Subject: Correct The Record Sunday February 22, 2015 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:22:04 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Sunday February 22, 2015 Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/> established Center for Strategic
Counterterrorism Communications to address cyber security #HRC365
<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23HRC365> correctrecord.org/11-things-you-…
<http://t.co/pXFAX6lYkZ> [2/22/15, 12:11 a.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/569363742145687552>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> is "a fighter for the marginalized, a
voice for the struggling, & a comforter for the overburdened."
http://www.hpenews.com/opinion/x1707095788/Guest-Column-Clinton-s-message-resonates-with-millennials
…
<http://t.co/jClpK4mEAI>[2/21/15, 2:51 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/569222804287021056>]

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: *.*@ATBarnhill
<https://twitter.com/ATBarnhill/>: "Clinton’s message resonates with
millennials" hpenews.com/opinion/x17070… <http://t.co/jClpK453Ja>via
@hpenterprise <https://twitter.com/hpenterprise/> [2/21/15, 12:39 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/569189792698773504>]

*Headlines:*

*Washington Post: McAuliffe: ‘No need’ for Clinton to start 2016 bid right
away
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/22/mcauliffe-no-need-for-clinton-to-start-2016-bid-right-away/>*

“Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton family friend and
political supporter, said that he sees ‘no need’ for Hillary Rodham Clinton
to begin her 2016 presidential campaign right away and that she benefits by
avoiding a bruising Democratic primary challenge.”

*Huffington Post: Hillary Clinton And The Not Too Bitter, Not Too Smooth,
Just Right Primary
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/22/hillary-clinton-primary-challenge_n_6724440.html>*

“At this point, it sure looks like Hillary Clinton can grab the nomination
without too much trouble. Trouble is, some trouble might be a nice thing to
have.”

*ABC News: One Thing That Might Surprise You About Hillary Clinton
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2015/02/one-thing-that-might-surprise-you-about-hillary-clinton/>*

"5] Covering Clinton, what is one thing that has surprised you about her?

Amy Chozick: Hmm. She likes to drink. We were on the campaign trail in 2008
and the press thought she was just taking shots to pander to voters in
Pennsylvania. Um, no."

*Politico: Bernie Sanders not eager to ‘tilt at windmills’ in 2016
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/bernie-sanders-not-eager-to-tilt-at-windmills-in-2016-115395.html>*

“Sanders didn’t mention the presumed Democratic frontrunner, Hillary
Clinton, by name in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s ‘This Week,’
but said, if he decides to seek the White House, he isn’t sure he would run
as a Democrat.”

*Bloomberg: John Kasich Swats at Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton as He Considers
2016
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-22/john-kasich-swats-at-rand-paul-hillary-clinton-as-he-considers-2016>*

“Asked about Clinton, Kasich said, ‘You know, I like Hillary, but I'm not
ever going to be for her for president.’"

*NBC News opinion: Giuliani's Comments Don't Hurt the GOP, They Help
Hillary
<http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/oped-giulianis-comments-dont-hurt-gop-they-help-hillary-n310581>*

“If Republicans can't get over their Obama derangement syndrome it just
makes it that much easier for Hillary to say ‘Obama isn't on the ballot!’
and define herself. It's already going to be hard to tag her with the Obama
administration because everyone knows she disagrees with the President a
lot.”

*New York Times opinion: Hillary, Jeb and $$$$$$
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-and-fund-raising-for-the-2016-presidential-race.html?_r=0>*

“And in the income-inequality era, how does a candidate crowned with this
many dollar signs put herself forward persuasively as a woman of the people
and a champion of the underdog?”

*Washington Post: The making of Hillary 5.0: Marketing wizards help
re-imagine Clinton brand
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-making-of-hillary-50-marketing-wizards-help-reimagine-clinton-brand/2015/02/21/bfb01120-b919-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html>*

"'I just want America to know the Hillary Clinton I know,' said Jerry
Crawford, a friend and the Iowa chairman of Clinton’s 2008 campaign. 'I
want as many people as possible to get to know the woman I’ve seen behind
closed doors. She’s bright, disciplined, quick to throw her head back and
laugh — just a very, very attractive person.'"

*Associated Press: For Clinton, her family foundation may pose campaign
risks
<http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-her-family-foundation-may-pose-campaign-risks-125132967--election.html>*

“The foundation launched by former President Bill Clinton more than a
decade ago has battled HIV and AIDS in Africa, educated millions of
children and fed the poor and hungry around the globe. It also has the
potential to become a political risk for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she
moves toward a second presidential campaign.”

*Articles:*

*Washington Post: McAuliffe: ‘No need’ for Clinton to start 2016 bid right
away
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/22/mcauliffe-no-need-for-clinton-to-start-2016-bid-right-away/>*

By Philip Rucker

February 22, 2015 10:10 a.m. EST

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton family friend and
political supporter, said that he sees "no need" for Hillary Rodham Clinton
to begin her 2016 presidential campaign right away and that she benefits by
avoiding a bruising Democratic primary challenge.

"Listen, I'm very happy with the situation," McAuliffe said Saturday in an
interview with The Washington Post. "She doesn't have to get in right away.
It's saving a lot of time, effort and money. Let the Republicans all get
in."

McAuliffe, who served as national co-chairman of Clinton's 2008
presidential campaign and as the Democratic National Committee chairman
during the 2004 presidential primaries, said he knows from experience that
launching a campaign early can be draining. He pointed out that in the 1992
campaign, Bill Clinton did not announce his candidacy until October 1991.

"Having done this for many years, the second you get in and open up a
campaign account, let me tell you, that money just goes out the door,"
McAuliffe said. "There’s no need at this point. We’re in a very good
position, so she can take her time on her timetable, which is spectacular."

McAuliffe, who once sat on the board of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea
Clinton Foundation, defended the charitable foundation's decision to accept
donations from foreign governments.

“If the biggest attack on Hillary’s going to be that she raised too much
money for her charity, okay, I’ll take that," he said. "No one’s alleging
anything beyond that she raised money and people gave her money and foreign
governments gave her money. At the end of the day, that’s fine. It went to
a charity. It helped a lot of people."

 McAuliffe's comments come amid much discussion in Democratic circles about
Clinton's timetable for what her allies think is a certain 2016 White House
run. Clinton's team has signaled that she is likely to begin raising money
as early as April but may delay aggressive campaigning until the summer.
Some Democrats believe she is wise to hang back and wait, while others want
to see her fighting now to erase any impressions that she may be taking the
Democratic nomination for granted.

At this stage in the 2008 campaign, the Democratic field already had taken
shape, with announced candidacies of Clinton, Barack Obama and John
Edwards, among others. But this time, Clinton does not face a serious
primary threat.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) has insisted that she is not running, despite
an effort by some liberal activists to draft her into the race, while Vice
President Biden is not actively preparing for a candidacy, although he has
not shut the door on a run. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.) and former senator Jim Webb (Va.) have been making waves
and visiting early primary states, but none has launched a campaign.

"People are going to make their decision," McAuliffe said. "If they run,
they run. If they don’t, they don’t."

McAuliffe said he disagreed with the view of some Democrats that a
competitive primary campaign would be good for Clinton and would help
prepare her for the rigors of the general election.

"What’s going to go on on the Republican side is going to be intense and
tough," McAuliffe said. "I wouldn’t want to see that on the Democratic side
— of course not, if we can avoid it. It's going to be a long, tough slog
for them."

McAuliffe was asked to assess the early moves of former Florida governor
Jeb Bush, who has locked up many of the Republican Party's prominent donors
and policy thinkers in the two months since he formed a leadership PAC to
explore a bid.

"None of that surprised me," McAuliffe said. "At the end of the day, it’s
still hard because of, obviously, the negative issues around his brother,
the issues of the war in Iraq and all that. That's still going to linger
out there. You’ve got to remember, when President Obama took office, you
think of the job losses that occurred under President [George W.] Bush’s
term and contrast that to the millions of jobs created under President
Obama. I’ll take that contrast."

McAuliffe continued, "Jeb Bush, who wants to pretend he can distance
himself, cannot distance himself from that failed economic record and
failed foreign policy record. All of the issues that we had before will
come back to [the] fore.”

 As for what role McAuliffe may play in a Clinton 2016 campaign, he said he
would be her loudest cheerleader in Richmond.

"I have the job I’ve always dreamed of," McAuliffe said. "I love being
governor, as you probably can tell." In 2007 and 2008, he said, "I spent
500 days on the road. I can’t do that again. I’ve got a job here."

"You know what?" he continued, "to be honest with you, I’m personal friends
with them. They want me to be successful. Honestly, [the] president calls
all the time. I talk to Hillary all the time. They want me to be successful
as a governor. I think that’s the best thing I can do."

He said that Virginia is poised once more to be a top general election
battleground and that he would focus on helping Clinton win his home state.
McAuliffe is preparing for state legislative races this year and is trying
to help Democrats regain control of the state Senate.

"I'm laying the groundwork and putting all the pieces in place for '15 to
get my Senate back," McAuliffe said. "But that same team I’m putting in
place and operations will be a set-up to make sure that [in 2016]
Virginia’s blue."

*Huffington Post: Hillary Clinton And The Not Too Bitter, Not Too Smooth,
Just Right Primary
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/22/hillary-clinton-primary-challenge_n_6724440.html>*

By Jason Linkins

February 22, 2015 7:30 a.m. EST

Every election cycle can be considered, first and foremost, a monument to
hype. With every passing week, the political world is a blizzard of brash
predictions, bold pronouncements and bad advice. This year, your
Speculatroners shall attempt to decode and defang this world with a regular
dispatch that we're calling "This Week In Coulda Shoulda Maybe." We hope
this helps, but as always, we make no guarantees!

It shouldn't be controversial to say that at this point in the 2016 race,
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton enjoys virtually every possible
advantage in the Democratic primary field. She's the best-known candidate
with the highest level of name recognition and visibility. She has a
long-nurtured campaign apparatus and the ability to call campaign
infrastructure into being on the fly. Against the rest of the Democratic
field, she's the overwhelming favorite in every poll that's ever been
conducted.

Of course, anytime we talk about a "Democratic field," we should really
say, "insofar as one exists." Her competition -- so far a dimly lit
constellation of long shots (and perhaps the current vice president) --
isn't shaping up as a particularly robust challenge. Clinton plays a role
in that simply by looming on the landscape. As has been discussed
previously, Clinton has the power to "freeze the field" -- meaning that her
dominance is such that Democratic party elites and mega-donors are loath to
invest in a competitor, creating a sort of vicious cycle in which no viable
competitors can truly present themselves.

There is a very real possibility that Clinton could face only a nominal
challenge in a Democratic primary, and potentially none at all. And that's
produced an interesting phenomenon among the members of the political media
who, expecting a competitive primary to generate monetizable content and
grist for "The Narrative," find themselves somewhere in the middle of a
story that doesn't seem to have started. This is how you can understand the
constant attention given to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren -- a woman
who is not running for president -- as a "foil" for Clinton. Every great
protagonist needs an antagonist, and the political press would dearly love,
if possible, to will one into being.

Elsewhere, there are the Hot Takes, suffused by the media's drug of choice,
counter-intuition. Are all the advantages that Clinton secretly holds
actually disadvantages in disguise? Is Clinton's ability to quelch all
viable contenders for the Democratic nomination actually the Achilles heel
that will lead to her undoing? A better question might be: Are all the
people offering that opinion simply planting a flag for a future "Told ya
so" story down the line?

I think it's fair to say that most of us, if we wanted something important
(like, say, a job), wouldn't spend much time regretting the news that we
were the only person in the running. Just about everyone would prefer to
win in a blowout. At the same time, there is something that we all
understand instinctually about the nature of competition: It tests mettle.
And the old eyeball test informs us of the virtues of tested mettle. When
we look at the 27-1 Gonzaga University men's basketball team alongside the
other basketball teams in the top four of the NCAA's national rankings,
many of us downgrade the Bulldogs because we know that they didn't play
against the same level of competition as Kentucky, Virginia and Duke did.
So, in the back of our mind, Gonzaga looms as a paper tiger.

That said, eventually Gonzaga is going to have ample opportunity to show
that they're superior to their competition -- just like Clinton will, even
if she runs in an uncontested primary.

Of course, the fact that there isn't already vigorous competition for
Clinton to face tells us a few potentially ominous things. First and
foremost, it shows that the Democratic Party's bench is not terribly deep
right now. Elections are, at bottom, a competition of ideas -- one in which
a losing candidate's vision may persist beyond the candidate's own
electoral hopes. That's a good thing for any political party. Furthermore,
a quickly decided primary could negatively impact state-level political
organizing, which in turn would impact the vitality of down-ticket
campaigns.

But let's stick with the question: Is Hillary running virtually unopposed a
bad thing? As Vox's Matt Yglesias points out, having a competitive primary
means "real debates, real media strategy, real policy rollouts, and all the
other accompaniments of a presidential nominating congress." He goes on to
note that "competition" in this instance goes well beyond simply having
other credible opponents:

A vigorous primary campaign is a means through which, among other things,
the key potential vulnerabilities in a candidate's biography get aired. Was
Clinton lying about her opposition to gay marriage the way David Axelrod
says Obama was? Have too many years at the pinnacle of American politics
left her out of touch with middle class struggles? Can she distance herself
from Obama administration foreign policy initiatives that didn't work out
(settlement freeze? Russia reset?) without sounding disloyal or
ineffectual? Can she answer questions about the complicated finances
underlying her husband's foundation?

As long as she's "not running," we just don't know. And the closer she gets
to obtaining the nomination without answering the questions, the more
vulnerable the position she leaves herself in for the general election.

Here's the thing: All of that is smart-sounding stuff. It's thoughtful
argument that appeals to our instincts. You can take that to a Beltway
soiree or the set of a Sunday morning talk show, and with a little charm,
you'll hold up. And yet, it's still really just gut feelings. It's still
that instinct that pushes you to take an at-large team from the ACC deeper
in the tourney than the one-loss Western Conference champions -- a good
enough gamble that could, nonetheless, leave your bracket in tatters.

And it's worth pointing out that over on the GOP side, Republican elites
are making their own set of gambles with their primary. The Republican
National Committee's interpretation of their 2012 cycle woes has led them
to believe that the long primary cost them dearly. The RNC believes that
their primary afforded too many fleeting also-rans too much media coverage,
that the length of the competition provided too many opportunities for
their party to be shown in a bad light, and that ultimately, everything
conspired to force their nominee into a bunch of positions from which the
extrication was too difficult. They have, subsequently, undertaken a number
of moves to "fix" this problem, and while they've not created a situation
in which one candidate has a massive advantage over everyone else, it's
still a drive toward limiting the competition, all based on some gut
feelings.

Can we get closer to the truth of how, if at all, a competitive primary
brings benefits -- or pitfalls -- to candidates? Well, if we turn to
political science, there seems to be one constant notion: A competitive
primary is very good for candidates, right up to where the competitive
primary becomes a divisive primary, at which point the benefits of
competition tend to fade.

The virtues of competitive primaries are hotly debated, as it turns out.
Back in February of 2008, The Monkey Cage's John Sides embarked on an
exploration of the topic, noting that the most relevant research at the
time pointed to other factors as being far more determinative of success in
a general election. From a gambler's point of view, the health of the
economy and the popular regard for the presidential incumbent matter a lot
more than what happens during a primary.

But Josh Putnam, proprietor of Frontloading HQ, nevertheless saw something
interesting in the notion that a competitive primary could take a dark,
blowback-producing turn. Just as the RNC concluded after the 2012 cycle,
the factor that fascinated Putnam in 2008 was timing -- the notion that on
a long enough timeline, a competitive primary eventually, maybe inevitably,
turns divisive. Per Putnam:

At what point does the positive competitiveness of the race for delegates
turn into the negative, party-splitting divisiveness? Should Clinton do
well in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, then 2008 may have reached that point
for the Democrats. But in the Super Tuesday era (1988/1992-2004), no
challenger has been afforded such an opportunity. That era was marked by
frontrunners who were able to snuff out insurgencies before competitiveness
turned to divisiveness. ... [Walter] Mondale quelled Gary Hart before a
movement started (No, this isn't within the era I defined above but it is a
good example.). George W. Bush kept [John] McCain at bay. And [John] Kerry
silenced John Edwards. Competitiveness yielded to reality in all three
cases before divisiveness took hold or could attempt to take hold.

It's almost as if there's a sort of "uncanny valley" phenomenon happening,
in which competition elevates everyone until it gets too hot or turns too
personal. There's a sweet spot: Ideally, you want your level of competition
to be challenging, but not bedeviling. You want the primary race to look
like a collegial bit of tire-kicking, not a campaign in which you're
sending arsonists out to torch the rival dealership. So maybe all of the
people who continually pen that "Elizabeth Warren versus Hillary Clinton"
fan fiction are onto something, instinctually: They have a sense that the
Jim Webbs and Martin O'Malleys of the world might not make it out of Iowa
and that Clinton needs someone who can stay in the game long enough to make
it to Super Tuesday. But not much further than that.

In the end, that data-driven conclusion about competitive primaries that we
really want remains elusive -- or at the very least, not strong enough to
talk us out of our horse-sense feelings on the matter. But let's return to
one last study, cited by The Monkey Cage's Jonathan Robinson, about that
2008 competition between Clinton and Barack Obama:

Using a survey that tracked individual voters from the primary to the
general election, Michael Henderson, D. Sunshine Hillygus, and Trevor
Thompson ... examine whether and why Clinton supporters did or did not
support Obama in the general election. They find that 71% of Clinton
supporters ended up voting for Obama. Moreover, supporters of Clinton and
the other Democratic candidates were no more likely to stay home on
Election Day. The most important factors that predicted a vote for McCain
among supporters of the other Democratic candidates were not frustration
with the primary election’s outcome but ideology and political issues,
especially the Iraq War.

All of that suggests that even though the 2008 Democratic primary got
fiercely competitive, it still stoked an energy that lasted throughout the
election cycle, ensuring that Democratic voters stayed engaged over the
long haul. Perhaps what a political party, ideally, wants out of a primary
is a contest where the competitiveness fosters some amount of voter
engagement without tipping into a grotesque spectacle that leaves those who
had engaged with it feeling nauseous, discouraged and just plain done with
politics for the year.

Handled the right way, a contested primary creates a number of "products"
organically that would need to be manufactured by other means in a
non-contested primary. Competition helps to present those Big Ideas to the
electorate, a vision of the future for which to fight. It breeds passion
and gets voters to start using those muscles of commitment, which
eventually get them out of the house and to the polls on Election Day.
Perhaps most importantly, it allows the candidates to make connections with
those activist members of the electorate, who'll use their muscles to make
sure those committed voters know how to get to those polls on time.

At this point, it sure looks like Hillary Clinton can grab the nomination
without too much trouble. Trouble is, some trouble might be a nice thing to
have.

*ABC News: One Thing That Might Surprise You About Hillary Clinton
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2015/02/one-thing-that-might-surprise-you-about-hillary-clinton/>*

By Benjamin Bell

February 21, 2015 3:08 p.m. EST

This week, we asked Amy Chozick, national political reporter for the The
New York Times, who covers Hillary Clinton, about when the former secretary
of state might announce her 2016 intentions, her possible competition and
one thing that surprised Chozick about Clinton.

Read our conversation below before Chozick appears on the “This Week”
roundtable Sunday.

1] Hillary Clinton has not said she is running for president, although
obviously many people assume she will. If she does, what do we know about
when she might announce?

Amy Chozick: The conventional wisdom is that she would establish some sort
of exploratory committee to begin raising money in April. She could then do
a splashy public rollout of an official campaign later in the spring or
early summer. But the exploratory committee would give Clinton the legal
apparatus to begin to raise and spend money for a political campaign.

2] Clinton’s Twitter account has been closely watched since she started
tweeting. Do we know who is in control of that account and the strategy
behind it?

Amy Chozick: I think we might be overanalyzing. Clinton, apparently,
handles her own Twitter account and enjoys the medium. Just look what it
did for her with the “Texts from Hillary” meme. Tweeting allows her to
comment (albeit in 140 characters) on events of the day in a very
controlled, but heavily disseminated way. That beats the unpredictability
of a press conference, at least for now.

3] The New York Times reported Clinton met with Sen. Elizabeth Warren in
December. Do they [team Clinton] perceive her as a threat to a possible
Clinton candidacy for president? And if so, how large? Also, is there a
specific Republican that team Clinton perceives would pose the biggest
challenge to Clinton should she decide to run and secure the nomination?

Amy Chozick: Sen. Warren says she is not running for president, but she has
had a significant impact on the national conversation, especially about
Wall Street and inequality and how Clinton and the Democratic Party writ
large address those issues. On the Republican side, Jeb Bush is currently
perceived as the biggest threat. He has name recognition, appeals to
Latinos, and has deep coffers and some centrist appeal.

4] At this point, who are Clinton’s closest advisers? Should Clinton decide
to run for president, who might be at the top of the power structure? Who
might run her campaign?

Amy Chozick: Many of the same loyal aides who have been with Clinton since
the White House (when her team was known as Hillaryland) continue to serve
as her closest advisers, but a lot of newcomers will come on board for a
2016 campaign. John Podesta, who worked in former President Bill Clinton
and President Obama’s administrations, is expected to serve as a campaign
chairman.

5] Covering Clinton, what is one thing that has surprised you about her?

Amy Chozick: Hmm. She likes to drink. We were on the campaign trail in 2008
and the press thought she was just taking shots to pander to voters in
Pennsylvania. Um, no.

*Politico: Bernie Sanders not eager to ‘tilt at windmills’ in 2016
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/bernie-sanders-not-eager-to-tilt-at-windmills-in-2016-115395.html>*

By Caitlin Emma

February 22, 2015 11:53 a.m. EST

Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders has been in Iowa again, railing
against the Koch brothers, calling for economic justice and trying to gauge
whether there’s enough grassroots support for a presidential run.

Sanders didn’t mention the presumed Democratic frontrunner, Hillary
Clinton, by name in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,”
but said, if he decides to seek the White House, he isn’t sure he would run
as a Democrat.

“The fact that I’m in Iowa, which is a caucus state, maybe speaks for
itself,” he said. “But I haven’t made that final decision. And I got to
tell you that a lot of my strong supporters say Bernie, ‘Stay out of the
damn Democratic Party. Run as an Independent.’”

Sanders is the longest serving Independent member of Congress at 24 years.
In Iowa, he told supporters that he was ready to take on the “billionaire
class,” railing against the corrupting influence of money in politics.

“The United States government has got to start working for the middle class
and families of this country and not just millionaires and billionaires,”
he said. “It is likely that within a very short period of time, the Koch
brothers themselves will have a stronger political presence than either the
Democratic or Republican Party.”

Asked whether he could win a presidential race, Sanders said it was a “fair
question.” He doesn’t want to “tilt at windmills,” he said, or attack
imaginary enemies like the famous literary character Don Quixote.

“I’ve got so much to do,” the senator said. “But I just think that out
there, there are so many people who are hurting, so many people who are
disillusioned, so many people who are viscerally upset that they work long
hours for low wages and the billionaires are getting richer. They need a
voice.”

*Bloomberg: John Kasich Swats at Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton as He Considers
2016
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-22/john-kasich-swats-at-rand-paul-hillary-clinton-as-he-considers-2016>*

By Ali Elkin

February 22, 2015 12:28 p.m. EST

[Subtitle] The Ohio governor says all his “options are on the table” when
it comes to running for president.

Ohio Governor John Kasich is offering a preview of how he would tangle with
potential rivals Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton if he runs for president.

In an interview airing Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, Kasich defended
his decision take Medicaid expansion money under Obamacare, which fellow
Republican Paul has called a move by governors who think money grows on
trees.

"You know, Matthew 25 says that it's about how you treat the widowed, how
you treat the poor, how you treat the hungry," Kasich said. "How do you
clothe those who have no clothes? That is a conservative position to help
them get on their feet so they then can assume their rightful place in our
society."

In Kentucky, he added, "maybe everybody's fine, maybe there aren't people
who are suffering these problems." The state had the seventh-highest
poverty rate in the U.S. (including the District of Columbia) in a
2011-2013 average, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Asked about Clinton, Kasich said, "You know, I like Hillary, but I'm not
ever going to be for her for president."

He suggested that he'd continue to speak out on foreign policy, in which
Clinton was involved as President Barack Obama's secretary of state from
2009 to 2013. "Hopefully whether I do this or not, I can have somewhat of a
voice when it comes to the fact that America, you know, it just seems to be
in retreat," he said.

Whether Kasich will meet Paul in the presidential primary is unclear.

"All my options are on the table, and it's a process that I, you know, have
really not spent an enormous amount of time studying internally," said
Kasich, who has been traveling to campaign for a balanced-budget amendment
to the U.S. constitution. "But look, I'm not saying I won't, I'm not saying
I will, I'm leaving my options out there and we'll just see how things
develop."

*NBC News opinion: Giuliani's Comments Don't Hurt the GOP, They Help
Hillary
<http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/oped-giulianis-comments-dont-hurt-gop-they-help-hillary-n310581>*

By Jason Johnson

February 22, 2015 12:34 p.m. EST

This week former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that President Obama
doesn't love you, me or America.

He said that the President has been under the influence of communists since
he was 9 years old, and that Obama is likely a socialist or an
anti-communist. And despite the handwringing on the right and left, his
words don't really harm anyone.

Not the Republican brand, not his own reputation or even any of the
Republicans who have backed his statements. However he did just HELP
Hillary Clinton, and if the GOP is serious about 2016 they should be
worried about any statements actions or thoughts that get her closer to the
White House.

This all started last week when Giuliani was giving a speech at a posh
Manhattan Dinner party for likely Presidential candidate Scott Walker last
Wednesday, when Rudy said: "I do not believe — and I know this is a
horrible thing to say — but I do not believe that this President loves
America."

Apparently that didn't bring the point home enough because the former mayor
of New York city kept going in on Obama, with any media outlet that'd let
him talk.

On Fox & Friends: "What I'm saying is, in his rhetoric I very rarely hear
the things that I used to hear Ronald Reagan say, the things that I used to
hear Bill Clinton say about how much he loves America. I do hear him
criticize America much more often than other American Presidents. And when
it's not in the context of an overwhelming number of statements about the
exceptionalism of America, it sounds like he's more of a critic than he is
a supporter."

He added, "You can be a patriotic American and be a critic, but then you're
not expressing that kind of love that we're used to from a President."

Basically by the end of the week Giuliani was doing everything short of
asking for another copy of Obama's birth certificate and asking for his
whereabouts on the morning of 9-11. Many in the press and some Republican
commentators have said Giuliani's comments are harmful to the Republican
brand, and slowly but surely Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush have come
to not quite critique Giuliani but claim that their disagreement with Obama
has always been more about policy than whether he loves America.

Governor Bobby Jindal and former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann have come
out in support of Giuliani's statements and have earned praise and scorn
for their courage or cowardice depending on how you lean politically.
Ultimately none of this matters, and this entire tempest in a teapot is
probably giving the Clinton campaign goosebumps.

First, Rudy Giuliani is not saying anything new, not for him, and not for
many people in the Republican party base. From conservative commentators
like Mark Levin to rank-and-file Republicans, the belief that Obama doesn't
love America is not new, and it didn't take us losing the war against ISIS
for many conservatives to question his patriotism, faith and love of
country. It's just a very common belief system among the base of the modern
Republican party.

The best way to tag the party nominee of a two term president is to claim
they'll essentially be that president's third term. The more the GOP makes
this race about Obama, the easier it'll be for Hillary Clinton to draw
contrasts between herself and his administration.

Remember the whole 'flag pin' incident? Yes we all know from a moral and
statesmanship perspective that this kind of language is racist and
counter-productive for the United States but when in the last 7 years have
we seen anyone in American campaign politics benefit from trying to be the
adult in the room? Obama's "Dad-in-Chief" routine hasn't helped against the
Republican Congress, or during campaigns.

Giuliani's comments are no different than Steve Scalise hanging out with
Klan members. The GOP knows who their base is, but for some reason we're
all supposed to feign shock and disgust when we're reminded. While most
Republicans don't hold beliefs this far to the racist right the fact is the
last guy who tried to split the needle with the GOP base by saying "Obama
is a good man with bad ideas" ended up losing.

And speaking of losing, that's what this is really all about, the
Republicans should be worried about losing to Hillary Clinton in 2016, and
this kind of rhetoric is exactly what would lead to her and Bill Clinton
marching back into the White House. Yes, there's the obvious problem, that
this kind of language from a prominent Republican is alienating to young
voters, minority voters and independents, but it actually goes a bit deeper
than that.

The best way to tag the party nominee of a two term president is to claim
they'll essentially be that president's third term. The more the GOP makes
this race about Obama, the easier it'll be for Hillary Clinton to draw
contrasts between herself and his administration.

Does anyone other than the far right believe Hillary doesn't love America?
Does anyone other than the far right believe Hillary was influenced by
communists? Or doesn't want to stop ISIS?

If Republicans can't get over their Obama derangement syndrome it just
makes it that much easier for Hillary to say "Obama isn't on the ballot!"
and define herself. It's already going to be hard to tag her with the Obama
administration because everyone knows she disagrees with the President a
lot.

If Republicans respond to every attack on the president like it's a leaked
audio tape, Hillary will be waltzing right back into the White House,
whether she loves America or not.

*New York Times opinion: Hillary, Jeb and $$$$$$
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-and-fund-raising-for-the-2016-presidential-race.html?_r=0>*

By Frank Bruni

February 21, 2015

[Subtitle:] Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Fund-Raising for the 2016
Presidential Race

There are firm and necessary laws against American candidates accepting
foreign donations. There’s no such prohibition for a philanthropy like the
Clinton Foundation, which undeniably does much essential, heroic work
around the globe.

But it’s a philanthropy headed by a woman who’s most likely running for
president and by her husband and daughter. Their requests and their
gratitude cannot be separated entirely from politics. There’s inevitable
overlap and blending.

As The Washington Post wrote, the foundation “has given contributors
entree, outside the traditional political arena, to a possible president.
Foreign donors and countries that are likely to have interests before a
potential Clinton administration — and yet are ineligible to give to U.S.
political campaigns — have affirmed their support for the family’s work
through the charitable giving.”

And this isn’t some minor wrinkle of the foundation’s structure and
workings. “A third of foundation donors who have given more than $1 million
are foreign governments or other entities based outside the United States,
and foreign donors make up more than half of those who have given more than
$5 million,” according to The Post’s analysis.

That analysis also showed that “donations from the financial services
sector” represented the “largest share of corporate donors.” In other
words, the foundation is cozy with Wall Street, which has also funneled
Clinton some of her enormous speaking fees.

The Journal noted that “at least 60 companies that lobbied the State
Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to
the Clinton Foundation.”

A few prominent Democrats with whom I spoke were spooked, not because they
believed that Clinton would feel a pressing need to repay these kindnesses,
but because the eventual Republican nominee had just been handed a potent
weapon against her.

And in the income-inequality era, how does a candidate crowned with this
many dollar signs put herself forward persuasively as a woman of the people
and a champion of the underdog?

THE answer — and her salvation — may be that we’ve all become so accustomed
to the tide of money washing through politics that we just assume all
candidates to be equally (and thoroughly) wet. We give in. And we stop
acknowledging frequently or urgently enough that American elections, which
should be contests of ideas and character, are as much (if not more)
contests of cold, hard cash.

Certainly those of us in the news media are somewhat guilty of this,
because something that’s no longer new is no longer news.

Sure, we publish stories about the dizzying, obscene heights of spending by
major donors, like one written in The Times last month by Nicholas
Confessore. He noted that the Koch brothers had drawn up a budget of $889
million for the 2016 election cycle.

But we discuss the damage being done to Chris Christie’s presidential
dreams by the defection of potential donors without digressing to
underscore the perversity of a small circle of people having so much
consequence.

We report, as we did in January, on how well or poorly Rand Paul, Marco
Rubio and Ted Cruz performed when they spoke at a gathering put together by
the Kochs in Southern California. But we don’t flag the oddity of these
auditions, the chilling bizarreness of the way the road to the White House
winds not only through the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary but
also through plutocrats’ posh retreats.

An astonishing bounty of the comments and developments that make headlines
emanate from the arena of fund-raising. We learned that Mitt Romney might
enter the 2016 race because he was telling donors as much, and we learned
that he had decided otherwise because he was letting donors know. In
neither instance did we take sufficient note of that.

We articulate misgivings about how much of Clinton’s or Bush’s thinking may
be rooted in the past. But the bigger issue, given the scope of not just
their own political histories but also their relatives’, is how heavy a
duffel of i.o.u.s each of them would carry into office.

Their prominence is commensurate with their debts. And only so many of
those can be forgotten.

*Washington Post: The making of Hillary 5.0: Marketing wizards help
re-imagine Clinton brand
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-making-of-hillary-50-marketing-wizards-help-reimagine-clinton-brand/2015/02/21/bfb01120-b919-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html>*

By Philip Rucker and Anne Gearan

February 21, 2015 6:18 p.m. EST

Is Hillary Rodham Clinton a McDonald’s Big Mac or a Chipotle burrito bowl?
A can of Bud or a bottle of Blue Moon? JCPenney or J. Crew?

As she readies her second presidential campaign, Clinton has recruited
consumer marketing specialists onto her team of trusted political advisers.
Their job is to help imagine Hillary 5.0 — the rebranding of a first lady
turned senator turned failed presidential candidate turned secretary of
state turned likely 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.

Clinton and her image-makers are sketching ways to refresh the
well-established brand for tomorrow’s marketplace. In their mission to
present voters with a winning picture of the likely candidate, no detail is
too big or too small — from her economic opportunity agenda to the design
of the “H” in her future campaign logo.

“It’s exactly the same as selling an iPhone or a soft drink or a cereal,”
said Peter Sealey, a longtime corporate marketing strategist. “She needs to
use everything a brand has: a dominant color, a logo, a symbol. . . . The
symbol of a Mercedes is a three-pointed star. The symbol of Coca-Cola is
the contour bottle. The symbol of McDonald’s is the golden arches. What is
Clinton’s symbol?”

Clinton’s challenge is unique. Unlike potential Republican challengers of
relatively middling fame who are introducing themselves to a national
audience for the first time, Clinton is almost universally recognized. Love
her or loathe her, potential voters know who she is after more than two
decades in public life.

Or they think they know.

As Clinton and her advisers conceptualize her 2016 image, her own history
shows the potential for peril.

In politics, authenticity can be a powerful trait, and it is one that
sometimes has escaped Clinton. In her 2008 presidential campaign, despite
some raw displays of emotion, she often came across as overly programmed.

In 2016, a challenge for Clinton will be adapting to the political moment
with a fresh image while remaining true to her settled identity. “Look at
Budweiser,” said a former campaign adviser to President Obama, who spoke on
the condition of anonymity to talk candidly. “That’s what Hillary Clinton
is. She’s not a microbrew. She’s one of the biggest, most powerful brands
ever in the country, and recognizing that is important.”

Ahead of her campaign launch, Clinton has tapped some of the Democratic
Party’s star strategists as well as two of corporate America’s branding
wizards: Wendy Clark, who specializes in marketing age-old brands such as
Coca-Cola to younger and more diverse customers; and Roy Spence, a
decades-long Clinton friend who dreamed up the “Don’t Mess With Texas”
anti-littering slogan as well as flashy ad campaigns for Southwest Airlines
and Wal-Mart.

Clark took an unpaid leave in January from Coca-Cola, where she ispresident
of brands and strategic marketing for carbonated beverages in North
America, to help Clinton in what Clark called “a passion project.” Spence
is co-founder and chairman of GSD&M, an Austin-based corporate ad firm, and
has experience in politics, including with Clinton’s 2008 campaign.

Clinton’s words suggest that her 2016 campaign will stress economic
fairness — the level playing field for the middle class implied by her
Twitter message last month praising Obama’s State of the Union address.
“Now we need to step up & deliver for the middle class. #FairShot
#FairShare,” Clinton wrote.

But the plans for Clinton’s rebranding are not yet clear, nor are the
influences of the Madison Avenue sensibility Clark and Spence bring to her
operation.

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill declined to comment on the branding strategy
or the specific work of Clark and Spence.

People familiar with Clinton’s preparations said Clark and Spence are
focused on developing imaginative ways to “let Hillary be Hillary,” as one
person said, and help her make emotional connections with voters.

“I just want America to know the Hillary Clinton I know,” said Jerry
Crawford, a friend and the Iowa chairman of Clinton’s 2008 campaign. “I
want as many people as possible to get to know the woman I’ve seen behind
closed doors. She’s bright, disciplined, quick to throw her head back and
laugh — just a very, very attractive person.”

Spence, who got to know Bill and Hillary Clinton when they worked in Texas
on George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign, tried to steer Clinton out
of a rough patch in 2008 after her early losses to Obama. He is credited
with her provocative “3 a.m. phone call” ad but also with soft-focus
initiatives to reveal what he called “Hillary’s heart.”

Mark McKinnon, a friend and competitor of Spence and a media strategist
with George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns, said: “Spence and Clark have
a lot of experience refreshing established, well-known brands like AT&T,
Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart. Should come in handy.”

Spence and Clark have been credited with creating three-dimensional
personalities around otherwise dull consumer brands. At Coca-Cola, Clark
spearheaded the “Share a Coke” campaign to put names such as Brittany and
Zach on soda cans, a marketing move that boosted sales among millennials.
Spence helped DoubleTree Hotels make the freshly baked chocolate chip
cookies the chain serves guests upon check-in an icon for its sales pitch
of warm comfort for beleaguered travelers.

But Fred Davis, a Republican advertising guru, said that if Clinton’s
rebranding “seems like a craven attempt to try to put fresh paint on an old
house, then it will backfire.”

“I think most voters are actually pretty intelligent, and they’ll see
through any blatant attempt to change,” Davis said. “Her only hope, to me,
is not a rebranding, but it’s actual policy positions and ideas that are
fresh and new — and because those are fresh and new, voters might think,
‘Wait a minute, I’m going to give her another chance.’ ”

Some Clinton allies agreed. They dismissed the suggestion that refreshing
her brand alone will make the candidate seem current. They said Clinton’s
paramount challenge is to answer two questions: why she is the right person
to step into the Oval Office, and what she would do when she’s there. If
she does that, they said, her image will take care of itself.

“I don’t think people are looking for someone who’s being reinvented or
rebranded,” said Steve Elmendorf, a top Democratic lobbyist who was a
strategist for Clinton’s 2008 bid and other presidential campaigns. “This
is somebody they know, whom they have confidence in, and the question is,
can she lead us to a better place over the next four years? That’s her
biggest challenge. What are the new ideas? . . . It can’t be yesterday’s
program.”

Sealey, who is credited with the successful “Always Coca-Cola” campaign in
the 1990s, said that Clinton, like Coke, “has incredible top-of-mind
awareness, and it’s a huge asset.”

“The issue is: What is her promise?” he said. “With Mercedes, it’s quality.
With Volvo, it’s safety. With Coca-Cola, it’s refreshment. If you can get
her promise down to one word, that’s the key.”

Spence’s business partner, Haley Rushing, said their approach to all
clients, corporate and political, “starts with them at the center,” rather
than market trends. “We always start from the inside out, not the outside
in,” she said.

Rushing and Spence co-founded the Purpose Institute, where Rushing’s title
is “chief purposeologist” and the staffers act as “organizational
therapists” uncovering the central purposes of their client organizations.
Rushing said she is not working on the Clinton effort but that she
envisions a Clinton brand built around years of experience. She said,
“Everything emanates from, ‘What is Hillary’s purpose in the world?’ ”

Clinton has faced that question before, with mixed results.

After a complicated tenure as first lady, Clinton reinvented herself as a
potholes-and-pork senator from her adopted state of New York. Then she ran
for president as a tough woman in the mold of Margaret Thatcher. Failing
that, she had a careful run as the country’s top diplomat under Obama that
allies believe raised her stature.

Perhaps her most significant rebranding came in 2000, when she became a
popular elected official in her own right after her husband’s Monica
Lewinsky scandal and after a controversial tenure as first lady. Clinton
was ridiculed as a dilettante and a carpetbagger, but she won over critics,
even some Republicans, with a dogged commitment to local issues.

In 2008, however, Clinton’s rebranding went badly, starting with a
misreading of the zeitgeist that had her stressing her commander-in-chief
qualifications when the public preferred Obama’s promise of hope and change.

Clinton’s advisers were divided then about how to bust the caricature of
Clinton as remote and brittle. Some begged Clinton to reprise a campaign
feature that had charmed New York voters, in which she stayed in ordinary
people’s homes while traveling around the state. But Clinton insisted that
doing so in Iowa or New Hampshire would come across as forced.

Similarly, an online compilation of testimonials meant to showcase
Clinton’s humanity and relatability fell flat. Too cheesy, some advisers
said; at odds with her strength-and-competence message, others said.

A rebranding that stuck: Clinton’s workmanlike turn as secretary of state,
during which she visited more countries than most of her predecessors — and
used her celebrity to draw attention to women’s empowerment and human
rights issues.

Now, Clinton will try to refresh her image once more so that voters see her
as a champion for the middle class amid deep concerns about income
inequality. Rohit Deshpande, a marketing professor at Harvard Business
School, offered a fast-food giant as a case study.

“Refresh with the times is the issue McDonald’s is facing right now,” he
said. “It’s considered tired, and the marketplace has moved on. ”

Fabian Geyrhalter, a corporate branding consultant, also drew a parallel
between McDonald’s and Clinton: “There has been a brand value proposition
over so many years, and suddenly she needs to shift that legacy into
Clinton 2016: ‘This is what I stand for now.’ ”

*Associated Press: For Clinton, her family foundation may pose campaign
risks
<http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-her-family-foundation-may-pose-campaign-risks-125132967--election.html>*

By Ken Thomas

February 22, 2015 12:10 p.m. EST

The foundation launched by former President Bill Clinton more than a decade
ago has battled HIV and AIDS in Africa, educated millions of children and
fed the poor and hungry around the globe. It also has the potential to
become a political risk for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she moves toward a
second presidential campaign.

The former secretary of state has struggled with some recent bad headlines
over large donations given to the foundation by foreign governments in the
past two years, and the $200 million-plus the organization has raised since
2013, ahead of her anticipated White House campaign.

Republicans contend that foreign governments donating to a foundation led
by a potential U.S. president creates unacceptable conflicts of interests.
Also, the involvement of big money reinforces a long-standing narrative
pushed by the GOP of the Clintons as a couple who frequently mix business
and politics.

"Unless Hillary Clinton immediately reinstates the ban on foreign countries
giving to her foundation and returns the millions of dollars these
governments have already donated, she's setting an incredibly dangerous
precedent," said the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince
Priebus. "The American people are not about to elect a president in Hillary
Clinton who could expose them to the demands of foreign governments because
they dumped massive sums of cash into her foundation."

The foundation, which is scheduled to hold events in Morocco and Greece
this spring, defended its financial support and addressed how it might
function if Clinton runs for president. If she seeks office again,
something taken as a given by most, the foundation said it would ensure its
policies and practices are "appropriate, just as we did when she served as
secretary of state."

In 2009, when Clinton became President Barack Obama's chief diplomat, the
foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments. The fundraising
involving non-U.S. entities resumed in 2013, after she left the his
administration.

The Wall Street Journal last week reported the foundation had received
money in 2014 from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman and others.
The Washington Post reported the charity has raised nearly $2 billion since
the former president started it in 2001. About one-third of its donations
of $1 million or more come from foreign governments or non-U.S. entities,
the newspaper found.

Democrats say the Clintons can defend their work at the foundation because
of its track record and history of tackling some of the world's biggest
problems, from AIDS and clean water to hunger, educational opportunities
and the protection of endangered wildlife.

They also note that the foundation voluntarily discloses its donors —
nonprofits are not required to do — and say there is no evidence the
Clintons have used it to enrich themselves. Nearly 90 percent of the
foundation's money goes toward its programming.

"The foundation has done amazing work," said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, a
Democrat who campaigned with Bill Clinton last year. "It has been a
unifying force in our national affairs and in our international affairs."

Yet the influx of corporate and foreign money just before a potential
Hillary Clinton campaign has caused some anxiety within her party.

"There was a reason they stopped taking foreign government donations when
Hillary was secretary of state," said Mike Carberry, a Johnson County,
Iowa, supervisor and former county Democratic chairman. He said the
foundation should reinstate the policies used from 2009 to 2013. "It
doesn't seem right."

The foundation has strong ties with several corporations and other large
foundations. Last September's annual meeting in New York was sponsored by
an array of companies that regularly lobby the federal government,
including financial firms HSBC Bank USA, Barclays and Deutsche Bank, as
well as Fortune 500 companies such as Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Monsanto,
Procter & Gamble and ExxonMobil.

Goldman Sachs, whose corporate officers have played leading roles in the
Treasury Department in recent years, has worked with the Clinton Foundation
on the 10,000 Women Initiative aimed at helping female entrepreneurs around
the globe access capital.

Many of the same donors to the Clintons' political campaigns have given
money to the foundation. Dennis Cheng, a former Hillary Clinton campaign
fundraiser, recently left the foundation as its chief development officer
and is expected to be a top fundraiser for her expected campaign.

The examination of the foundation's finances come as many Democrats want
Clinton to take on a more populist economic agenda that would demand more
oversight of Wall Street firms. It also follows efforts by Democrats to
scrutinize Republican Mitt Romney's business practices in 2012 and tie
Republican candidates to millions of dollars provided by the Koch Brothers
and their business interests.

Beyond the headlines, many Democrats say it shows the need for Clinton to
begin actively campaigning and build an apparatus better suited to rapidly
respond to these types of critiques.

"There's a vacuum," said Tom Henderson, the chairman of the Polk County,
Iowa, Democrats, who noted potential candidates such as former Maryland
Gov. Martin O'Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb are visiting soon.
"She isn't doing anything" in Iowa, he said.

*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 10 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton addresses United Nations Women’s
Conference (Bloomberg
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-19/hillary-clinton-to-headline-united-nations-women-s-conference>)

·  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>
)