources familiar with the events say the statement came after discussions
between Brock, Granholm, Priorities board member Charlie Baker and Paul
Begala, a Democratic strategist with deep ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Still, the groups — as well as Ready for Hillary — do to some extent
compete with one another for big checks from wealthy Clinton backers. At
one point, Priorities’ allies tried to force Ready for Hillary to shut
down. But the groups — along with Brock’s — eventually entered into a
sometimes uneasy alliance to lay the groundwork for the former secretary of
state to run for president in 2016. Together, the groups formed an
unprecedented shadow campaign that combined to raise millions in 2014.
American Bridge’s Correct the Record Project defends Clinton against
political attacks, while Ready for Hillary builds files of voters and small
donors, and Priorities cultivates relationships with major donors.

The idea was to build an infrastructure that would allow Clinton to hit the
ground running if and when she declared her candidacy for the Democratic
nomination and to project a financial show of force that would overwhelm
any prospective rival in the primary or general elections.

The in-fighting is an ominous sign. It calls to mind the squabbles that
helped sink Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. It, too, was regarded as
an unrivaled cash juggernaut, but feuding among cliques of supporters
stymied efforts to launch a planned big-money outside effort in time to
neutralize a surprisingly robust insurgent primary challenge from Barack
Obama.

This time around, her allies tried to pre-empt the sectarianism by
cross-pollinating the various groups to keep everyone on the same page and
minimize competition. Granholm is on the boards of both Priorities and
Ready for Hillary, while Brock joined the board of Priorities, and longtime
Clintonite James Carville has been paid by American Bridge for assistance
with fundraising and strategic advice.

But there also are more groups competing for big checks from rich Clinton
backers than there were in 2008.

In his resignation letter, Brock asserted a “serious breach of trust
between organizations that are supposed to work together toward common ends
has created an untenable situation that leaves me no choice but to resign
my position.”

*Washington Post: “Activist David Brock considers rejoining pro-Clinton
super PAC Priorities USA”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/activist-david-brock-considers-rejoining-pro-clinton-super-pac-priorities-usa/2015/02/09/d4fd57b0-b0b1-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html>*

By Matea Gold

February 9, 2015, 8:15 p.m. EST

A clash that threatened to fracture a network of independent groups
mobilizing to back a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential run was partially
defused late Monday when liberal activist David Brock agreed to consider
rejoining the board of a pro-Clinton super PAC.

The conciliatory gesture came hours after Brock fired off an e-mail angrily
resigning from the board of Priorities USA Action, accusing officials with
the super PAC of providing material for a damaging New York Times story
about his groups’ fundraising practices.

That prompted a flurry of outreach to him by several members of the
Priorities board, including former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm,
longtime Clinton adviser Harold Ickes, and veteran Democratic strategists
Charlie Baker and Paul Begala.

Late Monday evening, Brock said in a statement that “after talking to
several leaders of Priorities USA Action, I am confident they want to
address the situation.”

“I’m open to returning to the board and I share their desire to find a way
to move forward,” he added. “We will be meeting to work on establishing
that path and strengthening our relationship and getting back to the
important work we need to do in this election cycle.”

Granholm, who co-chairs the super PAC with strategist Jim Messina, said in
a statement released jointly with Brock’s that the group takes his concerns
seriously and is “working to address them.”

“We all have the same shared goals,” Granholm said. “David Brock and his
team are talented, effective and dedicated professionals.”

But even with the hasty rapprochement, the episode raised questions about
whether Clinton’s outside support network will be plagued by the kind of
infighting that undermined her 2008 presidential campaign.

In his resignation letter, Brock accused current and former Priorities
officials of launching a “dirty trick” against his groups by providing
information for the Times piece, which he called “an orchestrated political
hit job,” according to a copy obtained by The Washington Post. Brock’s
resignation was first reported by Politico.

Republicans seized on the incident with glee, while exasperated Democrats
close to Clinton cringed.

The fight was the first major public break among the coterie of Democratic
strategists jockeying for influence in an alliance of super PACs and other
independent groups positioning to back a Clinton campaign.

Brock is a conservative-turned-liberal whose expanding empire includes the
group Media Matters for America and the research operation American Bridge.
His suite of groups is already churning out research to boost Clinton and
attack potential GOP rivals, digging up material that Priorities USA can
use in ad campaigns.

He was among the dozen Democratic power brokers who joined the Priorities
board last year, a carefully curated collection of operatives that included
union officials, interest-group leaders and seasoned political strategists
such as Messina, who was President Obama’s 2012 campaign manager.

At its heart, the conflict centers on access to big donors on the left,
whose financial resources are intensely sought by Democrats working to
build an independent firewall for the 2016 election. That pressure is
particularly acute for Priorities, which is aiming to collect tens of
millions of dollars this year to finance heavy air artillery to boost
Clinton.

“There are a lot of deep relationships here and issues as to how donors are
approached,” said one person familiar with the dynamics, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity to describe private discussions.

Tensions between the organizations escalated last weekend after the Times
published a story describing the lucrative commissions earned by Mary Pat
Bonner, a donor adviser who works closely with Brock’s organizations, as
well as another group, Ready for Hillary.

In 2014, Bonner’s firm earned $3.5 million for the $28 million it brought
in for Brock’s groups, according to the Times — equivalent to a 12.5
percent commission.

In his resignation letter Monday, Brock said he was told by multiple people
that Priorities officials fed information to the Times for its article.

“This disheartening conduct and serious breach of trust between
organizations that are supposed to work together toward common ends has
created an untenable situation that leaves me no choice but to resign my
position,” Brock wrote. “The apparent purpose was damaging our fundraising
efforts, while presumably enhancing Priorities’ own.”

*Politico: “RNC launching ‘Hillary’s hiding’ campaign”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/rnc-hillary-clinton-campaign-ads-115052.html>*

By Gabriel Debenedetti

February 9, 2015, 9:39 p.m. EST

Nearly two dozen Republicans are in the early stages of clawing at each
other over the 2016 presidential nomination, but that’s not stopping
national party leaders from lobbing new attacks at Hillary Clinton ahead of
the Democrat’s all-but-certain presidential campaign roll-out.

The latest front in Republicans’ anti-Clinton effort will launch on Tuesday
morning, with the Republican National Committee’s “Hillary’s Hiding”
campaign designed to highlight the former secretary of state’s recent lack
of straightforward political activity despite her presumed pre-candidate
status.

The RNC’s effort will include billboards in early-primary/caucus states
such as Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, op-eds, and videos like
the two-minute post it plans to unveil Tuesday featuring edited clips of
President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, White House Press
Secretary Josh Earnest, and Clinton, branding her candidacy as “#Obama’s
3rd term.”

“What’s the only way not to seem like she’s campaigning?” asks RNC
communications director Sean Spicer in the planned campaign kick-off memo.
“Go into hiding.”

David Brock, founder of Correct the Record, speaks at the Clinton School of
Public Service in Little Rock, Ark., Tuesday, March 25, 2014. (AP
Photo/Danny Johnston)

The memo notes that Clinton has not held a press conference in over 200
days, and has not been to either Iowa or New Hampshire since November’s
midterms. It also details 28 times Clinton’s camp has declined to comment
on the record for press stories since May.

Clinton allies largely maintain that there is no need for her to start
campaigning yet given her strong position in preliminary polling, and that
as a non-candidate there is no reason for her to hold press conferences.

“If she runs she will take nothing for granted, and she will fight for
every vote. Anyone who thinks otherwise should think again,” said Clinton
spokesman Nick Merrill.

The former senator and first lady has not yet formally embarked on a 2016
run, but a number of high-profile Democratic operatives have already signed
onto her effort while other potential contenders for the nomination —
including former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Virginia Sen. Jim
Webb, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — struggle to gain traction. Clinton
has avoided political appearances since the midterms, and Spicer’s memo
alleges that her silence is part of a “strategic decision that the only way
to ensure she is the Democratic nominee is to make everyone think she’s
inevitable.”

The memo also highlights liberal efforts to draft Massachusetts Sen.
Elizabeth Warren to run for president, despite her own insistence that she
is not running.

Democrats and Republicans alike have publicly worried about the possibility
that Clinton could face little Democratic opposition, and the RNC offensive
is expected to recall low points of Clinton’s failed 2008 bid for the
nomination, when her campaign was plagued by staff infighting and an
overall sense of inevitability that backfired. A research guide attached to
Spicer’s memo compares the ongoing pre-campaign state of Clinton’s
candidacy to that run, and specifically points to the Monday resignation of
Clinton ally David Brock from the board of the pro-Clinton super PAC
Priorities USA as a sign of trouble.

But the RNC campaign also comes as a wide field of current and former
Republican public officials spreads out across the country to garner
financial and political support before the party’s primary season, when the
group is eager to avoid a scramble reminiscent of 2012’s drawn-out
nominating battle. Clinton’s likely 2016 candidacy has been a target of
national Republicans for over a year, and her record as secretary of state
is regularly mentioned by GOP White House contenders campaigning across the
country.

So as Republican aspirants frequent Des Moines ballrooms and Manchester
cafes, the “Hillary’s Hiding” campaign is just one in a series of the
committee’s efforts to paint Clinton in a negative light. It is officially
distinct from the “Hiding Hillary” Facebook page set up by Republican
opposition research group America Rising on Friday, but the similarity
indicates Republicans’ universal wish to combat Clinton’s candidacy early
on.

*New York Times blog: The Upshot: “The Parent Agenda, the Emerging
Democratic Focus”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/upshot/the-parent-agenda-the-emerging-democratic-focus.html?abt=0002&abg=0>*

By Nate Cohn

February 10, 2015

Just a few years ago, one could be forgiven for wondering whether the
liberal agenda had run its course. With near-universal health care — the
unfinished business of the 20th-century Democratic Party — enacted, there
was no obvious next step in the party’s mission of expanding the safety
net. The big Democratic policies yet to be fully addressed, like
immigration overhaul and restrictions on carbon emissions, pitted the
party’s new progressive constituencies against its traditional, white
working-class base.

Yet in the months after last year’s midterm elections, a reinvigorated
liberal agenda has started to emerge. Few of the pieces of this agenda were
discussed in the 2012 presidential elections or last year’s midterms. But
they have rapidly moved from various liberal intellectual publications into
President Obama's speeches and budget, as well as Hillary Clinton’s
speeches.

The emerging Democratic agenda is meant to appeal to parents. The policies
under discussion — paid family leave; universal preschool; an expanded
earned-income tax credit and child tax credit; free community college and
perhaps free four-year college in time — are intended both to alleviate the
burdens on middle-class families and to expand educational opportunity for
children. The result is a thematic platform addressing some of the biggest
sources of anxiety about the future of the middle class.

It’s far too early to know how these themes will resonate with voters, or
even the extent to which Mrs. Clinton will emphasize this agenda, but it
does have the potential to give the Democrats a more coherent message for
the middle class than the party had in 2014 or even 2012.

It could give them a better chance of reclaiming their support among
traditionally Democratic white working-class voters who supported Mr. Obama
in 2012 but now disapprove of his performance. Yet it would still appeal to
many affluent families who feel burdened by the costs of college, child
care and the challenge of raising children with two parents working outside
the home.

The most obvious places to see the new focus have been in Mr. Obama's State
of the Union address and his budget. The central characters in his speech
to Congress were Rebekah and Ben Erler, the struggling parents of two young
children in Minneapolis. “Affordable, high-quality child care,” Mr. Obama
said, is “not a nice-to-have — it’s a must-have.” He added, “It’s time we
stop treating child care as a side issue, or a women’s issue, and treat it
like the national economic priority that it is for all of us.”

His budget — more of a wish list than a policy document, given Republican
control of Congress — includes $200 billion over the next decade for child
care and early education, along with $60 billion for free community
college. He has already proposed expanding the earned-income tax credit and
the child tax credit.

Beyond Washington, dozens of states have pursued expanded preschool in the
last few years. Although Republicans have pushed some of the expansions,
Democrats — like Bill de Blasio, the New York mayor, who made the plan a
centerpiece of his campaign — have been behind most of them.

And Mrs. Clinton has signaled that many and perhaps all of these proposals
will be part of her likely campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential
nomination in 2016. A recent commission on “inclusive prosperity,”
containing several Clinton allies, emphasized many of these proposals.

“The United States, unfortunately, is one of a handful of developed
countries without paid family leave,” Mrs. Clinton said in September. “If
we give parents the flexibility on the job and paid family leave, it
actually helps productivity, which in turn helps all of us.”

If embraced by Mrs. Clinton, the agenda could pose real challenges for the
Republicans in 2016. It would adjust the focus from income redistribution —
through higher taxes on the rich, although such taxes may be needed to fund
the new proposals — toward expanded opportunity. It also has the potential
to move the Democrats from seeming to focus on the poor, through the
Affordable Care Act and the minimum wage, and toward the middle class. Yet
its ambition would probably be enough to appease an increasingly liberal
Democratic coalition.

In Washington and on the campaign trail, Democrats have struggled to
formulate a policy agenda focused on the middle class. The party has
instead focused on several issues that are incidental — or sometimes even
inimical — to the perceived economic interests of many voters, like
immigration overhaul, gun control and restrictions on carbon emissions.

These policies have helped Democrats mobilize the “new” coalition of young,
secular and nonwhite voters that have allowed them to win recent
presidential elections. But the same policies have hurt them among the
traditionally Democratic but increasingly Republican Southern and
Appalachian white voters who have allowed Republicans to take the House and
the Senate.

The parental agenda has the potential to resonate among the large group of
voters with children under 18 at home, 36 percent of the electorate in
2012. It might also resonate among the already Democratic-leaning young
voters of the Obama era, 18 to 29 years old in 2008, who are now entering
prime childbearing years. The birthrate among millennials has dropped to
near-record or record lows, depending on the age cohort, probably in part
because of economic insecurity. Weekly earnings for full-time workers aged
25 to 34 are down 3.8 percent since 2000.

Early polling data suggests there could be strong public support for many
elements of Mr. Obama’s agenda — including free community college, child
care spending and paid leave — although it remains to be seen whether
support will endure after Republicans respond.

The policies seem less vulnerable to the critiques that have endangered
support for past Democratic initiatives. Far more families seem poised to
benefit from these initiatives in the short term than from the Affordable
Care Act, which offered its biggest immediate benefits to the poor. The
parental agenda also has far fewer potential losers — like people who might
fear losing their doctors or coverage as a result of the Affordable Care
Act. The proposals are not especially complex, either.

This emerging Democratic agenda has already co-opted the message of
so-called reform conservatives, who argue that the G.O.P. needs to come up
with policies to help families. Democrats have the ideological flexibility
to embrace just about any proposal from reform conservatives that might
seem politically threatening, as they already have on the earned income and
college tax credits. In other words, they are willing to use conservative
means to accomplish liberal ends.

Partly as a result, the Republican response has been muddled. Some
Republicans have come out against the parent-focused proposals as more big
government. Others have focused on the costs of Mr. Obama’s program, even
though public concern about the deficit has waned in recent years, or have
said they support the goals but believe states, rather than Washington,
should lead the way.

Control of Congress has allowed the Republican Party to defer its public
campaign against Mr. Obama’s initiatives, since they are dead on arrival.
But the G.O.P. will not have that luxury in 2016, when it will need to
offer a more cogent and specific response than it has so far.

*National Journal: “The Democrats’ Secret Staffing Advantage in 2016”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/the-democrats-secret-staffing-advantage-in-2016-20150209>*

By Emily Schultheis

February 9, 2015

[Subtitle:] With Hillary Clinton facing minimal opposition, some of the
party’s top operatives are focusing on winning back a Senate majority
instead.

The biggest beneficiaries of a noncompetitive 2016 primary for Hillary
Clinton are the Democratic Senate candidates looking to reclaim their
majority.

Democrats head into 2016 with a deep roster of campaign talent that earned
valuable experience on President Obama's successful campaigns. But since
there aren't expected to be many credible candidates running against
Clinton—in sharp contrast to the GOP's deep field—skilled Democratic
operatives have far fewer options when thinking about campaign employment.
Many are expected to make their mark on a Senate race rather than fight for
a prized job with Clinton's campaign.

"Offices of consultants like myself ... are filled with 23-year-old kids
who are trying to figure out what the hell they're going to do," said Jef
Pollock, president of the Democratic firm Global Strategy Group, adding
that just that day he'd been on four calls with political staffers trying
to figure out their 2016 job prospects. "What'll happen is ... the smaller
races may very well be able to get higher-level talent than they might have
[otherwise] been able to get because that person knows that they want to
take something now."

The Senate map favors Democrats this cycle, as Republicans who rode into
office on the tea-party wave of 2010—Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Kelly
Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania—are facing
reelection in a presidential-year electorate. In 2016, Republicans must
defend 24 Senate seats—including five states that President Obama won
twice—compared with just 10 seats for Democrats.

At the moment, Clinton's campaign-in-waiting has largely frozen the
Democratic hiring market: Anyone who wants to work for her is holding on
until the campaign is ready to start staffing up. Clinton, who's expected
to announce a campaign this spring, is undoubtedly the top 2016 choice of
many of the party's operatives, aides, and staffers—and she can't possibly
hire everyone who wants to work for her. One veteran of Democratic
presidential campaigns said: "People are going to be crawling all over each
other at the beginning to get jobs as executive assistants" for Clinton,
let alone high-level positions.

It's looking less likely Clinton will be facing serious competition for the
nomination. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, Sen. Bernie Sanders of
Vermont, and former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia have said they're considering
the race. Even if other candidates announce, they'd likely have far smaller
operations than Clinton's.

Since many of Democrats' highest-targeted Senate races are against GOP
incumbents, there's still time before many of those campaigns will begin
staffing up; Dan McNally, who will serve as campaign manager to Sen.
Michael Bennet of Colorado, is one of the few 2016 Senate hires who's
already been announced. But as Democratic Senate candidates begin to
announce their campaigns against GOP incumbents in many of the top-tier
states later this year, they'll begin building teams of their own—and for
people who'd be mid- to low-level staffers on a Clinton campaign, or
perhaps know by then that they won't get a presidential job, a bigger role
on a Senate race may be a way to make more of an impact on 2016.

Senate Republicans have the opposite problem: As the field of GOP
presidential candidates is scrambling to snap up top campaign talent before
it's gone, that hunt for staff could leave the GOP's vulnerable Senate
incumbents without nearly as many options as they'd get in an off year or
even a less busy presidential cycle. Some incumbents, like Sen. Rob Portman
of Ohio, have publicly announced their senior staff, while others are
working behind the scenes to bring a team on board early this year.

Aides to Senate Republicans' campaign arm acknowledge that this is a
problem—and say the campaign "boot camps" run through the National
Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican National Committee in
recent months have been a response to concerns about a lack of talented
staff.

"It's absolutely a concern," said Kevin McLaughlin, NRSC deputy executive
director. "The presidentials take a lot of oxygen out of the air on this,
and it's something that has to be addressed early."

A total of 100 staffers had gone through the NRSC's three press and
communications training sessions, and 43 people participated in the
committee's 10-week "Digital Training Academy" last cycle. The RNC runs its
own political workshops to give staffers the chops they need to work on
statewide and congressional races.

Caitlin Legacki, who was a 2008 staffer for John Edwards, decided in 2012
that she'd rather take a lead role on a Senate race than try for a job with
Obama's reelection campaign. She ended up serving as campaign
communications director for Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, one of
Republicans' top targets that year—and she took the spotlight even more
when GOP candidate Todd Akin made his comments about "legitimate rape."

"Going out to a Senate race that was going to garner a significant amount
of national attention, being able to have a seat at the table and actually
have a role, was a lot more appealing to me than figuring out what my role
was going to be on the Obama campaign," said Legacki, who now works for the
Democratic consulting firm Precision Strategies along with Obama alums
Stephanie Cutter, Teddy Goff, and Jen O'Malley Dillon. "Those are very
real, very serious races where you have an opportunity to make a big
impact."

Justin Barasky, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's
communications director—who himself took the Senate-race route and opted to
work for Sen. Sherrod Brown's 2012 reelection campaign in Ohio—said the
idea of more responsibility and the chance to have a higher-profile role
will be a big draw for Senate races over the presidential.

"You can distinguish yourself on a presidential in many ways, obviously,
but for those that aren't necessarily senior staff, you can sometimes
distinguish yourself a little more easily by working on a Senate race,"
Barasky said.

That's especially true in the key presidential early states: There are U.S.
Senate races and a handful of competitive House races in Iowa and New
Hampshire, and New Hampshire's governor will also be up for another
two-year term. Staffers who want to get early-state experience but don't
end up on the presidential campaign could ultimately realize a Senate race
will be a good fit for them too.

"With a U.S. Senate race and a gubernatorial campaign in New Hampshire in
2016, I think there will be opportunities for a lot of people, even if
there are not a lot of Democratic presidential candidates," said Kathy
Sullivan, a Democratic National Committeewoman from the state and a former
state Democratic Party chairwoman.

The NRSC's McLaughlin said Senate races can be just as cutting-edge as
presidential campaigns these days, and that they give campaign operatives a
chance to practice even more political skills.

"The days of [Senate races] being somewhat less sophisticated or not having
as many resources as a presidential campaign per capita, if you will, are
gone," McLaughlin said.

*Washington Post: The Debrief: “Democrats suffering from Clinton fatigue
say they’re ready for Warren”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-may-look-inevitable-but-some-iowa-democrats-are-ready-for-warren/2015/02/09/1f0063fe-b083-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html>*

By Robert Costa

February 9, 7:22 p.m. EST

AMES, Iowa — Thirteen Iowa Democrats wearily took their seats here this
weekend and discussed among themselves the source of their angst: Hillary
Rodham Clinton.

“I’m utterly tired, tired of the Clintons and the whole establishment,”
said Carol Brannon, 71, a retired nurse.

Anne Kinzel, 57, a former health-care lawyer, nodded sympathetically.

“The hacks think Hillary is entitled to be president,” Kinzel said. “I
think she is one of those people who has lost the sense of why they are in
politics.”

As Clinton prepares to launch her all-but-certain 2016 campaign, the former
secretary of state remains a favorite of a vast majority of Democrats and
the front-runner for the party’s presidential nomination. Still, there is
unease among progressives about her largely uncontested ascent.

Seeking an alternative to the juggernaut, this restless Sunday gathering at
the Ames public library and others like it are popping up around the
country — all part of an effort to draft populist Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.) into the race, in spite of her insistence that she will not be a
candidate.

The grass-roots movement is being coordinated by Run Warren Run, a joint
project of MoveOn.org and Democracy for America, two national groups that
promote liberal causes and connect activists. In recent months, they have
signed up about 250,000 supporters.

Over the course of the hour-long meeting, it was clear the frustrations of
the attendees here were driven not only by Clinton but also by President
Obama.

Eight years after Obama first drew enormous crowds in Iowa on his way to
the White House, these Democrats feel disappointed by his presidency and
what they described as his lackluster attempts to champion economic
populism.

In Warren, they sense they’ve found a fighter and a refreshing departure
from the way Obama and Clinton have addressed the rising gap between the
rich and poor.

More deeply, they believe Warren channels their anger about the power of
Wall Street banks.

“I remember going to the initial Obama rallies and I was inspired,” Bert
Schroeder, 74, a retired social worker, said during a breakout session.
“That was the first time I felt that way in years. I saw his crowds at the
Hilton Coliseum at Iowa State and I thought, ‘Wow, this is our moment.’ ”

Raising his arms in exasperation, Schroeder asked, “What happened?”

“Should have done single-payer health care, should have done socialized
medicine, should have taken on the banks,” replied David Brenner, 57, a
botanist.

Directing the meeting was Adam Beaves, 24, a polished former Obama
volunteer who was wearing a navy-blue Run Warren Run T-shirt. Whenever the
conversation drifted away from Warren and toward Clinton, he tried to steer
it back.

It wasn’t easy. The palpable disenchantment with Clinton dominated the
comments even as Beaves emphasized that Run Warren Run is “focused on the
positive.”

Beaves was repeatedly asked by the mix of white-haired grandparents and
spiky-haired college students about whether Warren could actually be
persuaded to run.

“If I just wanted to organize, there are many other places I could be,”
Kinzel said.

Carolyn Klaus, a retired educator, asked, “Is our enthusiasm grounded in
reality?”

“If we show her support on the ground, she will consider running for
president,” Beaves told them. “If you look back to when she was drafted to
run for Senate in Massachusetts, her answers were really similar to what
she’s saying now. It’s not in her personality to get ahead of things.”

The small crowd murmured its approval.

Later, to give the drab setting a touch of celebrity, Beaves pulled out his
laptop and played a video of actor Mark Ruffalo talking excitedly about
Warren.

Ruffalo’s encouragement, watched in silence, won no applause. Beaves closed
his computer quickly after it ended. In this blue-collar community, it’s
Warren’s pitch and her working-class Oklahoma roots that connect, rather
than her popularity in Hollywood.

“I don’t know what the heck will happen, but I’m going to put a ‘Draft
Warren’ sign in my yard,” said Jerry Lamsa, another retiree. “Enough of the
Clintons, enough of the Bushes. They can go — well, you know where I’d like
to see them go.”

Lamsa and others at the meeting were willing to consider backing former
Maryland governor Martin O’Malley (D), former senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) or
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), all of whom will be in Iowa in coming months.
Vice President Biden, who will be in Des Moines on Thursday, was not
mentioned at all.

But for the moment, their hearts remain with Warren.

“The Democratic Party needs energy. It needs so much more energy,
especially with my generation,” Allyson Bowers, 23, said.

Klaus said that if Warren doesn’t run, she may throw her support behind
“Patrick O’Malley.”

When told his first name is Martin, she chuckled. “Martin O’Malley, Deval
Patrick,” she said in reference to the former Massachusetts governor. “I
don’t know.”

*Calendar:*

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

·  February 11 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton meets with London Mayor Johnson
(Independent
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/boris-johnson-to-have-talks-with-hillary-clinton-as-london-mayors-roadshow-hits-the-us-10032526.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 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>
)