podesta_email_01284.txt

podesta-emails 4,156 words email

D6 P17 V11 P22 V16

-----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 February 17, 2015 Afternoon Roundup:* *Tweets:* *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> co-sponsored a bill to shelter homeless veterans #HRC365 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash> https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/1180/cosponsors … <https://t.co/go3uU50kY8> [2/17/15, 11:42 a.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/567725723587067906>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@RepMurphyFL <https://twitter.com/RepMurphyFL> says @HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> will "deliver tangible results for the middle class and our nation's economy" http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-hillary-clinton-my-word-20150213-story.html … <http://t.co/WEeVnHMZwv> [2/17/15, 11:21 a.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/567720419180814340>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> is known as "someone who can work across the aisle," @RepMurphyFL <https://twitter.com/RepMurphyFL> writes for @orlandosentinel <https://twitter.com/orlandosentinel> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-hillary-clinton-my-word-20150213-story.html … <http://t.co/WEeVnI4AV5> [2/17/15, 10:52 a.m. EST <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/567713238130102273>] *Headlines:* *New York Times: First Draft: “Hillary Clinton Met With Elizabeth Warren in December” <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/17/hillary-clinton-met-with-elizabeth-warren-in-december/?smid=nytpolitics&_r=1>* “Hillary Rodham Clinton held a private, one-on-one meeting with Senator Elizabeth Warren in December at Mrs. Clinton’s Washington home, a move by the Democrats’ leading contender in 2016 to cultivate the increasingly influential senator and leader of the party’s economic populist movement.” *Politico: “Hillary Clinton trounces Chris Christie in New Jersey poll” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/poll-chris-christie-hillary-clinton-115246.html>* “The poll, conducted by Rutgers University’s Eagleton Institute of Politics, shows Clinton garnering 58 percent of the vote in such a contest, compared to 35 percent for Christie.” *New York Times blog: The Upshot: “Hillary Clinton and the 2016 Democrats: Mostly Liberal, Together” <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-the-2016-democrats-mostly-liberal-together.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1>* “The field of potential Democratic presidential candidates is ideologically cohesive. While there is room to the left of Mrs. Clinton’s Crowdpac score of -6.4, there is not a lot.” *Time: “The Risk of Rand Paul’s Trolling Strategy” <http://time.com/3711939/rand-paul-trolling-twitter/>* “In recent months, the Kentucky Republican has used social media to post snarky, provocative comments aimed at his likely opponents in the 2016 Republican presidential primary as well as Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.” *National Law Journal: “Hillary Clinton Cleared of Campaign Finance Allegations” <http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/home/id=1202718068845/Hillary-Clinton-Cleared-of-Campaign-Finance-Allegations-?mcode=1202617074964&curindex=3&back=NLJ&slreturn=20150117130534>* “The FEC said in a Feb. 12 letter that the commission ‘found that there is no reason to believe’ that Clinton violated campaign finance laws by not registering as a presidential candidate to date or that the Ready for Hillary political action committee violated laws by failing to register as an authorized committee.” *Vox: “Hillary Clinton's uncontested nomination is dangerous for her and her party” <http://www.vox.com/2015/2/17/8047957/hillary-clinton-opponents>* “The most proximate way in which Clinton's lack of opposition hurts her is in allowing her to maintain her current state of un-candidacy. This means she continues to give high-dollar buckraking speeches with no clear end-date on the calendar.” *Articles:* *New York Times: First Draft: “Hillary Clinton Met With Elizabeth Warren in December” <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/17/hillary-clinton-met-with-elizabeth-warren-in-december/?smid=nytpolitics&_r=1>* By Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin February 17, 2015, 10:30 a.m. EST Hillary Rodham Clinton held a private, one-on-one meeting with Senator Elizabeth Warren in December at Mrs. Clinton’s Washington home, a move by the Democrats’ leading contender in 2016 to cultivate the increasingly influential senator and leader of the party’s economic populist movement. The two met at Whitehaven, the Clintons’ Northwest Washington home, without aides and at Mrs. Clinton’s invitation. Mrs. Clinton solicited policy ideas and suggestions from Ms. Warren, according to a Democrat briefed on the meeting, who called it “cordial and productive.” The former secretary of state, who has been seeking advice from a range of scholars, advocates and officials, did not ask for Mrs. Warren to consider endorsing her likely presidential candidacy. The conversation occurred at a moment when Ms. Warren’s clout has become increasingly evident. Since last November’s election, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, appointed the Massachusetts freshman to a leadership role in the Senate; Ms Warren led a high-profile effort to strip a spending bill of rules sought by large banks; and a patchwork of liberal groups began movement to draft her into the presidential race. Ms. Warren has repeatedly said she is not running for president, and she has taken no steps that would indicate otherwise. Still, she is intent on pushing a robust populist agenda, and her confidantes have suggested that she would use her Senate perch during the 2016 campaign to nudge Mrs. Clinton to embrace her major causes: addressing income inequality and curtailing the power of large financial institutions. The get-together represented a step toward relationship-building for two women who do not know each other well. And for Mrs. Clinton, it was a signal that she would prefer Ms. Warren’s counsel delivered in person, as a friendly insider, rather than on national television or in opinion articles. And for Ms. Warren, the meeting offered the opportunity to make clear what she believes are the most pressing national issues. That Mrs. Clinton — who is currently developing her economic platform — reached out to Ms. Warren suggests the former first lady is aware of how much the debate over economic issues has shifted even during the relatively short time she was away from domestic politics while serving as the country’s chief diplomat. Mrs. Clinton was often criticized by the right as a doctrinaire liberal during her husband’s presidency and, as a presidential candidate, ultimately ran as more of an economic populist than Mr. Obama. But she is now seen by some on the left as insufficiently tough on Wall Street. That perception, denounced by allies as an unfair criticism, has stuck in part because of her husband’s policies, and because of the lucrative speaking fees she has collected from financial firms and private equity groups since she left the State Department in early 2013. The meeting in December fell two months after a more awkward encounter: Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Warren crossed paths at a Massachusetts rally for the Democratic nominee for governor there last year, Martha Coakley. At that event, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly described Ms. Warren as a champion against special interests and big banks; Ms. Warren, in turn, barely acknowledged Mrs. Clinton, who was the featured guest, in her remarks. Both Mrs. Clinton and her husband appear anxious to keep a close eye on the former Harvard law professor; the former president in the past has appeared sensitive about Ms. Warren’s oblique criticism of his deregulation of financial institutions. Beyond policy differences, the Clintons are eager to demonstrate that they, like Ms. Warren, appreciate the economic difficulties many Americans are facing. The December meeting recalled another private session between Mrs. Clinton and a Democratic upstart: In 2005, shortly after he was sworn into the Senate, Barack Obama paid a visit to Mrs. Clinton in her Senate office. In that instance, though, it was Mr. Obama who was seeking counsel. *Politico: “Hillary Clinton trounces Chris Christie in New Jersey poll” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/poll-chris-christie-hillary-clinton-115246.html>* By Adam B. Lerner February 17, 2015, 9:35 a.m. EST Chris Christie may be the Garden State’s blunt-talking favorite son, but if a presidential contest were held today in New Jersey between the governor and Democrat Hillary Clinton, she would trounce him, a new poll finds. The poll, conducted by Rutgers University’s Eagleton Institute of Politics, shows Clinton garnering 58 percent of the vote in such a contest, compared to 35 percent for Christie. Perhaps most surprising is the finding that only 8 percent of Democratic voters in the Garden State would support their Republican governor in a presidential contest. In his 2013 reelection campaign against Democrat Barbara Buono, Christie managed 32 percent of Democratic votes, according to exit polls compiled by The New York Times. Clinton also holds commanding leads in the Garden State when pitted against former Florida Republican Gov. Jeb Bush — 58 percent to Bush’s 32 percent — or Wisconsin’s Republican Gov. Scott Walker — whom she bests 60 percent to 29 percent in a hypothetical matchup. The poll also asked New Jersey voters whether or not the current Democratic front-runner has the “right look,” “right demeanor” and “right experience” to occupy the Oval Office. Voters overwhelmingly decided that these three labels do apply to Clinton: Forty-seven percent more voters said she has the “right look” than not, 50 percent more voters agreed she has the “right demeanor” and 68 percent more voters said that she has the “right experience” to be elected president. The poll, released Tuesday, was conducted among 694 registered New Jersey voters using live callers between Feb. 3 and Feb. 10. The samples were weighted to reflect New Jersey’s demographics, with an adjusted margin of error of plus-or-minus 4.1 percentage points. *New York Times blog: The Upshot: “Hillary Clinton and the 2016 Democrats: Mostly Liberal, Together” <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-the-2016-democrats-mostly-liberal-together.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1>* By Derek Willis February 17, 2015 Among seven potential Democratic presidential contenders, Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite — and the third-most liberal candidate. How the other candidates are arrayed on an ideological spectrum could make her run for the White House easier than the last time out. In some ways, the cast of candidates for 2016 resembles the group from the 2008 race, with a field ofstalwartly liberal politicians. Mrs. Clinton was slightly more liberal in 2008 than now, according to Crowdpac, which scores politicians on a left-right scale of -10 to 10. (Crowdpac bases this mainly on campaign contributions, but also on votes and speeches.) Her problem was that Barack Obama, who was further to the left of her — at -7.8 to her -6.9 — also had the donors who were to the left of her. He ran a better campaign, particularly in Iowa, and benefited from a surge in money from small-dollar donors. This time, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (-8.2) and Bernie Sanders (-8.3), Vermont’s independent senator, are to her left. Ms. Warren has the higher fund-raising profile of the two, with a leadership PAC that raised more than $2 million during the 2014 election cycle. But she and Mrs. Clinton (and to a lesser extent Mr. Sanders) would be competing for a similar pool of donors. During her 2012 Senate race, Ms. Warren raised more than $3.4 million from individuals who also gave to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign, Federal Election Commission data shows. The field of potential Democratic presidential candidates is ideologically cohesive. While there is room to the left of Mrs. Clinton’s Crowdpac score of -6.4, there is not a lot. The lack of distance between the Democratic hopefuls suggests that creating a wedge between someone like Ms. Warren and Mrs. Clinton would be harder among Democratic donors, and perhaps among the broader primary electorate. There are few issues where the gap between those two is significant. Gun control policy and immigration are possible points of contention, according to Crowdpac, which also generates scores for issues. On both issues, Ms. Warren is scored as much more liberal than Mrs. Clinton. The situation is different for Republicans, with considerable space available to the right of Jeb Bush (4.2) — and a lot of candidates to vie for it. There is more room to the right of Mrs. Clinton. Most of the other potential candidates fit there, including Vice President Joe Biden, who has a -4.4 score, and Jim Webb, the former Virginia senator, who is at -5.3. Those two resemble the more centrist Democratic candidates that won the nomination in previous elections. Al Gore, for instance, had a Crowdpac score of -5.1 in 2000. Bill Clinton rated a -4.45 in 1996. Mr. Obama is the most liberal Democrat elected to the presidency in the period Crowdpac has analyzed, which began in 1980. Mr. Obama was able to broaden his pool of donors beyond what earlier Democratic primary candidates managed. Donors likely to support Democratic candidates will include moderates and some conservatives, but as the party has shifted left, its donors have gone with it. Mrs. Clinton benefits from that shift even as she stands quite a distance from her husband on the ideological spectrum. *Time: “The Risk of Rand Paul’s Trolling Strategy” <http://time.com/3711939/rand-paul-trolling-twitter/>* By Tessa Berenson February 17, 2015, 12:42 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] What happens when you troll in real life? Trolling has always been a part of presidential politics, but few candidates have taken to it quite as aggressively as Sen. Rand Paul. In recent months, the Kentucky Republican has used social media to post snarky, provocative comments aimed at his likely opponents in the 2016 Republican presidential primary as well as Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. In December, he took to Twitter to repeatedly criticize Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s opposition to opening relations with Cuba in what many observers argued was straight-up trolling. In January, he posted a jokey “secret tape” of Clinton and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush talking about the White House on SoundCloud. And on Valentine’s Day, he posted a mock Pinterest page for Clinton that showed her ideas to remodel the White House (including a heart-shaped hot tub and a girly Oval Office). In many ways, Paul’s trolling is the obvious next step in presidential politics. President Obama has already adopted a lighter tone online, starring in BuzzFeed videos, submitting to YouTube stars’ goofy questions and capitalizing on memes, while Speaker John Boehner has gone ahead and used Taylor Swift GIFs to troll the White House’s plan to make community college free, among other things. It was only a matter of time before a presidential candidate started speaking in the Internet’s native language of snark. Vincent Harris, Paul’s chief digital strategist behind the trolling, told Yahoo! News that the edgy tone is necessary to cut through the clutter: “The strategy and the number one problem that people have in politics is just getting their information across to somebody — how do you reach somebody at all,” he said. “News and information has to be entertaining, it’s got to be interesting and it’s got to be different than how everyone else is communicating.” Already, some Beltway insiders have pushed back against Paul’s strategy. “I don’t think you want to be troller-in-chief,” an unnamed Republican digital strategist told Politico. “This might be how they think they separate from the pack, reach out to younger people. … I just think it’s pretty close to trolling, which we think is weird for a regular person, much less someone who wants to be leader of the free world.” But the real test will come when the rest of the public takes notice. For now, Paul’s trolling is being read by young people who spend all day on the Internet, jaded political professionals and the fairly troll-ish Beltway press corps, so there isn’t a real downside to it. But as the general public starts to tune in over the coming months, there’s a risk that a snarky tweet meant to get attention will succeed in breaking out of the Internet and into the regular offline world. Only then will we know whether voters are ready for a troller-in-chief. *National Law Journal: “Hillary Clinton Cleared of Campaign Finance Allegations” <http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/home/id=1202718068845/Hillary-Clinton-Cleared-of-Campaign-Finance-Allegations-?mcode=1202617074964&curindex=3&back=NLJ&slreturn=20150117130534>* By Zoe Tillman February 17, 2015, 12:06 p.m. EST The Federal Election Commission has cleared Hillary Clinton and supporters of her would-be presidential run of allegations of campaign finance violations. The FEC said in a Feb. 12 letter that the commission “found that there is no reason to believe” that Clinton violated campaign finance laws by not registering as a presidential candidate to date or that the Ready for Hillary political action committee violated laws by failing to register as an authorized committee. The commission sent the letter to Stop Hillary, a political action committee that filed a complaint with the FEC against Clinton and her supporters more than a year ago. The group sued the agency in Washington federal district court in December, accusing officials of delaying action on its allegations. On Tuesday, Stop Hillary notified the court that it was dropping the case now that the FEC had acted. An attorney for Stop Hillary, Dan Backer of DB Capitol Strategies in Alexandria, Va., told the NLJ on Tuesday that the group would consider whether to go back to court to challenge the FEC’s decision once they reviewed documents from the agency proceedings. Assistant General Counsel William Powers of the FEC said in the Feb. 12 letter that documents related to the case would become part of the public record within 30 days. “For now we don’t know and we don’t want to waste the court’s time or the FEC’s time,” Backer said. “We can’t know until we review the respondent’s communications to the FEC.” A spokeswoman for the FEC declined to comment. A representative of Ready for Hillary was not immediately reached for comment. Stop Hillary claimed in its FEC complaint that Ready for Hillary used an email list belonging to the authorized campaign committee for Clinton’s previous U.S. Senate run, called Friends of Hillary. “This email was sent or ‘deployed’ by Hillary Clinton or a vendor employed by the authorized committee to do so,” Stop Hillary wrote in the December lawsuit. “Such a deployment would, as is industry standard practice, require approval by the list owner, in this case Hillary Clinton, of the specific content being deployed.” Stop Hillary claimed that Clinton authorized Ready for Hillary to act on her behalf, and that meant Clinton was a presidential candidate who needed to register as such with the FEC. Stop Hillary also said that Ready for Hillary should have registered as an authorized committee and been subject to certain campaign finance regulations. The commission found that the facts presented by Stop Hillary about the email list “do not suggest that Clinton became a candidate” under federal election law, according to a legal analysis included with Powers’ letter. Ready for Hillary told the FEC that it paid Friends of Hillary $136,841 to use the email list and that Friends of Hillary was not involved in the email that Ready for Hillary sent out. Even if Clinton had authorized Ready for Hillary to act on her behalf, the commission said, “she would not become a candidate as a result of those activities so long as they were related only to testing the waters. And the available record here reflects that Clinton and Ready for Hillary PAC have confined their activities solely to evaluating a potential candidacy.” Powers wrote in the FEC's letter that “there were an insufficient number of votes” to find that Ready for Hillary violated campaign finance laws by failing to report the money it spent on its rental of the email list from Friends for Hillary. *Vox: “Hillary Clinton's uncontested nomination is dangerous for her and her party” <http://www.vox.com/2015/2/17/8047957/hillary-clinton-opponents>* By Matthew Yglesias February 17, 2015, 8:30 a.m. EST Hillary Clinton is essentially running unopposed for the Democratic Party nomination in 2016. Yes, Bernie Sanders is in the race. But he has so little support that his natural core constituency is pouring all its time and energy into trying to nudge Elizabeth Warren into the race. But she's not running. It's a problem. A problem for the Democratic Party, a problem for the United States of America, and ultimately a problem for Hillary Clinton herself. Not because there's anything wrong with Clinton as a nominee per se. But because there's a lot wrong with a non-existent primary campaign and an untested candidate. Everyone — in many ways including Clinton herself — would be better off if a serious candidate such as Warren, Joe Biden, or someone else managed to enter the race with enough backing and plausibility to force Clinton into a real campaign. That would mean real debates, real media strategy, real policy rollouts, and all the other accompaniments of a presidential nominating congress. Anything less leaves her dangerously unprepared as she heads into the ultimate contest with a Republican who will have emerged battle-tested from an unusually deep field of plausible contenders. *The un-candidate* The most proximate way in which Clinton's lack of opposition hurts her is in allowing her to maintain her current state of un-candidacy. This means she continues to give high-dollar buckraking speeches with no clear end-date on the calendar. For Clinton personally, this is a balancing act. On the one hand, buckraking has some downsides in terms of public perception. On the other hand, she gets money. For the broader Democratic Party, though, it's all downside. An actual primary campaign would shift Clinton's balance of considerations — focusing the mind on doing what has to be done to win the presidency. But the bigger problem is simply that running for president is hard. 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. *Unprecedented dominance* Clinton's problem isn't that these are devastating weaknesses. It's simply that like all candidates she has some weaknesses. And normally one function of the primary campaign is to give everyone an opportunity to make sure that the eventual nominee is someone who is able to parry these questions in a reasonable way. In 2012 both Rick Perry and Tim Pawlenty looked like strong candidates on paper, but their inability to deliver competent debate performances gave party leaders a chance to ditch them rather than deal with an embarrassing meltdown in the middle of a general election campaign. But Clinton's odds of securing the Democratic nomination are so overwhelming that it seems doubtful she'll be tested in any but the most cursory of ways. She's not by any means the first overwhelming favorite to win a nomination. But even presidential primary juggernauts like Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000 faced more-than-token opposition from Bill Bradley and John McCain. The underdogs in both cases had at least some endorsements from elected officials and couldn't be simply ignored. Bradley's challenge, in particular, proved rather easy to brush back. But Gore still had to show up, campaign in key states, mobilize volunteers, and debate the issues. The likes of Jim Webb and Bernie Sanders aren't even remotely in that class. To be clear, I like Sanders, but the fact that his natural constituency is spending all their time on a doomed effort to get Elizabeth Warren into the race tells you what you need to know. Webb's idea of running on an agenda of making Democrats friendly to white men is, merits aside, a mathematically impossible way of securing the Democratic nomination even if he had endorsements or money (which he doesn't). This isn't opposition Clinton needs to deal with in any way — not with debates, policy initiatives, or anything else. She'll just ignore them, hit the GOP field, and coast to the nomination without the party ever getting a real chance to kick the tires. *A thin electoral resume* Given the extraordinarily long period of time during which Clinton has been in the public eye, this may not seem so bad. But despite being perhaps the single most-covered person in politics over the past quarter century, her record as an actual candidate for office is a bit thin. She ran about five points behind Al Gore in New York in 2000, vanquished nominal opposition in the Democratic landslide year of 2006, and then botched a 2008 primary campaign in which she held formidable advantages. There is much more to political than electioneering, and Clinton's considerable political skills shouldn't be discounted. Her ability to secure the Senate nomination in a state where she'd never lived, her 2008 reconstitution of her husband's political operation, and her dominating position in 2016 are all testament to those skills. But in terms of dealing with the media, speaking extemporaneously, and wooing the voters she's had at best a mixed record of success. When she popped her head up for a quasi-campaign book tour, she immediately fumbled and interview claiming to have been "dead broke" when she left office. At the end of the day, presidential campaign gaffes rarely seem to matter much. But they surely don't help. And one reason they don't matter is that nobody makes it through the nominating process without showing they can take the heat. In 2016, Clinton isn't going to have to show that. And it might cost her — and her party — dearly down the road.