podesta_email_20091.txt

podesta-emails 14,839 words email

P18 D6 V11 P17 V9

-----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 Friday January 30, 2015 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *The State opinion: Nick Sottile, College Democrats of South Carolina president: "Making college affordable should be nonpartisan, non-controversial" <http://www.thestate.com/2015/01/29/3955376/sottile-making-college-affordable.html>* “The next president needs to be an advocate that students can count on, someone with a record of working to expand access to higher education. I believe Hillary Clinton can be that president.” *Sun-Sentinel opinion: Rep. Alcee L. Hastings: “Run, Hillary, run” <http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/sfl-run-hillary-run-20150129-story.html>* “Hillary’s steadfast dedication to supporting the civil rights of all individuals, and her commitment to providing a voice to the disenfranchised, are both admirable and inspiring.” *Politico: “Elizabeth Warren backers fund poll stoking Hillary Clinton doubts” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/elizabeth-warren-poll-hillary-clinton-2016-election-114754.html>* “Correct the Record, a project of the Brock-founded super PAC American Bridge that attempts to diffuse political attacks against Clinton includes a lengthy defense of Clinton’s efforts to expand college affordability.” *Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton ‘probably not’ bold enough for 2016” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/29/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-probably-not-bold-enough-for-2016/>* “Pro-Clinton group Correct the Record pushed back on the former secretary of state's economic record. ‘Hillary Clinton has fought all her life to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to succeed – championing equal pay for equal work, advocating for middle-class tax cuts, and pushing for a raise in the minimum wage,’ said spokesperson Adrienne Watson.” *FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters For America: “How Bloomberg Is Helping The GOP Smear Hillary Clinton” <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/29/how-bloomberg-is-helping-the-gop-smear-hillary/202341>* “Bloomberg News is helping a Republican operative push out a dishonest smear of Hillary Clinton, hyping the aggregate cost of Clinton's air travel while she was serving as a U.S. Senator as something that could be scandalous.” *Politico: “Exclusive: Hillary Clinton may delay campaign” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-may-delay-campaign-114714.html>* “Hillary Clinton, expecting no major challenge for the Democratic nomination, is strongly considering delaying the formal launch of her presidential campaign until July, three months later than originally planned, top Democrats tell POLITICO.” *BuzzFeed: “Top Democrat On Benghazi Committee: Gowdy Knew Hillary Clinton Would Testify Months Ago” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobfischler/top-democrat-on-benghazi-committee-gowdy-knew-hillary-clinto#.wybVVkjy0>* “According to Cummings, she agreed to come to Capitol Hill as early as December 2014, and he said he told Gowdy that in October.” *CNN: “Hillary Clinton is beating Mitt Romney at Twitter” <http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/29/politics/2016-twitter-clinton-romney/>* “As probably expected, Clinton has the most followers, followed by former 2012 Presidential candidate and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. What is surprising however is how Jeb Bush compares. He has the lowest followers of just about everyone in the pack.” *Bloomberg: “Bernie Sanders Says Wall Street is His Target, Not Hillary Clinton” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-29/bernie-sanders-says-wall-street-is-his-target-not-hillary-clinton>* “‘It's something that I would like to do, but I can't do it—won't do it—unless we do it well,’ he said. ‘All I know is if I run, I'm not running against Hillary Clinton. I'm running against wall street and their greed that has helped destroy this economy. I am running against 'Citizens United.' I am running against those people who deny climate change.’” *Politico: “Rand Paul ‘secret tape’ dings Jeb on dynasty” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/rand-paul-secret-tape-114739.html?hp=l2_4>* “Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the 2016 field’s most prolific adopter of social media, has posted what aides wryly call a ‘secret tape’ of a fake phone call between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.” *The Daily Beast: “Who Will Win the 2016 Matt Drudge Primary?” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/29/who-will-win-the-2016-matt-drudge-primary.html?via=desktop&source=twitter>* “‘One big difference between 2016 and 2008 is that there are so many new platforms curating that type of content,’ said Phil Singer, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign. ‘He really came of age in the pre-Twitter, pre-Facebook era—he’s sort of like a landline.’” *National Journal: “Democrats Facing 2016 Debate Dilemma” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/democrats-facing-2016-debate-dilemma-20150129>* [Subtitle:] “The party is starting discussions about 2016 primary debates, but it's challenging to do without knowing what Hillary Clinton's opposition will look like.” *Politico: “Shut-out Dems longing for Hillary - and Bill” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/house-democrats-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-114746.html>* “Hillary Clinton’s all-but-certain 2016 bid has perked up Democrats, as they once again dream of invites to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, rowdy late-night dinners, overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom and, not least, consultation on policy and politics.” *Politico Magazine: "Jeb 'Put Me Through Hell'" <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/jeb-bush-terri-schiavo-114730_Page6.html#.VMuGw2TF-nM>* Subtitle: Michael Schiavo knows as well as anyone what Jeb Bush can do with executive power. He thinks you ought to know too. *NPR: Former Democratic Sen. Jim Webb Explores Presidential Bid <http://www.npr.org/2015/01/30/382588001/former-sen-jim-webb-d-va-explores-presidential-bid>* "In considering whether to launch a presidential campaign, former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia tells Steve Inskeep his big challenge would be raising money to promote his ideas." *Articles:* *The State opinion: Nick Sottile, College Democrats of South Carolina president: Making college affordable should be nonpartisan, non-controversial <http://www.thestate.com/2015/01/29/3955376/sottile-making-college-affordable.html>* By Nick Sottile January 29, 2015 COLUMBIA, SC — President Obama has proposed making two years of community college free for those who work hard for it. The idea that costs should not keep a student from pursuing a college education isn’t (or wasn’t) controversial. But while I’m hopeful that the president’s plan will be met with wide support, I fear that it will be met with the knee-jerk opposition that has been the Republican response to so many good ideas. Republicans in Congress have stood against meaningful student loan relief; they’ve stood against low interest rates for federal student loans; and they’ve stood against education funding, even in the form of Pell Grants. Today’s GOP is quick to shoot down ideas without proposing anything substantive as an alternative. Support for education used to be bipartisan. But we live in a polarized era, where policy takes a backseat to political pandering, and working with the other side is tantamount to treason. Earning the title of RINO (Republican In Name Only)is a sure-fire way to lose a GOP primary. With the 2016 race gearing up, expect Republican presidential candidates to run as far away from this issue as they can. That’s not what America needs. The next president needs to be an advocate that students can count on, someone with a record of working to expand access to higher education. I believe Hillary Clinton can be that president. As a senator, Clinton pushed a Student Borrower Bill of Rights, noting that student loan debt “can put people in economic handcuffs.” She understands the crisis that many students and former students face. She has worked to make students aware of their options in the form of financial aid and student loans. She has worked to make it easier to pay off those loans. She has worked to expand Pell Grants, which play an important role in making college affordable to middle and lower income students. Simply put, Clinton is right on the issues and has the record to show for it. No one is more qualified than her to be a voice for students. As the cost of college keeps rising, we could use her leadership. *Sun-Sentinel opinion: Rep. Alcee L. Hastings: “Run, Hillary, run” <http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/sfl-run-hillary-run-20150129-story.html>* By Rep. Alcee L. Hastings January 29, 2015, 4:25 p.m. EST In recent weeks much speculation and anticipation has surrounded former first lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s possible presidential run. While Clinton and those close to her have remained mum, if she runs in 2016, I will support her. In November of 2013, I wrote to Hillary to express how proud I was to be one of the first members from Florida to support her presidential campaign in 2008. Over a year later, I feel even more strongly that she is the right woman for America. I have known Hillary for decades, dating back to her time with the Children’s Defense Fund. In this capacity, I came to know her as a smart and driven advocate, whose thoughtfulness and deliberation helped to advance justice and the rule of law in a time when African Americans and women struggled daily to attain the freedom and equality enshrined in our constitution. Hillary’s steadfast dedication to supporting the civil rights of all individuals, and her commitment to providing a voice to the disenfranchised, are both admirable and inspiring. The consummate diplomat, Hillary has traveled nearly a million miles, attending hundreds of meetings with foreign leaders in 112 countries. Her poise and competence has served to strengthen American alliances, while her compassion and drive to promote equality for all has ushered in a more inclusive world vision. In this regard, her legacy lives on in the State Department’s comprehensive human rights agenda, which directs the department to use its full range of diplomatic and development tools to work to eliminate violence and discrimination against LGBT individuals across the globe. But her devotion to improving the lives of others is not limited to her extensive work abroad. Throughout her career, Hillary has fought to improve the lives of hardworking Americans. In the Senate, she repeatedly supported legislation aimed at raising the minimum wage and implementing middle-class tax cuts, including tax credits for student loan recipients. She has also worked tirelessly, often collaborating with leaders across the aisle, to increase unemployment benefits for out of work Americans. While we have undoubtedly seen a great restoration of our national economy over the past year, the effects of this restoration have not been equally distributed to those most in need. Hillary’s history of, and devotion to, promoting the economic security of working families make her not only qualified for the job of president, but make her the right choice. Our next President must be one with not only a strong vision, but also a strong record of getting results. Hillary is that candidate. I was proud to endorse her in 2008 and will do all I can to support her candidacy should she run for President in 2016. *Politico: “Elizabeth Warren backers fund poll stoking Hillary Clinton doubts” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/elizabeth-warren-poll-hillary-clinton-2016-election-114754.html>* By Kenneth P. Vogel and Mike Elk January 30, 2015, 5:41 a.m. EST A group of major liberal donors who want Elizabeth Warren to run for president have paid for a poll intended to show that Hillary Clinton does not excite the Democratic base and would be vulnerable in a 2016 general election. The automated poll of nearly 900 registered voters, conducted last week by Public Policy Polling, found that 48 percent of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, compared to 43 percent who viewed the former secretary of State favorably. While Clinton — the prospective favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination should she enter the race — holds leads over every major GOP candidate tested in the poll, she doesn’t break 50 percent against any, and some are well within striking distance. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker comes closest, with Clinton leading him by a margin of 45 percent to 42 percent (with 14 percent not sure who they’d vote for) – within the survey’s margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent. The poll was provided to POLITICO by one of the donors who funded it, who asked to remain anonymous. It does not directly ask respondents to rate Warren’s favorability or to choose between the Massachusetts Senator and Clinton, nor does it pit Warren against any of the prospective GOP candidates. But it appears to be part of a broader effort by liberal Democratic donors and activists to make the case that Warren, who has repeatedly insisted she has no interest in running for president, could defeat Clinton for the Democratic nomination and also would be a more viable general election candidate. A group of major liberal donors who want Elizabeth Warren to run for president have paid for a poll intended to show that Hillary Clinton does not excite the Democratic base and would be vulnerable in a 2016 general election. The automated poll of nearly 900 registered voters, conducted last week by Public Policy Polling, found that 48 percent of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, compared to 43 percent who viewed the former secretary of State favorably. While Clinton — the prospective favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination should she enter the race — holds leads over every major GOP candidate tested in the poll, she doesn’t break 50 percent against any, and some are well within striking distance. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker comes closest, with Clinton leading him by a margin of 45 percent to 42 percent (with 14 percent not sure who they’d vote for) – within the survey’s margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent. The poll was provided to POLITICO by one of the donors who funded it, who asked to remain anonymous. It does not directly ask respondents to rate Warren’s favorability or to choose between the Massachusetts Senator and Clinton, nor does it pit Warren against any of the prospective GOP candidates. But it appears to be part of a broader effort by liberal Democratic donors and activists to make the case that Warren, who has repeatedly insisted she has no interest in running for president, could defeat Clinton for the Democratic nomination and also would be a more viable general election candidate. Clinton ally David Brock noted that Clinton has called for greater oversight of derivatives and other complex financial products, and he called the survey “classic push poll garbage” that’s “designed to reach a precooked conclusion.” Brock challenged the accuracy of other characterizations of Clinton’s stances in the poll, including its assertion that she “has remained silent” on the issue of reducing student loan rates – one of Warren’s top issues. As a senator from New York in 2006, Clinton sponsored a bill called the called the Student Borrower Bill of Rights to base monthly loan payments on income. Correct the Record, a project of the Brock-founded super PAC American Bridge that attempts to diffuse political attacks against Clinton includes a lengthy defense of Clinton’s efforts to expand college affordability. Brock called the PPP poll “a series of false representations of Hillary Clinton’s record masquerading as opinion research.” But PPP director Tom Jensen defended the poll as an earnest effort to assess Clinton’s weaknesses, asserting she likely “will be testing a lot of this stuff in her own polling.” The results show she “has some vulnerability – and Warren a lot of appeal – when it comes to their records on the financial crisis and related economic issues,” Jensen said. “If Clinton does end up running, she will need to take a tougher approach toward the financial industry or risk having the issue give her a lot of trouble with voters across the party spectrum,” he said. The poll showed that, among respondents who identified as Democrats, Clinton had higher favorability ratings and wider leads over prospective GOP rivals than she did among respondents who said they were Republicans. But Democrats and Republicans both responded negatively to questions linking Clinton to Wall Street. It would defy establishment Republican sensibilities for the GOP nominee to attack Clinton for being beholden to Wall Street, but Jensen predicted “Republicans will use any line of attack – no matter how disingenuous it might be – if they think it could help them win.” The poll was conducted on January 20 and 21, and collected 80 percent of its responses by phone and 20 percent online. *Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton ‘probably not’ bold enough for 2016” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/29/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-probably-not-bold-enough-for-2016/>* By Sean Sullivan January 29, 2015, 12:02 p.m. EST Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a potential candidate for president, on Thursday expressed little faith that Hillary Clinton would be an acceptable standard-bearer in the 2016 presidential election. "Based on her history, do I think she is going to be as bold as needs to be in addressing the major crises that we face? Probably not. I may be surprised," Sanders said in an interview with The Washington Post. Sanders, a self-described "socialist," is considering running for president as either Democrat or an independent. Asked repeatedly about Clinton's record, he mostly declined to weigh in on specifics. "I have no assessment," he said. But it was clear that Sanders is not convinced Clinton, the presumed Democratic frontrunner for president, has made a forceful enough argument about how to combat income inequality, a central focus of the Vermont senator. "Not much," responded Sanders when asked about what he has heard from Clinton on income inequality and related issues. Pro-Clinton group Correct the Record pushed back on the former secretary of state's economic record. “Hillary Clinton has fought all her life to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to succeed – championing equal pay for equal work, advocating for middle-class tax cuts, and pushing for a raise in the minimum wage," said spokesperson Adrienne Watson. Sanders focused deep concern on the gap between rich and poor, an issue both Democrats and Republicans are speaking about with more frequency, and sharply criticized the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, whose vast political network said this week it was prepared to spend nearly $1 billion in advance of the 2016 election. "You're looking at the undermining of American democracy," said Sanders. A Kochs spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. As he weighs a bid, Sanders has been traveling to the early nominating states. He is headed to New Hampshire again this weekend and will return to Iowa in the coming weeks. He said he will not run unless he thinks he "can do it well," so he does not undermine the issues he cares about. "'Can you bring people out on the streets? Can you mobilize people? Can you tap the anger that's out there?'" said Sanders of the questions facing him as he weighs a potential presidential bid. "And the answer is, you know what, at this moment, I don't exactly know that you can." Sanders said he plans to decide "reasonably soon" whether to run, likely before the summer. "You can't wait indefinitely, that's for sure," he added. *FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters For America: “How Bloomberg Is Helping The GOP Smear Hillary Clinton” <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/29/how-bloomberg-is-helping-the-gop-smear-hillary/202341>* By Thomas Bishop January 29, 2015, 10:10 p.m. EST Bloomberg News is helping a Republican operative push out a dishonest smear of Hillary Clinton, hyping the aggregate cost of Clinton's air travel while she was serving as a U.S. Senator as something that could be scandalous. But the article's dubious premise is undermined by facts contained in the article, notably that Clinton's travel history was routine and completely within Senate rules. "Hillary Clinton took more than 200 privately chartered flights at taxpayer expense during her eight years in the U.S. Senate," Bloomberg reported, "sometimes using the jets of corporations and major campaign donors as she racked up $225,756 in flight costs." The article warned that Clinton's travel record could feed into Republican attacks that she is "out of touch." But Bloomberg undermined the entire premise of its article, reporting that "the flights fell within congressional rules and were not out of the ordinary for senators at the time": “There is no evidence her Senate trips, which ranged in cost from less than $200 to upwards of $3,000 per flight, ran afoul of Senate rules, which were tightened by a 2007 ethics law. Before the law was changed, senators were required to pay the cost of a first-class ticket to ride aboard a private jet -- or, in some cases, even less. In Clinton's final two years in the Senate, lawmakers who flew on private or chartered planes had to pay their proportional share of the cost of the flight based on the number of passengers.” Bloomberg's complicity in pushing a GOP smear campaign that it concedes is without merit is a troubling development given the relentless and deceptive conservative attacks on Clinton. *Politico: “Exclusive: Hillary Clinton may delay campaign” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-may-delay-campaign-114714.html>* By Mike Allen January 29, 2015 6:43 a.m. EDT [Subtitle:] Top Democrats give a new date for the campaign’s likely start. Hillary Clinton, expecting no major challenge for the Democratic nomination, is strongly considering delaying the formal launch of her presidential campaign until July, three months later than originally planned, top Democrats tell POLITICO. The delay from the original April target will give her more time to develop her message, policy and organization, without the chaos and spotlight of a public campaign. A Democrat familiar with Clinton’s thinking said: “She doesn’t feel under any pressure, and they see no primary challenge on the horizon. If you have the luxury of time, you take it.” Advisers said the biggest reason for the delay is simple: She feels no rush. “She doesn’t want to feel pressured by the press to do something before she’s ready,” one adviser said. “She’s better off as a non-candidate. Why not wait?” A huge advantage to waiting is that Clinton postpones the time when she goes before the public as a politician rather than as a former secretary of state. Polling by both Democrats and Republicans shows that one of her biggest vulnerabilities is looking political. So the Clinton camp has enjoyed watching her recede from the headlines in recent weeks as Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney have amped up their potential candidacies. One option being considered would be to announce an exploratory committee earlier – perhaps in April, at the beginning of a new fundraising quarter, in the timeframe when insiders originally expected her to launch her campaign. Then the actual kickoff would be in July, near the start of the next quarter. By launching at the beginning of a quarter, supporters have the maximum amount of time to generate a blockbuster total for their first report. The delay would pose complications for the infrastructure that has been built in anticipation of her candidacy. Ready for Hillary, a super PAC that expects to go out of business once the campaign begins, now may have to fund its data-gathering and grassroots activities longer than expected. The danger – and a reason the plan could be scrapped – is that the comparatively leisurely rollout could fuel complaints that Clinton sees the nomination fight as a coronation. Already, her allies are contemplating the possibility that she might not have to debate before the general election. *BuzzFeed: “Top Democrat On Benghazi Committee: Gowdy Knew Hillary Clinton Would Testify Months Ago” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobfischler/top-democrat-on-benghazi-committee-gowdy-knew-hillary-clinto#.wybVVkjy0>* By Jacob Fischler January 29, 2015, 12:15 p.m. EST WASHINGTON — The top ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Benghazi says the Republican chairman has known for months that Hillary Clinton is willing to testify, but chose not to have her do so. In a letter to chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings said that after receiving thousands of letters from the Stop Hiillary PAC, Gowdy personally asked him to call Clinton and ask her to give public testimony to the select committee. According to Cummings, she agreed to come to Capitol Hill as early as December 2014, and he said he told Gowdy that in October. In a statement to Politico this week, a spokeswoman for Gowdy said he was “not aware of any formal notice that she would [testify].” Cummings also writes there was a phone call on Nov. 12, 2014 involving Republican and Democratic staff members, where Clinton’s attorney “confirmed the Secretary’s willingness to testify.” Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential candidate who was secretary of state when the U.S. embassy in Benghazi was attacked, answered questions in front of Congress once before in 2013. Cummings said that after learning Clinton was willing to testify, Gowdy said he wanted to obtain “additional documents” before setting a date for her to testify. “This was a new standard you had not expressed before obtaining the secretary’s agreement to testify, and this standard has not been applied to the other witnesses before the Committee,” he wrote. *CNN: “Hillary Clinton is beating Mitt Romney at Twitter” <http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/29/politics/2016-twitter-clinton-romney/>* By Ashley Codianni January 29, 2015, 2:53 p.m. EST With the 2016 presidential campaign well underway, it's worth examining how each of the possible 2016 candidates stack up against each other on Twitter. There are more than 284 million monthly active users on Twitter and 500 million tweets sent per day, making it an integral platform for engaging conversation with potential voters. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had a belated arrival to the platform in June 2013, amassed 100,000 followers almost instantly. While her tweets more recently have been to promote book events and speaking engagements, she did use the platform to condemn republicans and weigh in on financial reform: *Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton* @HillaryClinton: Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong. Better for Congress to focus on jobs and wages for middle class families. [1/16/15, 1:57 p.m. EST <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/556163273738166272>] Others are using the platform to exchange snarky jabs and troll followers on the potential for a 2016 run: *Sen. Rand Paul* @SenRandPaul: Of course, everyone has to be themselves, and I have my own style. I think this will be a popular item this year [1/23/14, 10:09 a.m. EST <https://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/547408690039775232>] But overall, where do they all stand? As probably expected, Clinton has the most followers, followed by former 2012 Presidential candidate and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. What is surprising however is how Jeb Bush compares. He has the lowest followers of just about everyone in the pack. As for Twitter conversation and mentions, who's winning in conversation and engagement? CNN requested data from Twitter to measure engagement rates, using numbers from the start of Clinton's book tour in June 2014. Clinton again is the clear Twitter front-runner with a 74% increase in followers since June. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, while significantly fewer followers than Clinton and Romney, has seen a 50% increase in combined followers for both twitter handles @Elizabethforma and @Senwarren. Bush, while comparatively stands with the least amount of followers, has seen a significant increase in followers since June 2014, 31%. Romney, who has the second highest following next to Clinton has seen only a 4% increase in followers despite recent talk of a third presidential run. Facebook on the other hand is a different kind of animal. Clinton doesn't yet have an official Facebook page and Romney is leading both presence and engagement on the platform. How about Instagram? I don't think we're there yet. *Bloomberg: “Bernie Sanders Says Wall Street is His Target, Not Hillary Clinton” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-29/bernie-sanders-says-wall-street-is-his-target-not-hillary-clinton>* By Richard Rubin January 29, 2015, 4:26 p.m. EST [Subtitle:] The Vermont senator has decidedly mixed feelings about making a White House run. Bernie Sanders says he wants to run for president. He really does. But that doesn't mean he will. "My God, if you run for president, you're going to need a gazillion dollars," he said Thursday at a taping of C-SPAN's Newsmakers, airing this weekend. "You're taking on the Koch brothers, who have an endless sum of money." Those obstacles—along with Hillary Clinton, a dozen Republicans and the American public's wariness of a self-described socialist—are in the way of the independent senator's bid to become the 45th commander in chief. Like any good senator, Sanders' description of an ideal presidential candidate sounds just like himself. "We're going to need bold leadership," said the Vermonter, first elected to the House in 1990 and the Senate in 2006. "We're going to need people prepared to take on, frankly, the billionaire class, to prevent this country moving in the direction of oligarchy." Sanders said he'll be in New Hampshire this weekend and then Iowa in a few weeks, trying to figure out if he can build a coalition to make climate change a priority, slap a financial transactions tax on Wall Street. "It's something that I would like to do, but I can't do it—won't do it—unless we do it well," he said. "All I know is if I run, I'm not running against Hillary Clinton. I'm running against wall street and their greed that has helped destroy this economy. I am running against 'Citizens United.' I am running against those people who deny climate change." *Politico: “Rand Paul ‘secret tape’ dings Jeb on dynasty” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/rand-paul-secret-tape-114739.html?hp=l2_4>* By Mike Allen January 29, 2015, 4:21 p.m. EST Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the 2016 field’s most prolific adopter of social media, has posted what aides wryly call a “secret tape” of a fake phone call between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. RAND PAC, Paul’s political organization, used actors to portray the conversation, which hits both rivals on the dynasty issue. “Bush” tells her he’s thinking about running for president: “I just wanted to call and give you a heads-up in hopes we could work something out.” “Clinton” says: “We both agree on so many issues: bigger government, Common Core, and amnesty for illegal immigrants.” Paul, who this week gave an interview to CNN via Snapchat, plans to distribute the audio via Twitter and other social platforms. Here’s a transcript of the fake conversation (or click here to listen): BUSH: “Hey, Hill. It’s Jeb.” CLINTON: “Hey, Jeb. To what do I owe this pleasure?” BUSH: “Well, it’s true — I’m thinking about running for president.” CLINTON: “Well, Jeb, so am I.” BUSH: “I just wanted to call and give you a heads-up in hopes we could work something out.” CLINTON: “What do you mean, Jeb? It’s clearly my turn: Bush, Clinton, Bush. Now, Clinton.” BUSH: “Well, Hillary, there hasn’t been a Republican White House without a Bush since 1977, and we’re ready to be back.” CLINTON: “Let me shoot straight with you, Jeb, OK? Bill and I are dead broke and need a place to stay. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is calling me home — I’ve still got the back door key. Being president offers a lot more job security than writing another memoir.” BUSH: “Well, the Bushes have weathered attacks before. And READ MY LIPS, Hillary: We’re not backing down this time.” CLINTON: “Well, you’re right — maybe we can work something out. We both agree on so many issues: bigger government, Common Core, and amnesty for illegal immigrants.” BUSH: “Well, we’ve both got problems. You’ve got problems with the grass roots, and I’ve got all those damn conservatives. What say, we make a deal?” [Call beeps in.] BUSH: “Sorry, Hillary, but I have to go. Mitt keeps calling.” CLINTON: “Oh, for crying out loud.” *The Daily Beast: “Who Will Win the 2016 Matt Drudge Primary?” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/29/who-will-win-the-2016-matt-drudge-primary.html?via=desktop&source=twitter>* By David Freedlander January 29, 2015 [Subtitle:] In the battle to win positive headlines, past favorites Romney and Clinton would seem to have an advantage—but they’re being eclipsed by new faces. SEATTLE TO FINE RESIDENTS… FOR THROWING AWAY FOOD! ISIS TO OBAMA: WE’LL BEHEAD YOU! APPLE REPORTS LARGEST PROFIT IN HISTORY OF MANKIND On Wednesday afternoon, those were the stories leading the Drudge Report. And just below such lurid fodder were three headlines on Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker nudging closer to a presidential run (“I don’t think it’s ever good to bet against me,” one proclaimed), another on Mitt Romney, and two more on Rand Paul (PAUL: “I’D SHOOT A DRONE OUT OF THE SKY”). Such tallying is not merely academic; it is precisely the kind of reading of the entrails that Republican political operatives are enduring as the presidential campaign season gets under way. Because just as there are the real primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, whose voting is nearly a year away but whose voters candidates are already courting, and just as there is the so-called Money Primary, which involves the seeking out of the money people who can bankroll such a venture, there is the “The Drudge Primary”—the battle to curry favor with the Internet’s most notorious aggregator. Back in 2008, Matt Drudge was widely seen to be firmly in Mitt Romney’s camp, and oddly, for someone who burst on to the national scene with his reporting during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, pushing Hillary Clinton, as well. Although the website has not nearly the sway on the left that it does on the right, it was the place where the photo of Barack Obama dressed as a Somali elder first surfaced, while Clinton received such anodyne headlines as “Hillary Clinton Says Shared Prosperity Should Replace ‘On Your Own’ Society.” In the cases of both Romney and Clinton, the favorable treatment was due in part to the relationships the campaigns developed with the reclusive blogger, with each deputizing designated Drudge-whisperers to feed the site opposition about their rivals. In 2012, it was widely assumed that the Drudge Report was in Romney’s corner again—not so much because Drudge seemed like a fan of the former Massachusetts governor but because the site was savage about the rest of the field. “Report: Stress-Related Condition Incapacitates Bachmann; Heavy-Pill Use Alleged” read one headline; “Jon Huntsman Losing in SC—to Stephen Colbert” read another. Former Newt Gingrich aides recall with dismay that every time their candidate was on the site, he seemed to be pictured shirtless, or holding multiple plates of food. Not that they hold any grudges. “You do not pick a fight with Matt Drudge,” said Rick Tyler, a Gingrich campaign spokesman in 2012, who said that all of his entreaties to the blogger went unanswered. “You will lose. There is no point.” And so which way will Drudge go in 2016, with both Clinton and Romney as potential candidates? True to form, the answer for the enigmatic Drudge appears to be neither. In the most recent series of headlines, Clinton comes off as an old, possibly brain-damaged money-grubber. Republican operatives say the coverage of Romney has been decidedly neutral. If anything, they say, new figures like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and especially Scott Walker seem to be getting the most favorable treatment on the site. It appears as if Drudge is more lukewarm, the entrails readers say, about figures like Chris Christie and Rand Paul. He still swoons for Sarah Palin but has never been a fan of social conservatives like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. Some Republican operatives wonder if it will even much matter, if the era of Drudge has at last past. Today, when more and more people curate their own news through their social-media feeds and news sites spring up seemingly daily, the Drudge Report might look like a dinosaur. “One big difference between 2016 and 2008 is that there are so many new platforms curating that type of content,” said Phil Singer, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign. “He really came of age in the pre-Twitter, pre-Facebook era—he’s sort of like a landline.” But if Drudge is a dinosaur—and that’s a far from certain if—he’s a rather large one. His massive traffic regularly hits around three-quarters of a billion monthly page views, and he can be a key Internet traffic driver to more mainstream news sites. Opposition researchers say Drudge is best at surfacing stories on blogs and in the local press that would not get much coverage otherwise, and that in some ways a Drudge link can be better than getting something on the evening news, as it will have a longer shelf life on social media. Drudge today may lack some of the ability to sway the national conversation the way he did when Mark Halperin and John Harris swooned “Matt Drudge rules our world.” Still, he remains important among his core audience of older, conservative voters who are likely to vote in primaries and donate to campaigns. Although Drudge may matter a lot less to what one Republican operative called “New York media elites,” he is still believed to be the bookmarked URL of choice for talk-radio producers and a large portion of the Beltway press. “You can draw a straight line from a Drudge link to what gets covered on cable that night,” said Kellyanne Conway, a pollster with experience in multiple presidential campaigns, including Gingrich’s 2012 bid. “Republicans are used to complaining about mainstream media coverage. When Drudge comes after you, it stings in a different kind of way.” *National Journal: “Democrats Facing 2016 Debate Dilemma” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/democrats-facing-2016-debate-dilemma-20150129>* By Emily Schultheis January 29, 2015 [Subtitle:] The party is starting discussions about 2016 primary debates, but it's challenging to do without knowing what Hillary Clinton's opposition will look like. Democrats are facing a growing logistical dilemma as their planning for the next presidential election gets underway: They need to start organizing a process for presidential primary debates, but there aren't any candidates to invite. And with Hillary Clinton likely to clear the field of serious competition, she may want to avoid debating her opposition altogether. National Democrats have begun the process of planning for primary debates, but they stress that everything is in the very early stages. Top Democratic National Committee aides are in touch with interested TV networks and potential cosponsoring groups to discuss dates and formats, as well as with representatives of all prospective 2016 Democratic candidates. But how many debates, where and when they're held, and what they look like depend entirely on which Democrats end up getting into the race—and if Clinton faces second-tier opposition, there's a chance there won't be any debates. Unlike with Republicans, who have long known the likelihood of a big field and could plan their debates accordingly, the Democrats' process has always been more uncertain. Initial conversations about the next year's debate schedule have taken place, but party officials acknowledge the details won't be ironed out until it's clear who's running and who isn't. "We've met with [the DNC], I know others have as well—but they just don't know what the field is going to look like," said one TV network source. "There's a scenario where Hillary is the only kind of serious credible candidate, in which case they might want zero debates or very, very few." A few things are certain: There will be fewer Democratic debates than in 2008 and they'll start considerably later in the cycle. Obama and Clinton debated 27 times during the 2008 primary, a staggering number that party officials have no desire to repeat. And instead of a spring start for those debates—the first one of the 2008 cycle was held in late April 2007—networks and the DNC anticipate the earliest a debate could start is the fall. But if the field is small and Clinton is far ahead in polling, insiders expect her to have a lot of sway over the debate process and schedule—which may mean a much trimmer debate schedule than in years past. "In a prospective Clinton candidacy … there's a very strong chance she'll start off with a very strong lead," said veteran Democratic strategist Chris Lehane. "That would give her a little bit of a stronger hand to play in terms of both determining how many debates are actually proposed and which ones she actually agrees to." Hillary Clinton's candidacy looks to be a near-certainty at this point, but what's less clear is which of her potential opponents will actually decide to run. Vice President Joe Biden, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont have all expressed interest in the race; progressive supporters of Elizabeth Warren are hoping to pull the first-term senator from Massachusetts into the race as well, but thus far she's shown no interest. Republicans announced a tentative debate schedule earlier this month for the 2016 primary, beginning with an August event in Ohio. Depending on how the field shapes up, Clinton could be in a tough spot either way when it comes to debates. On one hand, if she faces a field with minimal opposition—with only one lesser-known candidate, such as Sanders or Webb—her campaign, and the TV networks, might be less interested in organizing that face-off than they would with a bigger field. Observers likened 2016 to the race between Al Gore and former Sen. Bill Bradley in the 2000 Democratic primary: Gore, as the sitting vice president, was the favorite for the nomination, but Bradley put up a legitimate challenge and even outraised Gore at points along the way. The two faced off in a total of nine debates between October 1999 and March 2000. But Lehane, who worked for Gore that year, said that Clinton, in 2016, could have the option not to debate if she didn't want to—a luxury neither Gore nor Bradley had in 2000. That primary "wasn't a situation where Al Gore was at 80 percent [in the polls] and Bill Bradley was in single digits and Gore could just ignore debates," he said. Still, many Democrats feel that not debating could be just as dangerous. The challenging debates between Obama and Clinton in 2007 and 2008 made them both better candidates, according to several top Democratic officials. Many Democrats feel that Clinton, whose presidential bid began eight years ago, could use the practice to sharpen her skills ahead of the general election. Holding no debates would be a public relations challenge for the Democratic Party, too. They're media events, and they help bring visibility to the party's eventual nominee. Without debates, Republicans would get all the highly publicized, televised face-offs to themselves. "Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (as well as Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and more) had at least two dozen debates in 2008. From that clash, Barack Obama emerged stronger, tougher, smarter— and the Democratic Party quickly united around him," longtime Democratic strategist and Clinton ally Paul Begala said in an e-mail. "So while I am for Hillary, big-time … I think some good, challenging debates would be good for her and good for the party," he said. *Politico: “Shut-out Dems longing for Hillary - and Bill” <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/house-democrats-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-114746.html>* By Anna Palmer and Lauren French January 29, 2015, 6:38 p.m. EST Congressional Democrats for the past six years have lamented their chilly relationship with President Barack Obama. He doesn’t schmooze enough, they say. He is missing the glad-handing gene that makes politics fun. He just doesn’t get it. But they are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel: the prospect of a Clinton back in the White House. Hillary Clinton’s all-but-certain 2016 bid has perked up Democrats, as they once again dream of invites to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, rowdy late-night dinners, overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom and, not least, consultation on policy and politics. While Hillary is certainly different than her husband, former President Bill Clinton, Democrats have seen her in action on the Hill, where she was adept at developing relationships. And more recently, she’s shown she isn’t afraid to tangle with Congress on Benghazi. “There was a very close connection between House Democrats and the Clinton presidency,” California Rep. Zoe Lofgren said. “Usually I would be over at the White House at least once a week doing something, and I thought that built a lot of goodwill. I think if [Hillary] does run, she will become president, and there is a lot of excitement on that. He was a very collegial person, and she is her own person but she knows her way around.” Of course, Bill and Hillary Clinton come with baggage. Bill had a sexual tryst in the Oval Office, was impeached by the Republican House and Hillary faced an endless barrage of questions about her own business dealings. Those memories are faint. Philadelphia Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah, who was elected in 1994, described Bill Clinton’s relationships on the Hill as “extraordinary.” “I don’t think this is just looking at it through rose-colored glasses,” Fattah said, noting that when Clinton came to Philadelphia, he would meet the president at the airport, ride in the limo and take him to play golf. After one of Fattah’s first legislative victories for an educational program called Gear Up, Clinton traveled to a middle school in Pennsylvania and credited him for getting the bill signed into law. “There was a lot of personalized interaction and they were engaged in this political effort, but it was also substantive,” Fattah said. Clinton, who served from 1993 until 2001, led House Democrats into the minority for the first time in 40 years. Still, what lawmakers focus on aren’t his stumbles but differences between his and the Obama administration’s interactions with Capitol Hill. “He did something that this president doesn’t do at all. Every time the 747 lifted off the ground, it was filled with members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats. I went to India with him, I went to South America with him, I went to Asia … and I went to Africa,” said Rep. Jim McDermott. “He was inclusive.” The Clintons were so close to the Washington state lawmaker that Bill Clinton helped raise money for him when the House Ethics Committee investigated him over leaking a recorded telephone conversation during the 1997 investigation of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich. When asked to compare Clinton and Obama’s Hill interactions, Rep. Jerry Nadler said there was a big difference. “There is much less contact, no question about it,” Nadler responded. The New York Democrat said that even though he was a freshman when Clinton arrived at the White House, there was a dialogue with his congressional liaisons on major issues like free trade. Clinton spent time with members at the annual picnics and other social events, he said. “You got the feeling he knew you,” Nadler said, remembering how Clinton stopped him in a receiving line soon after his election to chat about his six-way primary contest after his predecessor unexpectedly died. “How the hell did he know?” Nadler said. “I’ll never forget the Marine guards were saying ‘move on, move on,’ and he wanted to talk to me.” Other lawmakers agreed that despite serving one term as an Illinois senator, Obama hasn’t worked to make allies on Capitol Hill. “He can connect, but many times he doesn’t give himself the time,” said New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell, who was elected in 1997 during Clinton’s second term. “I don’t know whether it’s inborn or it’s learned. It’s not schmultz. It’s not glad handing, or massaging and patting on the back. It has a lot more to do with your empathy toward other human beings. That’s natural to some people and others it’s forced.” It’s not just lawmakers who have been impacted by the Obama administration’s aversion to personal politicking. Democratic lobbyists have griped privately for years, and some have even complained publicly over Obama’s disdain for their profession. That wasn’t the case during the Clinton administration, according to several lobbyists. “The Clinton administration had a different view of lobbyists from the Obama administration,” said Tony Podesta, a veteran Washington powerbroker. “More important to being invited to parties, friends of the president, friends of the administration were frequently called upon to provide thoughts, advice, suggestions and be an echo chamber for what the White House was trying to do.” “It was not only effective, but it was so much fun too,” said veteran lobbyist Tom Quinn. “The social events at the White House were fun. He would have a DNC event followed up with a state dinner.” Quinn, who was special observer to Ireland during the Clinton administration, said that personal relationships go a long way in persuading lawmakers to support legislation. Of course, building personal relationships with the executive branch is not important to everyone. “I’ve got plenty of things I need to do other than be schmoozed,” said Rick Larsen (D-Wash.). “It doesn’t get me votes and gives me more unwanted attention than I need. It takes me off message.” Still, several Democrats said they look forward to working with a potential Hillary Clinton administration and believe better cooperation between the White House and Congress would benefit the party. “I think people always feel better when they feel they are included in the team and that their views are valued, and I think that’s smart politics too,” said REp. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). And Democrats say Hillary Clinton is no stranger to her former Capitol Hill colleagues. “We had good contact. Now, it was one state with 29 members in those days, but you knew her. You knew her staff well,” Nadler said. And, if Clinton’s time as first lady and as a New York senator illustrates how she’ll operate, several Democrats said it would be a good thing. “I talked with and worked with Mrs. Clinton a lot when she was putting together her health care plan because I had 95 votes in the caucus for single payer and she needed some votes,” said McDermott, who remembered her coming to his office two or three times a month to discuss the issue. “Since I know her, I expect I would have some opportunity to be involved.” *Politico Magazine: "Jeb 'Put Me Through Hell'" <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/jeb-bush-terri-schiavo-114730_Page6.html#.VMuGw2TF-nM>* Subtitle: Michael Schiavo knows as well as anyone what Jeb Bush can do with executive power. He thinks you ought to know too. By Michael Kruse January 29, 2015 CLEARWATER, Fla.—Sitting recently on his brick back patio here, Michael Schiavo called Jeb Bush a vindictive, untrustworthy coward. For years, the self-described “average Joe” felt harassed, targeted and tormented by the most important person in the state. “It was a living hell,” he said, “and I blame him.” Michael Schiavo was the husband of Terri Schiavo, the brain-dead woman from the Tampa Bay area who ended up at the center of one of the most contentious, drawn-out conflicts in the history of America’s culture wars. The fight over her death lasted almost a decade. It started as a private legal back-and-forth between her husband and her parents. Before it ended, it moved from circuit courts to district courts to state courts to federal courts, to the U.S. Supreme Court, from the state legislature in Tallahassee to Congress in Washington. The president got involved. So did the pope. But it never would have become what it became if not for the dogged intervention of the governor of Florida at the time, the second son of the 41st president, the younger brother of the 43rd, the man who sits near the top of the extended early list of likely 2016 Republican presidential candidates. On sustained, concentrated display, seen in thousands of pages of court records and hundreds of emails he sent, was Jeb the converted Catholic, Jeb the pro-life conservative, Jeb the hands-on workaholic, Jeb the all-hours emailer—confident, competitive, powerful, obstinate Jeb. Longtime watchers of John Ellis Bush say what he did throughout the Terri Schiavo case demonstrates how he would operate in the Oval Office. They say it’s the Jebbest thing Jeb’s ever done. The case showed he “will pursue whatever he thinks is right, virtually forever,” said Aubrey Jewett, a political science professor at the University of Central Florida. “It’s a theme of Jeb’s governorship: He really pushed executive power to the limits.” “If you want to understand Jeb Bush, he’s guided by principle over convenience,” said Dennis Baxley, a Republican member of the Florida House of Representatives during Bush’s governorship and still. “He may be wrong about something, but he knows what he believes.” And what he believed in this case, and what he did, said Miami's Dan Gelber, a Democratic member of the state House during Bush’s governorship, “probably was more defining than I suspect Jeb would like.” For Michael Schiavo, though, the importance of the episode—Bush’s involvement from 2003 to 2005, and what it might mean now for his almost certain candidacy—is even more viscerally obvious. “He should be ashamed,” he said. “And I think people really need to know what type of person he is. To bring as much pain as he did, to me and my family, that should be an issue.” *** November 10, 1984, is when they got married; February 25, 1990, is when she collapsed, early in the morning, in their apartment in St. Petersburg, for reasons that never were determined with specificity but had something to do with a potassium imbalance probably caused by aggressive dieting. Michael Schiavo woke up when he heard her fall. She was facedown, feet in the bathroom, head in the hall. He called 911. Police noted in their report “no signs of trauma to her head or face.” The ambulance raced to the closest hospital, but her heart had stopped, robbing her brain of oxygen, and the damage was catastrophic. A court named her husband her guardian that June. Her parents didn’t object. All of this was before Bush was elected. And after years of rehabilitation, of waiting for any sign of improvement and seeing none, Michael Schiavo decided to remove the feeding tube that kept his wife alive, saying she had told him and others she never would’ve wanted to be this way. To this, Terri Schiavo’s parents objected. Bob and Mary Schindler, Catholics, argued that their daughter, also Catholic, would want to live, even so debilitated. She had left no will. No written instructions. She was 26. To try to determine what she would have wanted, there was a trial, in the Pinellas County courtroom of circuit judge George Greer, in which Michael Schiavo relayed what she had told him in passing about what her wishes would be in this sort of scenario. Others did, too. She also had next to no chance of recovery, according to doctors’ testimony. Greer cited “overwhelming credible evidence” that Terri Schiavo was “totally unresponsive” with “severe structural brain damage” and that “to a large extent her brain has been replaced by spinal fluid.” His judgment was that she would not have wanted to live in her “persistent vegetative state” and that Michael Schiavo, her husband and her legal guardian, was allowed to remove her feeding tube. “DONE AND ORDERED,” he wrote on February 11, 2000. The St. Petersburg Times had covered the trial. Bush, a year and a month into his first term, started hearing about it almost immediately. Staffers replied at first with a variety of form responses. “The Florida Constitution prohibits the Governor’s intervention in matters that should be resolved through the court system,” read one. But here’s what else it said: “As a concerned citizen, you have the opportunity to influence legislation pertaining to guardianship matters in cases similar to Terri’s. By contacting your local legislative delegation, such as your senator or representative, new legislation can be introduced. If such a bill ever comes before the Governor for signature, he will certainly remember your views.” Bush couldn’t do anything. Laws didn’t let him. But that didn’t mean he didn’t want to. He did. He heard from Terri Schiavo’s father in April 2001. “Allow me to introduce myself,” Bob Schindler wrote in an email. He told the governor his daughter had been “falsely depicted” as a “hopeless vegetable.” He told the governor she was indeed “responsive to family and friends.” “I desperately need your help,” he said, adding that “Terri’s case may be beyond your realm of authority”—Schindler knew it, too—“but I sincerely believe you could be helpful.” Staffers didn’t respond to Bob Schiavo’s email. The governor did. Mr. Schindler, thank you for writing. I am asking that Charles Canady look into your daughter’s case. Jeb Bush Canady had been a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives. He later would be an appellate judge in Florida. He is now a state Supreme Court judge. At the time, though, he was Bush’s top staff attorney. Meanwhile, the Schindlers appealed, asking for new trials, asking for delays, asking for Greer to recuse himself, asking to remove Michael Schiavo as her guardian based on unproven allegations of abuse and neglect and because he now was living with another woman with whom he had children, asking for new doctors who might make new diagnoses—and they were sufficiently successful to stretch the case into the summer of 2003. Media coverage had intensified, especially on conservative talk radio and websites, and activists convinced the Schindlers to violate a court order and post on the Internet snippets of videos of their daughter appearing to respond to what was going on around her. They also continued their zealous email campaign to attempt to prevent what they saw as imminent court-dictated murder. The top target of their efforts? Bush. “I’m really limited on what I can do,” the governor reiterated to the conservative online publication World Net Daily in August. A judge had made a decision. Other judges had upheld the decision. The emails flooded the governor’s inbox. Bush responded by sending a letter to Greer. He acknowledged it was out of the ordinary. “I normally would not address a letter to the judge in a pending legal proceeding,” Bush wrote. “However, my office has received over 27,000 emails reflecting understandable concern for the well-being of Terri Schiavo.” Greer said he respected the governor’s position. Then he put the letter with everything else in the already massive file. “This isn’t his concern,” Michael Schiavo told reporters, “and he should stay out of it.” He didn’t. Bush filed a federal court brief on October 7 supporting the Schindlers’ efforts. A judge said his court lacked the jurisdiction to do anything. The feeding tube was to come out on October 15. Bush met with the Schindlers. He told them his staff attorneys were conferring with experts on the Florida Constitution to see if he could intervene. “He does not have the authority to overrule a court order,” his spokesman told reporters. The emails didn’t stop. They came from all over the country. They begged him. They used capital letters. They used exclamation points. They told him to talk to God. They told him there were laws higher than man’s laws and that he, as a Catholic like Terri Schiavo, like her parents, should know that and should act on it and that he had to. “DO NOT LET HER DIE!!!” said a man from Michigan. “Let’s see what kind of compassionate conservative you really are,” said a man from Jacksonville. “If you have any aspirations for a higher office,” said a man from California, “don’t let this be the rallying cry for those who would oppose you.” To most of them, he didn’t respond—to many, though, he did. “It is very sad,” he wrote. “I cannot issue an executive order when there is a court order upheld at every level in the judiciary. ... I wish I could but I have no legal authority to do so,” he wrote. “I am sickened by this situation and pray for her family. We have looked at every angle, every legal possibility, and will continue to do so,” he wrote. The emails kept coming. *** “I hope George W. Bush is president some day,” former Republican Party chairman Rich Bond told the late Marjorie Williams, writing for Talk magazine in September 2000. “I know Jeb will be.” “I want to be able to look my father in the eye and say, ‘I continued the legacy,’” he told the Miami Herald in 1994. That year, he ran for governor of Florida—as an ultra-conservative, a “head-banging conservative,” as he put it—and lost. In 1998, he ran again, sanding those hard-right edges—and won. But one constant from the first campaign to the next and beyond: what Bush said he believed was the right role of government. “Government needs to be constrained,” he said in speeches in 1994. “We should be finding practical solutions where we provide incentives for people to take care of themselves.” “Our lack of self-governance is the single biggest reason we’ve seen the growth of government,” he said in 1995. “Good government,” he wrote that year in his book Profiles in Character, “is grounded in its limitations.” In 1999, in his first inaugural address, he said, “let state government give families and individuals greater freedom”—also, though, “let state government touch the spiritual face of Florida.” In the speech, he mentioned “our Creator” and “the Divine Giver” and said “state government can draw much from these reservoirs of faith.” He was raised as an Episcopalian but became a Catholic because that’s how his Mexican wife grew up. It also suited his disposition. He wrote in Profiles in Character that he believed in the need for a “renewal of virtue” and “passing moral judgments.” He once said “the conservative side” of an issue is “the correct one” because “it just is.” Bush, 6-foot-4 and stout, quickly established himself as the most powerful governor in Florida history, according to University of North Florida political science professor Matthew Corrigan and others. His ascension coincided with both houses of the state legislature being Republican majorities for the first time since Reconstruction. Voters also opted to alter the state constitution to shrink the size of the cabinet, leaving the governor, the position itself, with more executive power. Bush did a lot with it. He was reelected in 2002, easily, winning 61 of the state’s 67 counties. By this time, of course, his brother was the president. “He didn’t get told no very often,” Corrigan said. “My gift, perhaps,” Bush would say toward the end of his two-term tenure, in an interview with the Tampa Tribune, “is that with this office now, we’ve shown that governors can be activist …” So on October 15, 2003, Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube came out. Judge’s orders. She would die within two weeks. This stage of the case looks in retrospect like the start of a test. Just how much power did Jeb Bush have? HB 35E was filed after 8 at night on October 20. Many lawmakers already were gone for the day. Gelber, the state representative from Miami, put his suit back on at his apartment in Tallahassee and hustled back to the Capitol. Fellow Democrats gathered around as the attorney and former prosecutor began to read the bill one of Bush’s staff attorneys had helped to write. “Authority for the Governor to Issue a One-time Stay …” Gelber looked up. “I don’t have to read anymore,” he said. “It’s clearly unconstitutional.” “The governor can’t just change an order of the court,” Gelber explained this month. “It’s one of the most elemental concepts of democracy: The governor is not a king.” The rest of the language described a situation involving a patient with no written will, in a persistent vegetative state, with a family conflict, whose feeding tube had been removed. Terri Schiavo. It gave the governor a 15-day window to step in. “The courts have listened to sworn testimony and they have determined, court after court, one way,” said state Senator Alex Villalobos, a Republican from Miami. But it passed in the House, and it passed in the Senate. Bush signed it, and Chapter No. 2003-418, “Terri’s Law,” as it came to be known, was official less than 22 hours after it had been introduced. He then issued Executive Order 03-201. “The Florida Department of Law Enforcement shall serve a copy of this Executive Order upon the medical facility currently providing care for Theresa Schiavo,” it stated. A police-escorted ambulance whisked her from her hospice in Pinellas Park to a nearby hospital to have her feeding tube put back in. “The citizens of Florida should be alarmed by what is happening,” George Felos, one of Michael Schiavo’s attorneys, told reporters. “This is not the former Soviet Bloc, where you don’t have the liberty to control your own body.” Even one of the law’s architects up in Tallahassee expressed unease. “I hope, I really do hope, we’ve done the right thing,” Republican state Senate president Jim King said. “I keep thinking, ‘What if Terri Schiavo really didn’t want this at all?’ May God have mercy on us all.” Bush had no such qualms. “I honestly believe we did the right thing,” the governor wrote to one emailer. The emails poured in. Some chided him. More praised him. One arrived with the subject line “Oh Great One!!” Another woman wondered: “How does it feel to be not only a child of God’s, but to actually feel His Hand guiding you and using you as an instrument to do His work on earth?” A husband and wife wrote to him from near Philadelphia: “I wish we lived in Florida and could support you directly—maybe you’ll run for President one day??” *** “Yes,” said President George W. Bush, in late October, at a news conference in the Rose Garden, “I believe my brother made the right decision.” “Terri’s Law” had mandated the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and Jay Wolfson, a respected lawyer and professor of public health at the Stetson University College of Law and the University of South Florida, issued his report in December. Wolfson had spent a month reading the court records, observing Terri Schiavo, meeting with Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers and their attorneys, and also the governor, who struck him as “a very intense, highly committed, very informed, faith-driven person who believed in doing the right thing, and doing so through the governor’s office.” None of this was “easy stuff,” Wolfson noted in his report, “and should not be.” Nonetheless, he wrote, Terri Schiavo was in “a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement” and “cannot take oral nutrition or hydration and cannot consciously interact with her environment.” He wrote that the practically unprecedented amount of litigation consisted of “competent, well-documented information” and was “firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law.” In parts, too, Wolfson was prescient: “The Governor’s involvement has added a new and unexpected dimension to the litigation. It is reasonable to expect that the exquisite lawyering will continue, and the greatly enhanced public visibility of the case may increase the probability of more litigation, more parties entering as interveners, and efforts to expand the case into federal jurisdiction.” Soon after that, the pope weighed in. Without using the name Terri Schiavo, but clearly referring to her, John Paul II said “the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory …” Back in Florida, though, the courts were focused not so much on what was “morally obligatory” but more on what was legally mandatory. A circuit judge ruled Bush’s “Terri’s Law” unconstitutional. “The court must assume that this extraordinary legislation was enacted with the best intentions and prompted by sincere motives,” W. Douglas Baird wrote in his ruling. He then quoted Daniel Webster, a lawyer and senator, who died in 1852: “It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” The Schindlers’ attorneys appealed. The Florida Supreme Court was up next. Bob Destro, an attorney and professor at the law school at the Catholic University of America in Washington, joined Bush’s legal team and emerged from meetings with the governor thinking “this was something he felt very deeply about … that this was a decision that he made, personally, and that he saw this as a question of an injustice being done.” The state supreme court judges listened to arguments the last day of August. After the hearing was over, outside the courthouse in Tallahassee, Michael Schiavo angrily asked reporters about the whereabouts of Bush. “If this was so important to the governor, where is he?” he said. He then got personal, referring to Bush’s daughter, Noelle, who had been arrested in 2002 after trying to buy Xanax with a forged prescription and then relapsed in rehab. “I can remember you sitting here in front of every one of these reporters with tears in your eyes when your daughter had problems,” he raged, “and you asked for privacy and you got it. Why aren’t you giving me my privacy and Terri her privacy?” The seven state supreme court judges took less than a month to dismiss unanimously “Terri’s Law.” “If the Legislature with the assent of the Governor can do what was attempted here,” chief justice Barbara Pariente wrote in her ruling, “the judicial branch would be subordinated to the final directive of the other branches. Also subordinated would be the rights of individuals, including the well-established privacy right to self-determination. No court judgment could ever be considered truly final and no constitutional right truly secure, because the precedent of this case would hold to the contrary. Vested rights could be stripped away based on popular clamor. The essential core of what the Founding Fathers sought to change from their experience with English rule would be lost …” Bush told reporters he was “disappointed, not for any political reasons, but for the moral reasons.” He said he didn’t think it had been “a full hearing.” Legal analysts disagreed. They called the ruling a categorical rebuke of what Bush had done. The governor responded by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. The words at the top of the docket of the country’s highest court were black-and-white blunt about what this had become: JEB BUSH, Governor of the State of Florida, v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO, Guardian: Theresa Schiavo. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review it. “It means that the governor’s interference in this case has ended,” said Felos, Michael Schiavo’s attorney. “This matter is now at an end for the governor,” said Ken Connor, another one of Bush’s attorneys. It did not. It was not. That week, Connor, the Bush attorney, sent an email to two of Bush’s staff attorneys. “Here is an op-ed I drafted for Dan Webster,” Connor wrote. Connor was active in social conservative causes and organizations. Webster was a Florida state senator, and this Dan Webster, not the lawyer and senator from the 1800s, had beliefs that couldn’t have been more different than those of his namesake. The op-ed Connor had written ran under Webster’s name on Page 10A of USA Today on January 27, 2005. “By any definition, Terri Schiavo is alive,” the op-ed said. “She has now been issued a death sentence by the courts.” Serial killers, like Ted Bundy, it said, had more rights on death row than Terri Schiavo did at her hospice. Connor talked on the phone with Dave Weldon, a Republican Congressman from Florida who also was a doctor. Weldon says Connor called him; Connor says it was the other way around—either way, it led to Weldon meeting with the Schindlers in Washington. “They showed me some videos of them walking into her room and calling her name and her face lit up and she smiled,” Weldon, no longer in Congress, said this month. “They said, ‘She does that all the time, she’s not a vegetable,’ and they said a bunch of stuff about the husband and were very critical of him, that he had a new girlfriend or something like that. And I felt very compelled.” That, he said, is when he “got Mel Martinez involved.” Martinez, then a Republican from Florida in the U.S. Senate, talked with Bush. “He’s been saying, ‘I’m not sure we can get it done here in Florida,’” Martinez told the Palm Beach Post. Martinez told Bush he and Bill Frist, at the time the Senate majority leader, were ready to do what they could in Washington but that it wouldn’t be easy. On March 14, a woman from Clearwater named Pamela Hennessy, who had helped stoke the email onslaught that spurred “Terri’s Law,” emailed Bush, too. She attached a letter she had addressed to the hospice saying she intended to “file formal complaints” to the state Department of Children and Families. The hope was that the agency charged with protecting mainly kids and the elderly might intervene in this case. Bush wrote back: “thank you Pamela.” On March 18, in Pinellas Park, Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed again. *** “If she dies, I will kill Michael Schiavo and the judge,” a woman in California wrote on an AOL message board. “This is real!” She was arrested. On a different message board, at blogsforterri.com, an anonymous poster called The Coming Conflict declared, “FL gun owners, it’s in your hands.” Michael Schiavo and the mother of his two kids got letters addressed to their “Illegitimate Bastard Children” talking about how sometimes kids disappear. Up in Washington, Congress debated the case of Terri Schiavo, searching for possible methods of federal intervention—with Frist and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, both of whom now say they don’t want to talk about it, vowing to work together through the weekend of Palm Sunday if necessary. A memo that came from Martinez’s office called it “a great political issue” for Republicans. Frist, a surgeon from Tennessee, said on the Senate floor that Schiavo didn’t seem to him to be in a vegetative state, based on his viewing of the Schindlers’ video snippets. Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania called the removal of the feeding tube “a sentence that would not be placed on the worst criminal.” Majority Leader Tom DeLay led the way in the House. Santorum and Frist did in the Senate. Few members of Congress spoke against it. South Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was one. “There is no room for the federal government in this most personal of private angst-ridden family members,” she said. Republican John Warner from Virginia was the only senator to speak against it. Hillary Clinton from New York didn’t. Neither did Barack Obama from Illinois. A bill emerged from the Senate after midnight on March 21 that would let the Schindlers ask the federal courts to take another look at the decision made by the state courts. President Bush flew on Air Force One from vacation in Crawford, Texas, back to Washington to sign it into law just after 1 in the morning. “Our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life,” he said in a statement. His brother issued a statement of his own: “I thank the Congress for its swift action allowing Terri’s parents to seek a federal review of the case.” He echoed the op-ed that had run in USA Today. “Certainly, an incapacitated person deserves at least the same protection afforded criminals sentenced to death.” Michael Schiavo called the federal legislation “outrageous.” If politicians are allowed to meddle with him like this, he said, “they’ll do it to every person in this country.” A federal judge in Tampa heard attorneys’ arguments for the justification of the relitigation of a case that had been up and down the judicial ladder for the better part of a decade. He said no. The federal legislation had failed. The feeding tube stayed out, and Terri Schiavo neared death. Bush’s last-ditch effort involved the Department of Children and Families. Attorneys for the state agency made motions to intervene based on thousands of anonymous allegations of abuse against Terri Schiavo. Bush ordered the mobilization of officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement—in essence his own police force—and they readied to seize Terri Schiavo if a court order allowed it. “I requested that FDLE in concert with the Department of Children and Families be prepared to enter,” Bush told reporters, “if that was going to be the option available to us”—which it wasn’t, because judges said no. “We were ready to go,” a Bush spokesman told the Miami Herald. “We didn’t want to break the law.” “I cannot violate a court order,” Bush told CNN on March 27. People in his email inbox continued to plead with him to do exactly that. “I do not have the authority that you suggest I have,” Bush responded to one of them. “Under your thesis of executive authority, should I shut down abortion clinics since I abhor abortion?” On March 30, meanwhile, Bush called a woman in Tampa named Dawn Armstrong, whose husband, Staff Sgt. Robert Armstrong, had died of a heart attack two days before in Camp Shelby, Mississippi, while readying for deployment to Afghanistan. She emailed him later that night, thanking him for “the time you took out of your busy day to express your sorrow for the loss of my husband.” On March 31, at 6:29 a.m., Bush responded. “Bless you Dawn,” he wrote. “Please let me know if I can be of assistance to you.” Two and a half hours later, across the bay from Tampa, at the hospice in Pinellas Park, Terri Schiavo died. Shortly after 12:30, Bush got another email from Dawn Armstrong. “I will be deriving strength from many sources—one source of strength is from you, Governor,” she wrote. “We have witnessed your steadfastness in the face of many challenges for a very long time now …” She continued: “May God grant us all the peace we so long for, in His perfect timing. Take care. I’ll be praying for you and your administration.” Later that night, just before 9, Bush wrote back. you are making me cry. Maybe it is the day with Terri’s death. I don’t know but the fact that you would write what you did given your loss, makes me thank God Almighty that there are people like yourself. I am nothing. Let me know how I can ever be of help to you and your family. Jeb *** Terri Schiavo’s death did not spell the end of the governor’s intervention in her case. One email suggested the firing of Greer. “I will look into this,” the governor responded. In an email to one of his staff attorneys, less than 48 hours after the death, Bush asked about her autopsy. “We need to get the details of the autopsy,” he wrote, “meaning what was done if possible.” The staff attorney responded: “I got an update this morning from FDLE. Six board certified examiners participated. They were attuned to the issues involved. Are working on their reports.” She added: “Santorum’s office called me yesterday …” In early May, Bush gave a speech in Savannah, Georgia, at the state’s Republican convention, in which he stressed that the party had to be uncompromising in what he saw as “a time of moral ambivalence.” “There is such a thing as right and wrong,” he said. “Republicans cannot continue to win unless we talk with compassion and passion about absolute truth.” Saxby Chambliss, then a senator from Georgia, followed by telling the crowd he wanted this Bush to be the next Bush in the White House. He asked the people what they thought. They hollered their approval. In June, the medical examiner released Terri Schiavo’s autopsy, which confirmed what the judges had ruled for years based on the testimony from doctors concerning her prognosis. Her limbs had atrophied, and her hands had clenched into claws, and her brain had started to disappear. It weighed barely more than a pound and a third, less than half the size it would have been under normal circumstances. “No remaining discernible neurons,” the autopsy said. She couldn’t see. She couldn’t feel, not even pain. Forty-one years after her birth, 15 years after her collapse, Terri Schiavo was literally a shell of who she had been. Bush read the autopsy—then wrote a letter to the top prosecutor in Pinellas County. He raised questions about Michael Schiavo’s involvement in her collapse and about the quickness of his response calling 911. “I urge you,” the governor wrote to Bernie McCabe, “to take a fresh look at this case without any preconceptions as to the outcome.” McCabe, a Republican, responded less than two weeks later, saying he and his staff “have attempted to follow this sound advice”—without any preconceptions—“unlike some pundits, some ‘experts,’ some email and Web-based correspondents, and even some institutions of government that have, in my view, reached conclusions regarding the controversy …” McCabe’s assessment: “all available records” were “not indicative of criminal activity.” Bush relented. “I will follow your recommendation,” he wrote to McCabe, “that the inquiry by the state be closed.” Michael Schiavo buried the ashes of his wife in a cemetery not far from his house. *** Today, looking back, what makes Felos, the attorney for Michael Schiavo, angriest about the case is Bush’s letter to McCabe. Even after 18 months of legal wrangling, even after her death, even after the autopsy—after all that—the governor asked a prosecutor to initiate a retroactive criminal investigation of his client. It struck Felos as “odd,” “bizarre”—“personal.” “It was such an abuse of authority,” Felos said. “I think that really raises red flags about his character and his fitness to be president. Jeb didn’t get his way in the Schiavo case. I think he tried to take it out on Michael.” That, Michael Schiavo said this month, is what makes Jeb Bush “vindictive.” “Knowing that he had no standing in this, he made it worse for everybody,” he said. “He made life, for a lot of people—the nursing home people, the local police, lawyers—he made everybody miserable.” What makes him “untrustworthy,” he said, is that he fought the courts as long as he did just because he didn’t like the decisions they kept making. “I wouldn’t trust him in any type of political office,” he said. But for the now former governor of Florida, the second son of the 41st president, the younger brother of the 43rd, the man who sits near the top of the extended early list of likely 2016 Republican presidential candidates — what makes him a “coward,” Michael Schiavo said, sitting on his brick back patio, is that they’ve still never talked. Bush has never said he’s sorry. He wasn’t. What he was sorry about is how it turned out. “I wish I could have done more,” he told reporters the day of the death. Other politicians have said they’re sorry, though, Michael Schiavo said. “I’ve had politicians come to my home and apologize to me for what they did to me.” Names? “No names.” But he mentioned Barack Obama and something he said during a debate in Cleveland with Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries in early 2008. The question was about what he’d like to have back. “Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year,” Obama said, “we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision-making process of the families. “It wasn’t something I was comfortable with, but it was not something I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better.” Did Obama apologize to Michael Schiavo? In a call? At his house? “I can’t comment on that,” Schiavo said with a smile. “But I never heard from Jeb,” he said. What would Jeb Bush say to Michael Schiavo now? Nothing. He didn’t want to talk about the Schiavo case for this story. What would Michael Schiavo, though, say to Jeb Bush? “Bring it on,” he said. “Come visit me. I’m asking you. Almost 10 years later and I still haven’t heard from you. “Was he afraid to meet with me? To see me? Why? That’s what burns me. You got so much to say—but where are you? You lost against this little ordinary man from Philadelphia. You lost. And then to continue on? Unspeakable. “Why? Give me an answer. Why? Why? What was Terri Schiavo to you? Why? Tell me why. Why do you think you had the right to be involved? Why would you put me and my family through hell? And what did you gain from that? And after you lost, why did you pursue it? What did you gain from that?” The emails didn’t stop. “Please do not run for President of the United States,” a man from Goshen, Connecticut, wrote. “If you cannot protect the life of an innocent woman in Florida, how can I expect you to protect the United States of America as Commander in Chief?” The governor also heard from people like Rick Warren. “On behalf of everyone who truly understood the issues, thank you for doing all you could for Terri Schiavo,” the evangelical megachurch pastor and author of the bestselling book The Purpose Driven Life wrote to Bush in an email. “It’s a sad ending but you lead the right side with courage and conviction. I’m proud to call you my friend.” “Thank you so much,” Bush responded. “You have lifted my spirits.” Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo’s brother, emailed to say that “in time everyone in my family will understand your situation and that you were doing your best …” “I think he probably did as much as possible within his jurisdiction at the time,” he added this month. “I found him to be a person of principles, and I hold his actions in the Schiavo case in esteem,” said David Gibbs III, one of the Schindlers’ attorneys. Gibbs said that as “a devout Catholic,” Bush was “very personally bothered” by the case and that the governor felt what he did “was the right thing to do.” Polls showed majorities of people in Florida and around the country disagreed. They objected to his intervention as well as the ensuing flurry of federal involvement. Some of the most fervent believers in what he had done turned on him because of what he had not. They said he “blinked.” “He failed us miserably with Terri Schiavo,” Troy Newman, president of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, said this month. “If Jeb had acted, Terri Schiavo would be alive today.” Still, said Connor, the Bush attorney, “I never, ever heard Jeb Bush waver in the midst of the political fallout. He was steadfast.” That’s what bothers his critics. “He doesn’t accept loss. He doesn’t accept that the answer is no. He couldn’t possibly consider that he may be wrong,” Wasserman Schultz said this month. “If he had the chance to be president, he’ll do what he’s always done—he’ll do everything he can to implement his very rigid, ideological view of how the world should be. Voters are going to have to ask: Do you want a president who thinks the executive, the president, is supreme, above all else? It’s frightening to think about what he could do with that kind of power as president.” “Trying to write laws that clearly are outside the constitutionality of his state, trying to override the entire judicial system, that’s very, very dangerous,” said Arthur Caplan, a New York University bioethicist who edited a book about the Schiavo case. “When you’re willing to do that, you’re willing to break the back of the country.” “It was appalling,” said Jon Eisenberg, one of Michael Schiavo’s attorneys and the author of The Right vs. the Right to Die. “And I think it’s important for people to understand what Jeb Bush is willing to do. It’s important for people to know who Jeb Bush is, and the Terri Schiavo case tells us a great deal about who Jeb Bush is.” The Jebbest thing Jeb’s ever done hasn’t been an issue so far in Bush’s pre-campaign because it won’t help his potential opponents in the primaries. They’re trying to paint him as a moderate. This demonstrates the opposite. “People who agree he’s a conservative point to the Schiavo case,” Florida International University political science professor Dario Moreno said this month. So most of the talk has touched on his more measured stances on immigration and Common Core. He’s been portrayed as a cerebral policy wonk in contrast to his father, the solicitous writer of thank you notes, and his brother, the clownin’-around worker of rooms. This bloodless depiction, though, ignores the intensity, the vehemence, the practically gladiatorial certitude with which he pursued what he wanted in the Schiavo case, and more generally the fervid way in which he believes in what he believes—that “absolute truth” he talked about in his speech in Savannah, two months after the death of Terri Schiavo, and one month before he asked the prosecutor to investigate her husband. *NPR: Former Democratic Sen. Jim Webb Explores Presidential Bid <http://www.npr.org/2015/01/30/382588001/former-sen-jim-webb-d-va-explores-presidential-bid>* January 30, 2015 [Listen to the story] In considering whether to launch a presidential campaign, former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia tells Steve Inskeep his big challenge would be raising money to promote his ideas. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html> ) · March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton Foundation (WSJ <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/> ) · March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>) · March 23 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton to keynote award ceremony for the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting (Syracuse <http://newhouse.syr.edu/news-events/news/former-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-newhouse-school-s> )