Correct The Record Tuesday December 2, 2014 Morning Roundup

podesta-emails 8,263 words email

D6 P17 P22 P24 V11

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *​**Correct The Record Tuesday December 2, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Baltimore Sun: “Mikulski: 'We need Hillary.'” <http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-mikulski-we-need-hillary-20141201-story.html>* “‘We need Hillary,’ the Maryland Democrat and Senate Appropriations Committee chairwoman told about 100 people gathered at Goucher College for a fundraiser organized by the Ready for Hillary PAC, the group laying the groundwork for her possible candidacy.” *The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Clinton, Biden to appear at D.C. event on Israel” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/225596-clinton-biden-to-appear-at-dc-event-on-israel>* “Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden will be among the attendees at a Washington forum on Israeli-U.S. relations this weekend.” *MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton to environmentalists: I’m one of you” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-goes-green>* “Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, thought Clinton hit it out of the park. ‘You saw her tonight, coming to our organization and really leaning in to this issue to make it clear how much she cares about it,’ he told reporters after her speech. ‘She’s always been committed on it, and she’s voted right very consistently, but with this audience, she’s now making whole comments and focusing on this.’” *The Daily Beast: “Hillary Praises Fracking, Stays Silent on Keystone” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/hillary-praises-fracking-stays-silent-on-keystone.html>* “Exiting the hotel ballroom, philanthropist Tom Steyer also seemed to give Clinton a pass for not mentioning the pipeline project. ‘I always respect what Secretary Clinton has to say. She is always smart and she is always wise. And I thought she did a great job.’” *Politico: “Hillary Clinton avoids Keystone at conservation group event” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/hillary-clinton-keystone-113250.html>* “Hillary Clinton gave a sweeping speech on the environment Monday night, criticizing ‘those who doubt the science of climate change’ and strongly praising President Obama’s record – without ever mentioning the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.” *The Guardian: “Hillary Clinton says fracking carries risks in conservation speech” <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/02/hillary-clinton-says-fracking-carries-risks-in-conservation-speech>* "Clinton offered praise for Obama’s leadership in international climate negotiations, especially last month’s agreement between the US and China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." *The New Republic: “The Economic Forecast for 2016 Favors Hillary Clinton” <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120449/hillary-clinton-can-adopt-obamas-economic-agenda-if-economy-improves>* “The economy isn’t in great shape right now. Wages are still stagnant. But there are a number of signs that it may improve significantly during Obama’s last two years in office.” *CNN: “Poll: Romney, Clinton top 2016 field” <http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/02/politics/poll-hillary-clinton-mitt-romney-2016/>* “On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton unsurprisingly receives an overwhelming majority of support, with 65 percent of left-leaning Americans saying she would be their choice for the 2016 nomination.” *FiveThirtyEight: “What Might Persuade Hillary Clinton Not To Run In 2016” <http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-might-persuade-hillary-clinton-not-to-run-in-2016/>* “Not only are her numbers dropping, but she is running on par with a Democratic brand in its weakest shape in a decade.” *Breitbart opinion: “Rand Paul: ‘Benghazi Was The Definition Of An Intelligence Failure” <http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/29/Benghazi-Report>* “Yes Hillary, it still matters.” *The Daily Beast: “Rand Paul Won’t Let Benghazi Die” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/rand-paul-won-t-let-benghazi-die.html>* Asked on what intelligence Paul has based his conclusion that the Republican-led committee’s findings were incorrect, his senior aide, Doug Stafford, deflected by saying, ‘Senator Paul doesn’t believe the questions have all been answered, nor does he believe those responsible for this failure have been held accountable, especially Secretary Clinton.’ Asked, then, whether Paul is under the impression that the House Intelligence Committee and its Republican chairman fell prey to White House Benghazi propaganda, Stafford said: ‘We don’t have any comment on why the House Intelligence Committee issued a bad report, only that they did.’” *Dayton Daily News: “Portman says no to presidential run” <http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/portman-says-no-to-presidential-run/njJtY/>* “Sen. Rob Portman will not run for president in 2016, saying that he will seek another term as U.S. senator from Ohio instead.” *Articles:* *Baltimore Sun: “Mikulski: 'We need Hillary.'” <http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-mikulski-we-need-hillary-20141201-story.html>* By John Fritze December 1, 2014, 8:30 p.m. EST Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski told a group of Hillary Clinton supporters gathered in Baltimore County on Monday that Maryland would provide a "groundswell of grassroots" support for the former Secretary of State should she decide to run for president in 2016. "We need Hillary," the Maryland Democrat and Senate Appropriations Committee chairwoman told about 100 people gathered at Goucher College for a fundraiser organized by the Ready for Hillary PAC, the group laying the groundwork for her possible candidacy. "We've got to organize," she said. "We've got to mobilize." Not mentioned by Mikulski or anyone else on stage was Martin O'Malley, Maryland's outgoing governor who is also weighing a run for president in 2016. The fundraiser was expected to draw several other high profile Democrats -- many of whom have worked closely with the O'Malley administration for years -- but only Mikulski showed. "We can't go backward and we can't let anything grow under our feet," said Mikulski, who co-chaired Clinton's presidential campaign in Maryland in 2008. "We want her to know that there's a groundswell of grass roots support." Early signs of support for Clinton among the congressional delegation that knows O'Malley best demonstrates the challenge the governor faces as he contemplates a possible White House run. Polls in early primary states show Clinton eclipsing O'Malley, despite his repeated appearances for congressional and gubernatorial candidates in the run up to this year's midterm elections. Clinton is expected to make a decision early next year. Mikulski has previously noted her support for Clinton's potential candidacy. "I'm a Hillary person, so I know Gov. O'Malley is working hard to establish his national credentials," Mikulski told Politico in an interview earlier this year. Maryland's other senator, Ben Cardin, was set to attend the event Monday but instead remained in Washington for votes on the Senate floor. Rep. John Delaney, the Montgomery County Democrat first elected in 2012 -- who also has close ties to the Clinton family -- is expected to host a similar fundraiser for the draft-Clinton effort this week. Cardin has typically been cautious in supporting candidates during -- or ahead of -- primary elections. He did not back Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign until June, a day before Clinton dropped out of the race. He also declined to engage in Delaney's competitive primary against a state lawmaker in 2012. "Senator Cardin thinks Hillary Clinton's energy is positive for our party and our country," Cardin spokeswoman Sue Walitsky said in a statement. "He is excited about her potential candidacy." A spokeswoman for O'Malley's federal committee declined to comment on the fundraiser. O'Malley was an early backer of Clinton's 2008 campaign but Obama ultimately carried the Democratic Primary in Maryland that year with nearly 61 percent of the vote. Tickets to the fundraiser cost $20.16. *The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Clinton, Biden to appear at D.C. event on Israel” <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/225596-clinton-biden-to-appear-at-dc-event-on-israel>* By David McCabe December 1, 2014, 2:05 p.m. EST Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden will be among the attendees at a Washington forum on Israeli-U.S. relations this weekend. Both will speak to the Saben Forum, an annual event organized by the Brookings Institution and entertainment mogul Haim Saban. Saban is also a major political donor who has pledged to support Clinton should she run for president in 2016. The event willalso feature Secretary of State John Kerry and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu will appear via sattalite. Biden and Netanyahu will be the meeting's keynote speakers. Attendees will discuss the relationship between the U.S. and Israel "via candid closed-door dialogue between U.S. and Israeli officials, policymakers, journalists, and business leaders." The meeting occurs as debate continues over a potential deal between Western countries and Iran on the latter country's nuclear program. Israel has been skeptical of a deal, but is reportedly pleased that an extension in negotiations might yield a more favorable accord. It will also come amid an uptick in violence in Israel, including an attack by two Palestinians on an orthodox synogogue in Jeruselum that claimed the lives of three Americans. Clinton has said she will make a decision about whether to run for president next year. She has appeared regularly in the press this year while promoting a new memoir about her time at the State Department and stumping for Democratic candidates. *MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton to environmentalists: I’m one of you” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-goes-green>* By Alex Seitz-Wald December 1, 2014, 10:51 p.m. EST Hillary Clinton came to a League of Conservation Voters fundraiser Monday to assure the green donors that she is one of them – even if she won’t take a stand on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline at the moment. In a forceful speech at the deep-pocketed environmental group’s annual dinner in New York City, the former secretary of state scolded climate “deniers,” called for bold leadership on global warming and praised leading environmentalists – all while touting her own victories in the field. Clinton’s speech capped an awkward day on the pipeline issue for the likely 2016 presidential candidate. The League of Conservation Voters is strongly opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sand oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. But earlier Monday, Clinton raised funds for a politician on the other side of the issue – Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, who recently proposed a bill to approve the pipeline’s construction. Clinton acknowledged that dealing with climate change will be politically challenging, but cited the legacy of President Teddy Roosevelt – a new hero of Clinton’s – as a example of “national leadership that was both decisive and innovative” on the environment. “Our economy still runs primarily on fossil fuels and trying to change that will take strong leadership,” she said. But “we do not have to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy economy.” Instead, she said moving to a greener economy will create jobs and help make “America the clean energy super-power of the 21st Century.” Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, thought Clinton hit it out of the park. “You saw her tonight, coming to our organization and really leaning in to this issue to make it clear how much she cares about it,” he told reporters after her speech. “She’s always been committed on it, and she’s voted right very consistently, but with this audience, she’s now making whole comments and focusing on this.” But nowhere did Clinton mention Keystone, the controversial issue she has shied away from as she weighs another bid for the White House. Clinton has come under fire for that evasion, but says she can’t comment on it while the project makes its way through a State Department review process. In his introductory remarks, Karpinski praised the recent defeat in the Senate of a bill to approve what he called the “dirty and dangerous” pipeline sponsored by Landrieu. But Karpinski said he didn’t have a problem with Clinton’s support for Landrieu. “The Clinton and the Landrieu families have been friends going way way back,” he said, noting that plenty of other pals of his organization will raise money for members of the “Democratic team” they might not always agree with. As she did when appearing with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a leader on economic populism, a month ago, Clinton took time to heap praise on Democratic leaders on the environment. Clinton called Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Senate’s foremost climate hawk, her “friend” and looked at him in the audience to say, “Thank you for fighting the good fight, day in and day out.” Clinton also touted Karpinski’s work and even gave a special shout out to Karpinski’s mother, who stood and gave a wave. “We need the LCV as much as we ever have,” Clinton said, ticking off several of the group’s key accomplishments over decades. The group is consistently one of the biggest spenders for Democrats in elections. After her speech, Clinton sat at a table with Democratic mega-donor Tom Steyer and several members of LCV’s board to eat and hear the rest of the program. Could Clinton offer the leadership she kept calling for? Karpinski certainly hinted at it, making a joke about “the first Clinton administration” and referencing the Iowa caucuses, just over a year away. Carol Browner, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, went even farther. “Hillary, wherever life takes you in the next few months, we know we can continue to count on you to raise your voice and your intellect in the effort to combat climate change,” Browner said. “And we hope you know you can count on us.” *The Daily Beast: “Hillary Praises Fracking, Stays Silent on Keystone” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/hillary-praises-fracking-stays-silent-on-keystone.html>* By David Freedlander December 1, 2014 [Subtitle:] At a speech to an environmental advocacy group, Clinton came out in favor of fracking—and ignored the controversial pipeline project. At a speech to the League of Conservation Voters in midtown Manhattan Monday night, before hundreds of deep-pocketed donors, Hillary Clinton praised the environmental legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, touted the prospect of new green technologies, and had warm words for Barack Obama’s aggressive efforts to combat climate change. Absent from the former Secretary of State’s speech? Any sense of where she stood on the controversial Keystone pipeline project, or what she would do differently as president to steer the nation towards a more sustainable future. But that didn’t mean that Clinton wasn’t clear about where she came down on environmental matters—she praised both her husband’s record of cleaning up air and water standards, and the Obama administrations recent efforts to strike a climate deal with China and to toughen pollution standards. “We continue to push forward. But that is just the beginning. Science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say,” Clinton said, reading off of prepared remarks. The former Secretary of State alluded to the need to wean the nation off of fossil fuels, but noted that, “the political challenges are also unforgiving. There is no getting around the fact that the kind of ambitious response required to effectively combat climate change is going to a be a tough sell at home and around the world at a time when so many countries around the world, including our own, are grappling with slow growth and stretch budgets.” Clinton was vague about the kind of response needed to address climate change, coming down neither in favor of the traditional Democratic carbon tax or the Republican (pre-Obama, at least) cap and trade plan. Instead, Clinton, much as her husband has done, pushed for market-based solutions to social problems, arguing that green technologies would enable economic growth and would slow the effects of climate change. She called for “next generation” power plants, smarter grids and greener buildings, describing a “false choice between growing our economy and protecting our environment.” Clinton did, however, come out in favor of natural gas drilling, known as hydrofracking, which has become a key cause for environmental activists, who say that the risks involved in natural gas drilling are not yet known. “Yes, natural gas can play an important bridge role in the transition to a cleaner, greener economy,” Clinton said. But if Clinton waded into the natural gas debate, she entirely avoided the Keystone one. That debate took center stage over the midterms when financier Tom Steyer pledged $100 million to pro-environment candidates and made the pipeline a litmus test. Republicans rallied to the cause, arguing that the pipeline would create jobs. (Nonpartisan experts say that both the pipeline’s negative environmental effects and positive job creation projections are overstated.) Last month, embattled Democrat Mary Landrieu pushed for a vote on Keystone in order to boost her standing in her December run-off re-election. The measure failed in the Senate in a vote that received warm praise from LCV president Gene Karpinski in his introduction of Clinton. Clinton appeared at a fundraiser for Landrieu earlier in the day. Karpinski, who said that he was confident that Obama would reject Keystone, said he did not have a problem with Clinton’s support for Landrieu. “Look, the Clintons and the Landrieu families have been friends going back in history. And all kinds of friends of ours have raised money for Mary Landrieu to support her as a candidate. There is nothing surprising. This is what people do.” Karpinski wasn’t the only one willing to cut a not-yet-candidate Clinton some leeway. Exiting the hotel ballroom, philanthropist Tom Steyer also seemed to give Clinton a pass for not mentioning the pipeline project. “I always respect what Secretary Clinton has to say. She is always smart and she is always wise. And I thought she did a great job.” Asked whether she should have mentioned the pipeline project, he merely said, “I thought her speech was great.” *Politico: “Hillary Clinton avoids Keystone at conservation group event” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/hillary-clinton-keystone-113250.html>* By Maggie Haberman December 1, 2014, 11:11 p.m. EST NEW YORK — Hillary Clinton gave a sweeping speech on the environment Monday night, criticizing “those who doubt the science of climate change” and strongly praising President Obama’s record – without ever mentioning the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. “The science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say,” Clinton said during a nearly 30-minute speech at a dinner hosted by the League of Conservation Voters, criticizing the “old false choice between protecting our environment and growing our economy.” She argued for the need to boost economic growth while finding new energy bridges to move away from fossil fuel dependence. Clinton praised last month’s U.S.-China climate accord but described it as a “beginning” instead of an end. And she left open the possibility of supporting “fracking,” the drilling for natural gas, provided the right environmental protections are in place. But she never used the word “fracking,” and said the process shouldn’t happen when the risk to specific areas is too great. Fracking has been contentious in her home state of New York. But in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, it has more support. Clinton also remarked that the incoming Congress will have more lawmakers who “want to turn back the clock” on environmental progress. Clinton’s speech was closely watched ahead of her likely 2016 presidential campaign, with climate change an issue of growing concern among liberal donors. In a sign of how the big-money politics around climate change have developed with Democrats, Clinton was seated next to Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist who spent heavily in the midterms and is strongly opposed to the Keystone proposal. The speech came two hours after Clinton hosted a New York-based fundraiser for embattled Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, who’s now in a runoff and recently made an ill-fated push for the Keystone project in the Senate. Steyer has done nothing to assist the long-serving Democrat, who is trailing significantly ahead of Saturday’s election. At the fundraiser, which was closed to reporters, Clinton never mentioned the Keystone pipeline, according to an attendee. But she made a passing reference at one point to Landrieu doing what she had to do for her constituents. Before Clinton spoke, League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski slammed the pipeline as “dirty and dangerous,” calling for its defeat. “We’re gonna kill that pipeline,” he insisted. Clinton has been criticized by some environmental groups for not taking a position on the project, which is being reviewed by current Secretary of State John Kerry. But her allies have said in the past that she doesn’t want to get ahead of the sitting secretary of state by voicing an opinion. The LCV has been noticeably absent among Clinton critics on the pipeline, and Karpinski gave her cover for not mentioning it, telling reporters after the speech that there was no reason for her to take a stand before a decision by the administration. “She’s already been asked about that,” Karpinski shrugged when reporters asked if he was troubled that she didn’t discuss it. “That’s not her decision right now. You heard her praise president Obama many, many time. … We’re absolutely confident that (Kerry) will reject that pipeline.” If anything, the evening was a reminder that, despite the controversy around the issue, major players in the environmental movement are so far unwilling to strongly take on the likely frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. In her speech, Clinton said she realized that developing clean energy globally is “going to be a tough sell” with too many nations experiencing “slow growth and stretched budgets.” “But I like to remind people that just as this challenge is obvious, so is the opportunity it represents,” Clinton said, saying there are significant economic impacts involved. As she has in other speeches, she invoked Teddy Roosevelt and drew parallels between the challenges of his era and the current one. She recalled the famous moment when she and Obama in 2009 crashed a meeting involving China and other countries at a global environmental summit and described that as one of many opportunities still to come to affect change. Clinton was introduced by her husband’s former Environmental Protection Agency head, Carol Browner, who compared the former first lady’s work on the environment to work she has done protecting children. Browner said introducing Clinton was like being the opener “for The Rolling Stones.” And Karpinski repeatedly alluded to the possibility of another Clinton in the White House, at one point saying, as he introduced Browner, that she had served in the Clinton administration. “I was going to say under the first President Clinton,” said Karpinski, to laughter. He later told reporters he was pleased with her overall message. “She made it clear that climate change is a real threat … if you deal with it the right way it’s actually gonna create jobs … [and] save the planet,” he said. As for her raising money earlier for Landrieu, he said, “ The Clintons and the Landrieu families have been friends going way way back in history.” *The Guardian: “Hillary Clinton says fracking carries risks in conservation speech” <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/02/hillary-clinton-says-fracking-carries-risks-in-conservation-speech>* By Suzanne Goldenberg December 1, 2014, 10:48 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] Possible presidential candidate draws distinction with Barack Obama, who has trumpeted boom in gas and oil exploration Hillary Clinton has offered mild criticism of the fracking boom that has spread across the US under Barack Obama’s presidency, drawing another small distinction with his administration. Clinton, who has yet to declare she is seeking the presidency, kept the bulk of her speech to a League of Conservation Voters dinner in New York resolutely vanilla. But she did express concerns about the environmental costs associated with natural gas and went so far as to suggest there may be places where it was too dangerous to drill at all. “I know many of us have serious concerns with the risks associated with the rapidly expanding production of natural gas,” Clinton told the crowd on Monday night. “Methane leaks in the production and transportation of natural gas pose a particularly troubling threat so it is crucial we put in place smart regulations and enforce them – including deciding not to drill when the risks to local communities, landscapes and ecosystems are just too high.” Clinton’s comments were nowhere near as sharp as her critique of Obama’s foreign policy last August, when she bluntly said the administration lacked a coherent strategy. But they are significant because of Obama’s championship of an “all of the above” energy strategy – and because they suggest Clinton is trying to appeal to voters concerned about fracking. Clinton’s speech was otherwise notable for the degree to which she avoid mentioning any controversial topics – much like her address to an energy conference in Nevada during the summer. She made no mention of the Keystone XL pipeline – the most politically weighted decision awaiting Obama. She made no mention of Arctic drilling, or coal. She even avoided the word “fracking”. But the distinction was evident. Over the years Obama has regularly boasted about the expansion of oil and gas production under his watch, due to fracking, much to the frustration of campaign groups. The president even touted the expansion of natural gas during his milestone June 2013 speech on climate change. Natural gas produces far greater greenhouse gas emissions than originally thought because of methane leaks. Most environmental groups now dismiss the idea that natural gas could serve as a bridge to a clean energy future – as Obama once claimed, and as Clinton repeated on Monday “If we are smart about this and put in place the right safeguards natural gas can play an important bridge role in the transition to a cleaner energy economy,” she said. Elsewhere Clinton’s remarks hewed very closely to Obama’s positions on climate and environment. She called for a strong defence of the new rules cutting carbon pollution from power plants, which form the central pillar of Obama’s climate action plan. Clinton offered praise for Obama’s leadership in international climate negotiations, especially last month’s agreement between the US and China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She also borrowed a page from many of Obama’s recent speeches, taking a swipe at Republican climate denial. “The science of climate change is unforgiving – no matter what the deniers may say,” she said. *The New Republic: “The Economic Forecast for 2016 Favors Hillary Clinton” <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120449/hillary-clinton-can-adopt-obamas-economic-agenda-if-economy-improves>* By Danny Vinik December 1, 2014 After the Democrats were roundly defeated in the midterms, pundits blamed it partly on the left’s stale economic agenda and argued that this agenda will hurt the party in 2016. The latest example of this argument comes from Ed Luce, who writes in the Financial Times that Hillary Clinton’s road to the White House will be damaged by the stale agenda, a disconnect between Clinton and liberal voters, and a more unified conservative base. “As it stands, whatever coalition is expected to carry Mrs Clinton over the finishing line is likely to result from a calculated process of addition,” Luce writes. “In politics, winning is ultimately about ideas. In the absence of new ones, Mrs Clinton’s bridge to the White House looks rickety.” Those are all legitimate concerns. But Luce overlooks a fundamental reason why she is the early favorite: The economy is quickly improving under a Democratic president. The economy isn’t in great shape right now. Wages are still stagnant. But there are a number of signs that it may improve significantly during Obama’s last two years in office. Monthly job gains have surpassed 200,000 for the past nine months. The Commerce Department’s estimate for third-quarter GDP growth was nearly 4 percent. Workers are quitting their jobs at the fastest rate in more than six years—an indication they have confidence in the economy. New research from the New York Fed indicates that Americans may be done deleveraging, or reducing their debt. Gas prices are also collapsing, leaving more money for consumers to spend on other goods. Economic forecasters are expecting those green shoots to lead to stronger growth over the next two years. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the economy will grow nearly 4 percent in both 2015 and 2016. The Federal Reserve’s most recent forecast put growth a bit lower, at 2.6-3.0 percent over the next two years. For comparison, growth hovered around 2 percent in 2013 and 2012. That’s all good news for Clinton, since political science research demonstrates the outsized role that the economy plays in presidential elections: an improving economy benefits incumbents. That's partly why Obama defeated Mitt Romney. There is less evidence on how the economy affects presidential elections without an incumbent, but we know that it still matters. “If the incumbent president isn’t running, the effect of the economy would be a little bit smaller, but it’s still important,” George Washington political scientist John Sides told me earlier this year. “The logic there being that a new candidate for the party would not get as much credit or blame as the actual president who was presiding over the economy.” In other words, an improving economy benefits the candidate of the incumbent party: The more the economy improves over the next 24 months, the better Clinton’s chances are of winning the presidency. None of this is to say that the Democrats don’t currently have a problem politically with their economic agenda. They do—and there aren’t any clear solutions to it. But an improving economy will also minimize those political consequences. If growth is between 3 and 4 percent and wages are growing—a big “if” that heavily depends on actions at the Federal Reserve—voters may look more favorably on the Obamanomics. Clinton could seize on popular policies that Republicans blocked during Obama’s time in office—minimum wage increases and equal pay legislation, for instance—and add a few of her own ideas, maybe paid family leave. Thanks to an improving economy, she could make that stale agenda look much more appealing to voters. The opposite is true as well: If the economy falters, Democrats and Clinton will receive the brunt of the blame and her chances of winning the presidency will fall. A lot can change over the next two years, but the economic data we currently have is indicative of stronger growth over the next two years. That’s a more important indicator for Clinton than any message voters sent Democrats this past November. *CNN: “Poll: Romney, Clinton top 2016 field” <http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/02/politics/poll-hillary-clinton-mitt-romney-2016/>* By Sara Fischer December 2, 2014 Washington (CNN) -- Mitt Romney may say he's not planning to make a third run for the White House, but according to a new CNN/ORC national poll, Republican voters aren't ready to give up on the idea just yet. While there is no clear frontrunner for the Republican ticket in 2016, most likely GOP voters say they would choose the former Massachusetts governor for the nomination, among 16 potential contenders. According to the survey, 20 percent of voters say Romney would be their first choice for the nominee, with retired neurosurgeon and conservative activist Ben Carson coming in second with 10 percent of the vote. Other big name contenders, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, round out the top four, garnering 9 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee takes fifth place with 7 percent of the vote. In what could be a telling 2016 indicator, when Romney is removed from the competitive set, the first place spot goes to Bush, whose family has publicly pressured him to throw his hat in the ring for months. But even though Bush leads the pack among the hypothetical field of 15, he only edges Carson in second place by 3 percentage points, and Huckabee in third by just 4 points. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton unsurprisingly receives an overwhelming majority of support, with 65 percent of left-leaning Americans saying she would be their choice for the 2016 nomination. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a progressive favorite, and Vice President Joe Biden, fall way behind to take second and third place -- with 9 percent and 10 percent, respectively. But when Clinton is removed from the vote selection, Biden pulls more support among voters, who say they would prefer him as their 2016 Democratic nominee with 41 percent, versus 20 percent for Warren. The poll surveyed 1,045 Americans, including 510 Republicans and right-leaning independents and 457 Democrats and left-leaning independents. The survey was conducted by telephone from Nov. 21-23. *FiveThirtyEight: “What Might Persuade Hillary Clinton Not To Run In 2016” <http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-might-persuade-hillary-clinton-not-to-run-in-2016/>* By Harry Enten December 1, 2014, 2:34 p.m. EST Most speculation about the 2016 presidential election has taken at least one thing for granted: Hillary Clinton will run. But the Cook Political Report’s Charlie Cook recently threw some cold water on that assumption (or at least some lukewarm water); Cook estimated Clinton has only a 60 to 70 percent chance of running. I have no clue whether Cook’s estimate is right. But recent data illustrates why Clinton might balk at running: She no longer looks quite so invincible, and early indicators point toward a Republican-leaning political environment. We’re still a long way from the 2016 election, but Clinton needs to decide soon whether to run. The political landscape right now is more Republican-leaning than at a comparable point in the 2012 cycle (when President Obama, with a 46 percent approval rating, led a generic Republican 42 percent to 39 percent). Obama’s approval has dropped to 42 percent. In four polls conducted over the past month, YouGov asked more than 2,500 registered voters whether they would vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate for president in 2016. The Republican candidate led, on average, 39.2 percent to 36.7 percent. Again, these results are among registered, not likely, voters, so this lead has nothing to do with turnout. The current environment suggests Clinton would need to be stronger than a generic Democratic candidate to be considered the favorite. Instead, her standing has deteriorated. YouGov has been polling Clinton’s favorable ratings among adults over the past six years (adults overall tend to be more Democratic leaning than just registered voters). [CHART] Clinton was quite popular during her days as secretary of state. But since leaving that nonpartisan post in 2013, her net favorable rating has been falling. The most recent YouGov poll put her at an all-time low. YouGov’s results have been echoed by other pollsters, including NBC/Wall Street Journal and Quinnipiac University. The most recent NBC survey found Clinton’s net favorable rating at +3 percentage points; Quinnipiac had it at +5 percentage points. Clinton’s edge against Republicans in a potential 2016 matchup has also taken a hit. She once led by double-digits in matchups against most Republicans. But recent live telephone polls in the key swing states of Iowa and New Hampshire have Clinton neck and neck with 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Nationally, Quinnipiac found Romney leading Clinton 45 percent to 44 percent among registered voters. At a comparable point in the 2012 cycle, Romney was down 7 percentage points to Obama. Clinton led New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 1 percentage point, and she holds leads of 4 to 9 percentage points on the other Republican candidates. Any lead Clinton does have is almost entirely attributable to being better known. In the Quinnipiac survey, 95 percent of respondents recognized her name. Only Romney, with 86 percent name recognition, comes close to being as well-known (and he’s the only candidate who leads Clinton). The rest of the GOP field has name recognition at 71 percent or below. Among the seven Republican candidates listed by Quinnipiac, the correlation between Clinton’s lead (or lack thereof) over each Republican and that Republican’s name recognition was 0.94. In other words, other Republicans should gain ground as they become better known. In fact, a simple regression between name recognition and a Republican’s standing against Clinton in the Quinnipiac poll suggests that she isn’t performing much better than a generic Democrat. None of this means that Clinton would lose if she ran. Polls at this point are not very predictive. Obama may become more popular. The Republicans could nominate an extreme candidate. Any number of other things could happen. Clinton, however, no longer looks like such a juggernaut. Not only are her numbers dropping, but she is running on par with a Democratic brand in its weakest shape in a decade. *Breitbart: “Exclusive: Rand Paul: ‘Benghazi Was The Definition Of An Intelligence Failure” <http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/29/Benghazi-Report>* By Sen. Rand Paul December 1, 2014, 7:01 a.m. PDT The House Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited Benghazi report Friday, claiming, “There was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.” This one sentence tells us how seriously we should take this report. Benghazi was the definition of an intelligence failure. It was, in fact, one of the worst intelligence failures in our history, a strategic blunder that resulted in the murder of a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans. The ultimate blame lies with the Obama Administration and more directly with Hillary Clinton who oversaw this tragedy during her tenure as Secretary of State. No rational person has ever disputed that our government failed horribly in protecting the U.S. embassy and our diplomats. Americans just wanted to know who was responsible. Now, a Congressional Committee chaired by Rep. Mike Rogers is telling us no one is responsible because there was no intelligence failure to begin with. It might be time to rename the House “Intelligence” Committee. This administration has changed the talking points and ignored important questions about Benghazi throughout—when the administration knew what was happening, why did it happen, was it terrorism, who ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens security requests, who told Susan Rice the consulate was secure, the list of questions goes on. These questions remain unanswered or insufficiently answered and are crucial to getting to the bottom of what really happened. The Associated Press claims the report debunks, “A series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.” None of these accusations contain even a modicum of truth? Three CIA security members have said their team was intentionally delayed by the administration in conducting a rescue effort. Are they being untruthful, or is this report perhaps not telling the full story? Multiple highly-respected news outlets reported on arms possibly being smuggled from Libya to Syria, before and after the attacks in Benghazi. Were all these stories fabricated? Or did they contain some useful or pertinent information related to this investigation? The Obama Administration has tried to paint members of Congress who ask these questions as somehow being extreme or crazy—and perhaps the House Intelligence Committee will now follow suit, But remember, this is the same administration that called the investigation into the IRS scandal a product of a “conspiracy theory.” When Clinton was asked during her Benghazi testimony almost two years ago who first floated the story about an anti-Islamic video supposedly being the catalyst for the attacks, she shot back, “What difference at this point does it make?” It makes a huge difference, Mrs. Clinton. All of these questions make a difference—about your judgment and the basic competency of this administration. They make a difference to the families of the victims. They make a difference to the American people who deserve to know the truth. From the beginning of this controversy, Obama officials have used smoke and mirrors at every opportunity to evade blame. They have ducked and weaved to avoid anything that could possibly cast the administration in a bad light. “C.Y.A.” is a term many Americans are familiar with that was invented by U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War. This new Benghazi “intelligence” report is little more than a C.Y.A. attempt designed to protect incompetent politicians and government agents at the expense of justice for the victims of September 11, 2012. They will continue to cover up. I will continue to seek the truth until those at the top of this two-year chain of deception are finally held accountable. And yes Hillary, it still matters. *The Daily Beast: “Rand Paul Won’t Let Benghazi Die” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/rand-paul-won-t-let-benghazi-die.html>* By Olivia Nuzzi December 1, 2014 [Subtitle:] Lashing out at a House report saying there was ‘no intelligence failure’ before the 2012 attack allows the Kentucky senator to jab at Hillary Clinton—and appeal to his father’s base. When the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee concluded in late November that there had been “no intelligence failure” before the 2012 attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, it threatened to pry from Republicans one of their favorite vehicles for sniping at the Obama administration and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Rand Paul does not appear to be willing to let that happen. The junior Kentucky senator and likely presidential candidate attacked the committee’s findings in an op-ed that is part first-stage-of-grief and part letter to Clinton. “Benghazi was the definition of an intelligence failure,” Paul begins, dismissing the entire committee report as unserious. “It was, in fact, one of the worst intelligence failures in our history, a strategic blunder that resulted in the murder of a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans…The ultimate blame lies with the Obama Administration and more directly with Hillary Clinton who oversaw this tragedy during her tenure as Secretary of State.” Paul then asks of the “persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies” noted by the Associated Press, “None of these accusations contain even a modicum of truth?” Later, Paul quotes Clinton’s notorious line, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” referring to what served as the catalyst for the attacks, an anti-Muslim video or a push by radical Islamists. “It makes huge difference, Mrs. Clinton,” Paul writes. “This new Benghazi ‘intelligence’ report is little more than a C.Y.A. attempt designed to protect incompetent politicians and government agents at the expense of justice for the victims of September 11, 2012…And yes, Hillary, it still matters.” Asked on what intelligence Paul has based his conclusion that the Republican-led committee’s findings were incorrect, his senior aide, Doug Stafford, deflected by saying, “Senator Paul doesn’t believe the questions have all been answered, nor does he believe those responsible for this failure have been held accountable, especially Secretary Clinton.” Asked, then, whether Paul is under the impression that the House Intelligence Committee and its Republican chairman fell prey to White House Benghazi propaganda, Stafford said: “We don’t have any comment on why the House Intelligence Committee issued a bad report, only that they did.” Paul has consistently used Benghazi as a device to stake out high ground on foreign policy. He broaches the subject of Benghazi with ease, almost as if it’s become its own form of small talk—and it’s not hard to figure out why he doesn’t want to let it go. For one thing, Benghazi allows Paul to attack Clinton without having to acknowledge why he’s doing it—were he to win the Republican nomination, he would likely face Clinton in the general election. But perhaps more important than that, taking the the-government-is-hiding-the-truth-from-you position on Benghazi permits Paul to appeal to the base he inherited from his father, former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul: conspiracy-prone libertarians. It’s a group that sometimes expresses skepticism about the younger Paul—he is, after all, the more mainstream (i.e., willing to sell out) version of his father. In his own words, he is just “libertarian-ish,” more likely to stake out positions outside the mainstream than the average Republican but ultimately someone who may muddy his own convictions in an effort to appeal to generic right-wing primary voters. Infowars.com, an entertainingly deranged conspiracy-mongering website run by Bill Hicks-lookalike Alex Jones, a friend of the Paul family, seemed to praise Paul for not buying into the House Intelligence Committee’s Benghazi report, with the screaming headline “Rand Paul Slams Benghazi ’Cover Your Ass’ Report.” Paul is not the only one unwilling to accept the committee’s findings. In the latest Weekly Standard can be found an editorial under the headline “The Benghazi Whitewash.” that aren’t damning are a classic Washington whitewash…and one of the central facts confirmed by the report is an indictment of the mainstream media coverage of Benghazi.” The publication chides National Journal’s Ron Fournier, Politico’s Michael Grunwald, and The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf for taking the committee’s report to mean what the committee reported. Perhaps to Paul’s dismay, he has an ally in Sen. Lindsey Graham, with whom he has frequently sparred. On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Graham said the committee is “full of crap.” While Paul will likely continue to address Clinton via Breitbart, Stafford said he is eagerly awaiting the result of the Select Committee on Benghazi, led by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy. “Senator Paul looks forward to having more information brought forward about Benghazi and the failures of this administration, particularly Secretary Clinton.” *Dayton Daily News: “Portman says no to presidential run” <http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/portman-says-no-to-presidential-run/njJtY/>* By Jessica Wehrman December 2, 2014, 12:12 a.m. Sen. Rob Portman will not run for president in 2016, saying that he will seek another term as U.S. senator from Ohio instead. Announcing his decision to a small group of Ohio reporters in his Capitol Hill office Monday, Portman said he decided to remain in the Senate because he felt energized by the new GOP Senate majority, saying “there is a good chance for us to do something” on a broad array of issues, such as overhauling the tax code and expanding international trade. Portman, who had been lauded as a credible candidate by a wide variety of media outlets including the Washington Post and ABC News, said he made his decision during the past few days after talking to his family during the Thanksgiving holidays. “If you run for president, it’s just not practical to be involved in policy issues here,” he said. “You can’t do both. At least for me, I couldn’t do both.” Although Portman said he was “not interested” in being a vice presidential candidate for the eventual Republican nominee, he did not flatly rule out being on the ticket in 2016. With the Republicans holding their 2016 convention in Cleveland, Portman clearly would be regarded as a potential running mate for the Republican nominee. No Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio. “I’m not seeking that and as you know that’s not something you can seek anyway,” Portman said. “I’m not interested. I’m not putting myself out there. I’m interested in running for re-election and continuing to serve Ohio in what will be a more productive Senate.” By declining to run, Portman is opting out of joining no fewer than a dozen GOP contenders who are reportedly mulling a 2016 bid, among them Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida; Govs. John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Perry of Texas, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Portman’s decision will now shine increased spotlight on the other Ohio contender, Kasich, who drew positive attention last month after an appearance at the Republican Governors Association conference in Florida. Portman’s decision came after months of speculation that he was preparing a run for the presidency in 2016. Privately, some in Portman’s camp had gone so far as to mull the best way to raise money for a presidential campaign. But Portman all along said he would not make a decision until after the November 2014 elections, saying the results of those elections would help influence his decision. Portman served as the vice-chairman for finance for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, a role which involves him raising money for Senate candidates across the country. Portman indicated he might have entered the presidential race had the Democrats retained control of the Senate in last month’s elections, which would have meant that Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., would have remained majority leader. “I think it would be much harder for me to feel as though I was making a significant difference in the lives of my fellow Ohioans if Harry Reid had stayed in there, because we wouldn’t be doing tax reform or expanding exports or budgets or some of the other oversight responsibilities that we have and are not doing here in the Congress,” he said. In particular, he said he is likely to be named to chair a subcommittee on investigations, which will provide him with the chance to launch serious oversight probes of the Obama administration. Portman said his family did not influence his decision, and would have been supportive either way, although he admitted they were “relieved” to not have to be in the limelight. Portman’s family garnered national attention in 2013 when he announced that he was supportive of gay marriage after his son, Will, came out as gay. Will, he said, “was OK either way.” Although his support of gay marriage has sparked the ire of some conservatives, Portman said he was not particularly worried that it would cost him votes. “Some say it would hurt, some say it would help,” he said. “I think it’s unpredictable and I think it is for anybody running by the way. This is going to be wide open. And who knows how it all sorts out.” In the end, he said, he decided that he could get more done in the Senate. “This is what feels right,” he said. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · December 3 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton helps launch the “Security Through Inclusive Leadership” event at Georgetown (International Peace and Conflict <http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/forum/topics/call-for-note-takers-security-through-inclusive-leadership-event> ) · December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>) · December 5 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Saban Forum (CNN <https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/539475682183880705>) · December 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton honored by Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights (Politico <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-ripple-of-hope-award-112478.html> ) · January 21 – Saskatchewan, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce’s “Global Perspectives” series (MarketWired <http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/former-us-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-address-saskatoon-1972651.htm> ) · January 21 – Winnipeg, Canada: Sec. Clinton keynotes the Global Perspectives series (Winnipeg Free Press <http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Clinton-coming-to-Winnipeg--284282491.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> )