Subject: ​Correct The Record Wednesday February 11, 2015 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:29:13 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Wednesday February 11, 2015 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*New York Times: “Emerging Clinton Team Shows Signs of Disquiet”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/us/politics/emerging-clinton-team-shows-signs-of-disquiet.html?smid=tw-share>*

"In a statement, Mr. Messina suggested there was little tension with Mr.
Brock or his organizations. 'Priorities USA Action works closely and
cooperatively with progressive champion David Brock and American Bridge,'
he said. 'Both organizations have clear and complementary missions, and we
look forward to continuing to work together to build on our shared
success.'"

*BuzzFeed: “How A Clinton Insider Fight Turned Public”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/how-a-clinton-insider-fight-turned-public#.gbVEEZDnr>*

"A few hours later, the two parities issued twin statements to reporters.
Brock said he would consider rejoining the board. And Granholm, the
co-chair and former Michigan governor, acknowledged in hers that Priorities
took Brock’s concerns 'seriously and are working to address them.'"

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton’s best frenemies”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/hillary-clintons-best-frenemies-115092.html>*

[Subtitle:] “Her likely challengers won’t utter a critical word about the
Democratic frontrunner.”

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Dukakis: Hillary will be '16 nominee”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news-campaigns/232320-dukakis-hillary-will-be-16-nominee>*

“Michael Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, says Hillary
Clinton is going to be the party's 2016 standard-bearer — and he’s okay
with that.”

*Capital New York: “Hillary Clinton’s Brooklyn options are limited”
<http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/02/8561912/hillary-clintons-brooklyn-options-are-limited>*

“It would be hard enough for Brooklyn and Queens to accommodate a
50,000-square-foot tenant. A 100,000-square-foot requirement would further
narrow Clinton's options in two boroughs that have, for decades, sent
commuters to offices in Manhattan, rather than developing office space
themselves.”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton to be in D.C. on same day as Bibi speech”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/hillary-clinton-dc-benjamin-netanyahu-speech-115070.html>*

“Clinton’s spokesman did not respond to a question about whether the two
plan to meet, but the convergence of the prime minister and former
secretary of state brings together two of the most-talked about figures in
politics, at a crucial time for both of them.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Priebus: Hillary can't 'connect the dots'”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/232390-priebus-hillary-cant-connect-the-dots>*

“The chairman of the Republican National Committee says Hillary Clinton is
keeping a low public profile because her team knows she can't ‘connect the
dots’ for a successful presidential campaign.”

*Articles:*

*New York Times: “Emerging Clinton Team Shows Signs of Disquiet”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/us/politics/emerging-clinton-team-shows-signs-of-disquiet.html?smid=tw-share>*

By Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick

February 10, 2015

Lingering tensions between Hillary Rodham Clinton’s loyalists and the
strategists who helped President Obama defeat her in 2008 have erupted into
an intense public struggle over who will wield money and clout in her
emerging 2016 presidential campaign.

At issue is controlling access to the deep-pocketed donors whose support is
critical to sustain the outside organizations that are paving the way for
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. It is a competition that has been exacerbated,
many Clinton supporters said, by Mrs. Clinton’s reluctance to formally
enter the race and establish a campaign organization with clear lines of
authority.

The dispute broke into the open on Monday after David Brock, a Clinton
ally, accused Priorities USA Action — a pro-Clinton “super PAC” whose
co-chairman is Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s 2012 campaign manager — of planting
negative stories about the fund-raising practices of Mr. Brock’s
organizations. Mr. Brock resigned from the super PAC’s board in protest.

Mr. Messina is one of the half-dozen top veterans of Mr. Obama’s campaigns
that Mrs. Clinton’s tightknit circle of advisers has hired or courted,
vexing some longtime Clintonites seeking more prominent roles for
themselves. Other former Obama aides are working with pro-Clinton groups to
organize grass-roots volunteers or to fend off attacks on her record,
efforts that some Democrats view as the first step toward a place in Mrs.
Clinton’s campaign when it finally gets off the ground.

All recognize that Mrs. Clinton’s political operation could dominate the
Democratic Party for the next decade, controlling the flow of commissions,
consulting work and political appointments. But the marriage between the
two camps — based to a large degree on mutual interest, if not love — now
appears more uneasy than at any time since Mr. Obama asked Mrs. Clinton to
serve in his administration after the 2008 election.

“It is ‘The Dream Team,’ but only five can start,” said John Morgan, a
Florida lawyer who has raised money for Mr. Obama and hosted fund-raisers
with former President Bill Clinton. “Who do you put at guard? Jordan,
LeBron, Kobe, Magic, Bird, Derrick Rose? That is where it is.”

The list of Obama veterans now working in “Clinton World” includes the New
York-based pollster Joel Benenson, whom Mrs. Clinton has settled on as
chief strategist over several pollsters with long Clinton ties. A
consulting firm founded by two Obama voter-turnout specialists, Mitch
Stewart and Jeremy Bird, is being paid $20,000 a month by Ready for
Hillary, a super PAC focused on organizing grass-roots Clinton supporters.
Jim Margolis, whose firm handled lucrative media-buying contracts for Mr.
Obama’s campaigns, will also advise Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign will
probably raise and spend over a billion dollars in the next two years.

But Mr. Brock’s path to the Clinton inner circle is perhaps the most
convoluted. Once a conservative journalist whose reporting on President
Clinton prompted Paula Jones’s 1994 sexual harassment lawsuit against him,
Mr. Brock has since emerged as a prominent liberal organizer and one of
Mrs. Clinton’s chief defenders.

With the tacit blessing of both Clintons, Mr. Brock has maneuvered his $28
million network of media-monitoring and opposition research organizations
into the center of the emerging Clinton effort, establishing a new project,
Correct the Record, that has defended Mrs. Clinton in the news media and
even issued daily emails explaining her positions.

His successful fund-raising has been led by Mary Pat Bonner, whose firm has
been paid millions of dollars by Mr. Brock’s groups to court donors — some
of whom have criticized the arrangement as well as Mr. Brock.

“He is a cancer,” said Mr. Morgan, who is close to Mr. Messina.

“If you care about your party and our country, you just do what you are
asked,” said Mr. Morgan, referring to Mr. Brock’s public resignation from
Priorities USA, which immediately reignited tales of infighting from Mrs.
Clinton’s 2008 campaign. “If you care about yourself, you take your toys
and go home.”

Mr. Brock declined to comment.

Susie Tompkins Buell, a friend of Mrs. Clinton’s and a donor from San
Francisco who is close to Mr. Brock, said he “is an incredibly important
part of the Democratic Party” whose work “protects us from the onslaught
and destruction of the Republican attack machine.”

Ms. Buell added: “Certain people are trying to destroy David through
off-the-record conversations with reporters. They are spineless and
devious.”

Mr. Messina, now a consultant with a significant roster of corporate and
political clients, became co-chairman of Priorities early last year,
charged with helping the advertising-oriented super PAC secure hundreds of
millions of dollars in contributions. But with the campaign season still a
year away, Mr. Messina and his team have encountered some difficulty
getting commitments, according to several Democrats involved in helping the
group.

Mr. Brock, in turn, has been reluctant to cede turf — or pre-eminence — to
Obama veterans like Mr. Messina. “He was never accepted” by the Obama camp,
said one Clinton loyalist, who like most people interviewed for this
article declined to speak on the record for fear of angering either the
president or the woman who hopes to replace him.

Months ago, Mrs. Clinton’s top advisers encouraged the three pro-Clinton
super PACs — Ready for Hillary, Priorities USA and Mr. Brock’s American
Bridge 21st Century — to combine efforts. Mr. Brock’s organization would
provide opposition research to Priorities, which would eventually raise
high-dollar donations to pay for attack ads. Ready for Hillary would
dissolve after Mrs. Clinton officially declared her candidacy.

But Priorities is the only one of the groups founded by Obama operatives,
making it the least easiest to fit into the emerging Clinton apparatus. And
all outside groups are facing increased competition from official party
organizations, like the Democratic National Committee, which are now free
to solicit their own million-dollar commitments from big donors, thanks to
new campaign finance rules inserted into December’s federal spending bill.

In a statement, Mr. Messina suggested there was little tension with Mr.
Brock or his organizations. “Priorities USA Action works closely and
cooperatively with progressive champion David Brock and American Bridge,”
he said. “Both organizations have clear and complementary missions, and we
look forward to continuing to work together to build on our shared success.”

Several donors approached by Priorities in recent months, including some
advised by Ms. Bonner, said they had already given generously or otherwise
committed to Mr. Brock. Mr. Messina’s allies worry that Clinton loyalists
will seek to replace him with another strategist closer to Mrs. Clinton,
perhaps Guy Cecil, previously a contender for the job of Mrs. Clinton’s
campaign manager.

When the Priorities board issued a statement on Monday evening asking Mr.
Brock to reconsider his resignation, it was signed not by Mr. Messina but
by his co-chairwoman, Jennifer M. Granholm, the former Michigan governor
and a Clinton supporter in 2008. Ms. Granholm and other Priorities
officials have sought to soothe Mr. Brock, Democrats assisting the group
said, and he has suggested he would be open to rejoining the super PAC’s
board.

In an interview, Mr. Messina denied a report in BuzzFeed that he had used
the controversy around Ms. Bonner’s fees to try to rally donors around a
pledge to hold back checks from any organizations paying fund-raisers on
commission. Such a campaign could cripple Mr. Brock’s groups, which rely
entirely on Ms. Bonner’s firm to raise money.

“I’ve never heard of a petition, I don’t know anything about it, no one has
talked to me,” Mr. Messina said. “It’s not true.”

*BuzzFeed: “How A Clinton Insider Fight Turned Public”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/how-a-clinton-insider-fight-turned-public#.gbVEEZDnr>*

By Ruby Cramer

February 10, 2015, 3:22 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The pro-Clinton groups are a delicate balance of money and
power. On Monday, the uneasy alliance between former Obama and Clinton
backers saw its first explosion — the big fundraising rift that must be
repaired.

Around lunchtime last Thursday, a sense of relief rippled through the tight
network of friends, staffers, and donors connected to David Brock, the man
at the center of a coordinated, independent effort to elect Hillary Clinton.

For weeks, they’d been bracing for a New York Times story in the works: a
critical A1 look at Brock’s longtime fundraiser, Mary Pat Bonner, airing
complaints that her firm is paid on commission, taking a cut of the donor
money she nets for clients, which include a set of pro-Clinton entities
founded by Brock.

When the piece ran, the reaction inside Brock’s circle was the same: Bonner
had emerged largely unscathed. There was no need to respond. The crisis was
over.

But that changed four days later when questions about the origins of the
Bonner story precipitated an unexpected, deep, and public splintering in
the pro-Clinton operation. The rift revealed doubts about the trust between
its most central players, namely the officials at Priorities USA Action,
the high-dollar super PAC facing a massive task: raising an estimated $300
to $500 million.

On Monday afternoon, Brock resigned from the board of Priorities. In a
letter to the co-chairs, Jim Messina and former Gov. Jennifer Granholm,
Brock alleged that current and former officials from Priorities were
responsible for pushing the story to the Times and waging an “orchestrated
political hit job” against Bonner and the research groups that Brock heads,
Media Matters and American Bridge.

Brock was placed on the board of Priorities one year ago, along with
stakeholders from other groups, as a largely symbolic position, meant to
project unity. The super PAC has never convened a full board meeting, one
source said.

The central triad of outside Clinton groups — Priorities, American Bridge,
and Ready for Hillary, a super PAC building a list of supporters — has
worked in lockstep for most of the last year. But the letter, first
published by Politico, is the latest example of a repeated claim among
members of the pro-Clinton network: that Priorities has tried to wrest
control of money and position, even at the expense of allies.

In interviews this week, people close to both sides described a frenzied
weekend, as officials traded dozens of phone calls about the Bonner
article. Some claimed that the story had “backfired” on current or former
Priorities officials: It contained the admission that, in 2012, the super
PAC had itself used fundraisers who took commission, upsetting one donor,
Irwin Jacobs, according to the Times.

By Sunday, Brock told friends and colleagues he was “confident” Priorities
played a role in pushing the story, according to three sources who spoke
with him. Priorities officials still deny any involvement with the Times
story.

But Brock only decided to resign on Monday after learning about what he
believed was a second hit on his groups from Messina, the Priorities
co-chair and former campaign manager for President Obama.

In a round of calls to fellow Priorities board members that afternoon,
Brock said he had learned over the weekend that Messina and a donor Messina
advises were leading an effort to get other donors to sign a pledge vowing
not to contribute to groups who employ fundraisers working on commission.

Brock told board members he believed the attacks wouldn’t stop unless he
took public action, sources said. A Priorities official denied the Messina
effort existed.

At least one official involved with the groups raised objections to Brock’s
public resignation, worrying the move would create bad press for Clinton,
whose 2008 presidential campaign fought frequent “infighting” headlines.

When the letter went out to the board, Priorities officials sought to
resolve the problem swiftly and reinstall Brock on the board. The matter
was described by several as an imperative: His group, American Bridge, is
in line to serve as the research clearinghouse for Priorities during the
election.

On a 4 p.m. conference call on Monday, Brock spoke with officials from the
PAC, including Granholm, senior advisers Paul Begala and Sean Sweeney,
executive director Buffy Wicks, and board member Charlie Baker.

A few hours later, the two parities issued twin statements to reporters.
Brock said he would consider rejoining the board. And Granholm, the
co-chair and former Michigan governor, acknowledged in hers that Priorities
took Brock’s concerns “seriously and are working to address them.”

In interviews this week, officials close to both sides said they believed
the problem between Priorities and Brock comes down to one main point:
money.

Brock, who works as a fundraising team with Bonner on all 10 of the
Democratic entities he runs, maintains relationships with a loyal group of
donors. There is a belief among Priorities officials, two sources said,
that Brock and Bonner’s annual fundraising of about $28 million each year
has created a “traffic issue.”

In a similar dispute two years ago, Priorities officials tried to shut down
Ready for Hillary over concerns it would siphon off high-dollar donations.
The smaller super PAC agreed to set a voluntary cap of $25,000 on
contributions.

Since the midterm elections, officials working on the pro-Clinton effort
have privately worried that Priorities is behind in its goal to raise as
much as $500 million. In 2012, when the PAC formed to support Obama’s
reelection, it was a lean, tight operation with smaller money targets and a
more straightforward objective: to define Republican Mitt Romney early with
cutting television ads.

But Democrats close to Priorities list a number of concerns ahead of the
next race: There is no apparent fundraising or message strategy yet, and
some officials believe that Messina, the co-chair who also runs his own
consulting firm, is not involved enough. When the Brock resignation letter
hit, he was in England, where he is working for the Conservative Party. (A
tweet he posted in the midst of talks to get Brock back on the board made
the rounds by email among the pro-Clinton officials on Monday: “Great night
in London,” he wrote.)

Since the midterms, the PAC has raised just around $1,000, and now has
about $500,000 cash in the bank, according to recent election filings.

Officials aligned with both groups said they hoped to have the conflict
resolved fully, with Brock back on the board of Priorities, in a matter of
days.

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton’s best frenemies”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/hillary-clintons-best-frenemies-115092.html>*

By Ben Schreckinger

February 11, 2015, 5:32 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] Her likely challengers won’t utter a critical word about the
Democratic frontrunner.

What makes Jim Webb a better presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton?
“I really don’t have an answer for you on that,” the former Virginia
senator told NPR late last month. Where does Martin O’Malley differ from
Clinton as a leader? “My mind is not even in the compare-contrast mode,”
O’Malley told the New York Times. How does the bombastic Bernie Sanders
feel about the candidate he’s planning to challenge for the Democratic
nomination? “This is a woman I respect, clearly a very intelligent person,”
Sanders said Monday.

With enemies like these, who needs friends?

Time and time again, when invited to criticize Clinton, her potential
Democratic primary rivals have ducked, deflected and dodged. They’re trying
to present themselves as viable alternatives to the daunting frontrunner
without addressing the obvious question of how they stack up against her.

“At the end of [interviews], somebody has to ask me a question about
Hillary, and I try not to attack her. Usually, no matter what I say, it
becomes ‘Hillary Clinton,’” said Sanders, raising his arms in a sweeping
gesture as if to indicate that Clinton’s name becomes the banner headline.
“What I’m running on are the issues … Her name recognition is about 10
times greater than mine, so if I run, it would take a lot of work getting
around the country introducing myself to people.”

With Elizabeth Warren continuing to resist entreaties to enter the race,
liberals are still waiting for a serious challenger to Clinton to emerge —
if only to ensure the party’s progressive wing gets the attention and
respect it believes its views deserve. At this point in 2007, President
Barack Obama was declaring his candidacy and drawing a contrast with
Clinton on issues like the Iraq War and the politics of triangulation,
pioneered by Clinton’s husband in the 1990s.

This time around, would-be Clinton spoilers are not so far along.

The outspoken Sanders deflected a question about Clinton posed by POLITICO
late last month. “All I know is if I run, I’m not running against Hillary
Clinton,” protested the Vermont senator, who if he runs, almost certainly
would be running against Clinton. Over the weekend, he did engage the
prospective match-up more directly, telling MSNBC that it would be a “real
clash of ideas” on issues like trade, climate change and infrastructure
investment.

But at an event at the Brookings Institution this week, Sanders made it
clear he had little interest in going after the former secretary of state.

“It is not my style to trash people,” he said.

Clinton’s other two most likely rivals haven’t even gone that far. Before
Webb dodged a Hillary question from NPR’s Steve Inskeep (“If I were to run,
it would not be sort of as a counterpoint to her”) he ducked a similar one
put to him by Yahoo’s Matt Bai in late December (“I’m not running against
Hillary Clinton”). When an O’Malley operative began talking about Clinton
to a New York Times reporter last fall, the former Maryland governor’s
communications director “jabbed him in the side” to make him stop,
according to the newspaper’s account.

The repeated questions and dodges underscore the unusual nature of the
Democratic race. Though Clinton is a private citizen who has not declared
she is running, she has cultivated an aura of inevitability so strong that,
“She’s tantamount to an incumbent,” in the words of Democratic consultant
Tad Devine.

Naturally, voters will want to know how lesser-known candidates compare to
Clinton, but advisers to those candidates argue that talking about the
former secretary of state would be a mistake.

“It makes no sense, whether it’s Webb, Sanders, or O’Malley, to start a
campaign by going on the attack,” said an adviser to one Democrat
considering a 2016 run who was not authorized to speak on the record about
messaging strategy. “It would be putting the cart before the horse a little
bit to start lobbing bombs at Hillary Clinton before you even enter the
race.”

“You need to make an affirmative case before you get to the contrast,” said
the adviser, who added that Mitt Romney erred in 2012 by focusing on Obama
before he had articulated a positive vision of his own candidacy.

Devine, a longtime Sanders ally who will advise the senator’s presidential
campaign should he launch one, conceded that conflict generates coverage, a
precious commodity for lesser-known candidates. But he said that the
Vermont senator would try to attract attention by targeting the forces of
runaway capitalism rather than his primary opponents. “It’s a huge
challenge,” said Devine. “It’s a different kind of conflict than the press
is used to covering and perhaps than voters are used to hearing.”

“Governor O’Malley is looking forward to introducing himself to Democrats
outside of Maryland and talking about his own affirmative ideas for the
future,” wrote O’Malley spokeswoman Lis Smith in an email.

Candidates on the livelier Republican side of the presidential fieldhave
been a lot more willing to snipe at both Clinton and each other. Jeb Bush
and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio have both characterized Clinton as old news,
with Rubio calling her a “20th century candidate.” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
regularly trolls his presidential rivals on social media and recently
released a gag audio recording of a Jeb Bush impersonator conspiring with a
Hillary Clinton impersonator.

But the Democratic field faces something of a Catch-22. Because no
challenger has gained traction, Clinton feels little pressure to campaign
and is reportedly considering postponing an announcement until July. But
the longer Clinton stays out of the race, the longer she can avoid taking
positions that opponents can attack to gain traction.

“They don’t know what she’s going to say,” said Democratic strategist Bob
Shrum, who worked on the presidential campaigns of John Kerry and Al Gore.
“And it’s hard to define yourself without knowing what contrast you want to
draw.”

Webb, Sanders and O’Malley are all planning to travel to early primary
states in the coming weeks and months, and the pressure to define
themselves in contrast to Clinton will only intensify.

For now, though, they’re content to play nice.

“The Beltway media might want a food fight right now,” said Smith, the
O’Malley adviser, “but that won’t do anyone — let alone Democrats — any
good.”

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Dukakis: Hillary will be '16 nominee”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news-campaigns/232320-dukakis-hillary-will-be-16-nominee>*

By Kevin Cirilli

February 10, 2015, 2:29 p.m. EST

Michael Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, says Hillary
Clinton is going to be the party's 2016 standard-bearer — and he’s okay
with that.

"Look, I consider myself part of that liberal base. I'm very comfortable
with her as a candidate, as a nominee and as the president of the United
States," Dukakis said Monday on Fox Business Network's "Cavuto." "Hillary
is going to be the nominee and I'd like to see as many of us as possible
get behind that effort now."

Many progressives have raised concerns about Clinton's ties to Wall Street,
a relationship they see as too cozy.

But Dukakis pushed back against that idea, suggesting that Clinton’s views
are more skeptical of Wall Street than progressive critics would suggest.
That being so, he asserted that she will likely not have to change those
opinions to rebuff a primary challenge from the left.

"I don't think she will be forced to vary her view dramatically. ... She's
a very progressive Democrat and one who’s not soft on the kinds of
financial fooling around that virtually sucked the country dry," Dukakis, a
former governor of Massachusetts, told Fox Business Network.

Liberal groups such as Democracy For America and MoveOn.org are trying to
move Clinton to the left and in some cases draft candidates such as Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has insisted she's not running.

"I don't think these folks have anything to worry about and frankly — I'd
feel a lot better if they were out organizing 200,000 precincts in this
country and getting ready for what is going to be a very tough contest in
2016," Dukakis told Fox Business Network.

*Capital New York: “Hillary Clinton’s Brooklyn options are limited”
<http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/02/8561912/hillary-clintons-brooklyn-options-are-limited>*

By Dana Rubinstein

February 11, 2015, 5:31 a.m. EST

In recent days, people who pay close attention to the undeclared
presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton have been wondering about her real
estate plans, which could, reportedly, involve setting up shop in Brooklyn
or Queens.

“A base in gentrifying Brooklyn or Queens could help give Clinton’s
campaign a youthful feel, and would likely be a relief for Democratic
operatives dreading a relocation to the suburb, or a daily commute from New
York City,” explained MSNBC.

In the ensuing days, two pertinent details leaked out.

First, the Daily News reported that Clinton’s team, which is believed to
include brokers from CBRE, checked out One Pierrepont Plaza and MetroTech,
both owned by Forest City Ratner. Bruce Ratner, the company’s executive
chairman, is a big Democratic donor.

Then, the News reported that Clinton was seeking 100,000 square feet of
office space. That’s a quite a lot.

For comparison, 100,000 square feet is twice the amount Barack Obama’s
campaign occupied in 2012. It’s also roughly twice the space Clinton’s
campaign occupied in 2008.

It would be hard enough for Brooklyn and Queens to accommodate a
50,000-square-foot tenant. A 100,000-square-foot requirement would further
narrow Clinton's options in two boroughs that have, for decades, sent
commuters to offices in Manhattan, rather than developing office space
themselves.

Brooklyn is “a borough of churches and houses,” said Chris Havens, the vice
president of commercial real estate at the Brooklyn-based aptsandlofts.com.

“I’m skeptical,” he said. “This is a very tight market. There’s a lot of
space available in Manhattan.”

Roy Chipkin, a Queens commercial real estate broker at CBRE, described the
Queens market as “very thin,” because “nothing’s been built in 100 years,”
and most of what has been built is residential.

Given the slim pickings, what are Clinton’s realistic options, should she
indeed decide to headquarter in the outer boroughs instead of Manhattan?

The contours of her former presidential endeavor may provide some guidance.

The last time Clinton ran for president, in 2008, she ran her campaign from
a drab office building at 4420 North Fairfax Drive in Arlington, VA. It had
roughly 50,000 square feet, five floors, an elevator.

According to former staffers, the space was aggressively utilitarian.
(Before Clinton, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ran a detention
center there.)

It was also quite spacious.

There was a floor devoted to ping pong and debate prep. Mold flourished on
a war-room wall.

The headquarters were close to the Metro line, and 20 minutes from D.C. by
car. There was ready access to mid-market food options, like Cosi, not to
mention a hamburger joint called Big Buns.

It’s not clear how much Clinton paid per square foot in Arlington, but
commercial real estate database CoStar indicates that asking rents at her
old headquarters are now $36 per square foot.

Clinton’s office didn’t respond to any questions about the real estate
requirements of her campaign-to-be.

Interviews with several real estate experts in both boroughs suggested a
few potential options.

If Clinton wants to cultivate a pioneering vibe, she could venture out to
Industry City, the creative-industry beehive on the Sunset Park waterfront.

Michael Phillips, president of Jamestown Properties, which owns part of the
complex, said it could accommodate a new, 100,000-square-foot tenant.

To get there, staffers could take the N or D trains one stop past Atlantic
Avenue. Or drive. There are some good food options on site, but not that
many of them. It would offer her space and some distance from the ravenous
media crowd.

“That’s definitely a place where they’d be able to find chunks of space and
have a lot more flexibility,” said Ofer Cohen, president of TerraCRG, a
Brooklyn-based commercial real estate brokerage.

Cohen also said, “The cost would be significantly, significantly less [than
other parts of Brooklyn], in the 20 dollar per-square-foot range."

There isn't much of anything available in North Brooklyn. The Walentas
family's DUMBO properties are not believed to have the necessary space.

“DUMBO Heights,” the old Jehovah’s Witnesses complex now partly controlled
by Jared Kushner, has some room. But it's thought to be on the pricey side,
with asking rents in the $50s per square foot, according to Cohen.

Nor is it clear that the complex, which Kushner is renovating, is
imminently available.

“From what I understand, the building’s not really open for occupancy yet,”
said Tucker Reed, president of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership. “They’re
a year or two away, so the timeline might not match up.”

Kushner wouldn't comment for this story.

Finally, and most obviously, there’s Downtown Brooklyn proper, a
neighborhood where high demand and a paucity of office space have created a
very low vacancy rate.

Sources say that Forest City could make about 170,000 square feet available
at One Pierrepont Plaza, the building the Daily News said Clinton’s people
had visited.

But some wonder whether the asking rent—which sources say is at least in
the $40s per square foot—is too high.

From a symbolism standpoint, Brooklyn isn’t necessarily all upside either.

"Brooklyn has the advantage and the disadvantage of having cache,” said
Seth Pinsky, a real estate executive and the former president of New York
City’s Economic Development Corporation. “The advantage is that you can
attract a lot of young, talented people and it links you to a new, very
highly desirable urbanism. At the same time, there are also a lot of
stereotypes—good and bad—that come with both of those and it's unclear
whether she wants to be associated with those as she's campaigning for
president."

Queens, which is often cheaper than downtown Brooklyn, appears to offer
Clinton more options.

“If she's looking for something that's funkier and that's close to
Manhattan, then certainly a place like Long Island City would be the most
logical place,” said Pinsky.

Last week, at Capital's request, Evan Daniel, the executive vice president
of the ModernSpaces real estate group, sent Capital a list of properties
50,000 square feet and greater in the western Queens submarket.

There's a 1930s-era Astoria factory on 36th Street down the street from the
Museum of the Moving Image called “Offices at the Square.” Sixty-three
thousand square feet are available there, it’s close to the M, R, N and Q
trains and there’s a beer garden downstairs

There’s hundreds of thousands of square feet available at the Factory, on
47th Avenue in Long Island City, according to the report. The nearby Falchi
Building could also accommodate a 100,000-square-foot tenant.

There’s 90,000 square feet at an old industrial building on Austell Place,
and more than 100,000 square feet at 30-30 Northern Boulevard and One
MetLife Plaza. There’s nearly that much at 3430 Steinway Street.

There’s also Queens Boulevard in Kew Gardens, home to borough hall and the
Queens district attorney's office, though that market's not believed to
have to have enough space.

And, should she more inclined to maintain her distance from Midtown,
there’s Jamaica.

It’s accessible by subway and Long Island Rail Road, but not too
accessible. It’s also close to the airport and some of her donors on Long
Island. It's pre-trendy.

“If she wanted to show she was more a ‘woman of the people’, then a place
like Jamaica, with a feel similar to where her husband is in Harlem, would
send an interesting signal and it's certainly transit accessible as well,”
said Pinsky.

(It's not clear that there's supply there either, though. Justin Rodgers,
managing director of real estate and economic development at the Greater
Jamaica Development Corporation said he couldn't think of anything off the
top of his head.)

Certainly, Queens leaders would love to have her.

“Queens is the gateway to the city, the nation and the world, with its
unparalleled transportation connections including bridges, tunnels, rail
and airports, and has a population to match,” said Elizabeth Lusskin
president of the Long Island City Partnership. “While space is tight, I'm
sure Queens would find room for any national candidate wise enough to chose
the World's Borough for her home base.”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton to be in D.C. on same day as Bibi speech”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/hillary-clinton-dc-benjamin-netanyahu-speech-115070.html>*

By Gabriel Debenedetti

February 10, 2015, 1:39 p.m. EST

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu heads to Washington to
deliver a controversial address to Congress on March 3, he won’t be the
only big name in town who might soon be facing an election.

Hillary Clinton is also scheduled to be in the capital city on that day, to
be honored by EMILY’s List, the group supporting female Democratic
candidates.

Clinton’s spokesman did not respond to a question about whether the two
plan to meet, but the convergence of the prime minister and former
secretary of state brings together two of the most-talked about figures in
politics, at a crucial time for both of them.

While Clinton’s all-but-certain 2016 campaign will be nearing its likely
launch, Netanyahu’s speech will generate major attention after drawing
condemnation from many Democrats who are critical of him, and of House
Speaker John Boehner’s invitation of the prime minister despite the White
House’s disapproval.

Neither President Barack Obama nor Vice President Joe Biden will attend the
speech, which will address the Iran nuclear deal. While Biden will be out
of the country, Obama has ruled out meeting with Netanyahu before Israel’s
March 17 election. Secretary of State John Kerry is also expected to avoid
seeing Netanyahu.

Clinton has repeatedly spoken about her role in Middle East policy since
leaving the State Department in 2013, but she has not commented on
Netanyahu’s upcoming address. Her Washington event is sure to draw the
attention of many political observers, as it will be one of her first
public events in months. The former senator and first lady has been busy
building her campaign team.

And while Clinton is the presumptive frontrunner for the Democratic
nomination in 2016, a potential rival – Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders –
grabbed headlines on Monday by becoming the first senator to announce he
would boycott the speech.

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Priebus: Hillary can't 'connect the dots'”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/232390-priebus-hillary-cant-connect-the-dots>*

By Jesse Byrnes

February 10, 2015, 7:44 p.m. EST

The chairman of the Republican National Committee says Hillary Clinton is
keeping a low public profile because her team knows she can't "connect the
dots" for a successful presidential campaign.

"She's certainly proven in the past she somehow can't manage to connect the
dots in the world of presidential politics," Reince Priebus said Tuesday in
an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.

"Her team knows it and that's why they're keeping her out of the public
eye."

 It's not the first time Priebus has questioned Clinton's readiness for the
2016 campaign if she decides to run. In October, the RNC chief said Clinton
was "not really good at politics."

To pressure the likely Democratic frontrunner, the RNC on Tuesday also
launched a campaign to document instances they see as Clinton "hiding" from
the media.

The RNC pointed out that Clinton hasn't visited the early voting states of
Iowa and New Hampshire in more than 100 days and her only public appearance
this year was a speech last month in Canada.

At the same time, a number of potential Republican candidates have made
trips to Iowa and New Hampshire to lay the groundwork for their own
presidential bids.

"This is a person preparing to run for president," Priebus said. "She
hasn't done an interview with The New York Times."

Priebus noted that Clinton has "nothing to gain" and "everything to lose"
by jumping into the 2016 race anytime soon.

For example, last week while likely Republican presidential candidates Sen.
Rand Paul (Ky.) and Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.) took fire for comments they
made on vaccinations during exchanges with media members, Clinton weighed
in on the topic with a tweet.

Priebus said that Clinton's lack of public engagement isn't "all that bad"
for Republicans, but "the problem is for her in the general election."

It's unclear when the former Secretary of State plans to enter the race,
with some insiders saying she may do a pre-launch in April followed by a
formal campaign announcement in July.

*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>
)