podesta_email_01866.txt

podesta-emails 10,929 words email

P19 V11 V16 D6 P18

-----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 Wednesday November 19, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Washington Post: “The candidate who matters most to GOP presidential hopefuls: Hillary Clinton” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-candidate-who-matters-most-to-gop-presidential-hopefuls-hillary-clinton/2014/11/19/b3edda4e-6f3a-11e4-8808-afaa1e3a33ef_story.html>* “Clinton leaves it to surrogates to mount any defense, as the pro-Clinton message outfit Correct the Record has done in the case of Clinton’s age and other issues. ‘Yes, there have been attacks on her after the midterms, but they have been hitting her hard for over a year,’ said Correct the Record communications director Adrienne Elrod. ‘They are trying as hard as possible to make sure she’s not the nominee, and the reason they are doing that is that they don’t want to run against her.’” *The Hill: “Clinton enjoys unofficial candidacy” <http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/224638-clinton-enjoys-unofficial-candidacy>* “Clinton knows that, if she runs for the White House, she’ll be asked about every move the president makes. She and her team will have to be ready to embrace Obama where it suits them, and to cast him aside when that would better serve her candidacy.” *Huffington Post opinion: Melanne Verveer: “Driving Growth through Women's Economic Participation” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melanne-verveer/driving-growth-through-wo_b_6179734.html>* “As Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton put women's economic participation on the foreign policy agenda.” *Politico: “Ready for Hillary ready to end” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/ready-for-hillary-ready-to-end-113018.html>* “Exactly when it will come to an end is unclear – it will likely exist for a period of time if Clinton declares, going through a formal process of closing accounts and wrapping up loose ends.” *Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Fundraisers Rev Up for Possible Hillary Clinton Run” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/19/fundraisers-rev-up-for-possible-hillary-clinton-run/>* “A group of New Jersey-based Democratic fundraisers and political operatives has scheduled a dinner in Newark on Monday to gather commitments for a donation to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign as soon as she announces she’s running, according to a person familiar with the event.” *The Atlantic: “Hillary’s Silence on Iran and Immigration Reform” <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/hillarys-silence-on-iran-and-immigration-reform/382895/>* [Subtitle:] “The cautious Clinton of 2008 is back—and that shows why it's so essential she face a Democratic challenger in 2016.” *Politico: “Democrats to Obama: You broke the party, now fix it” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/barack-obama-democrats-113016.html>* “As much Hillary Clinton anticipation as there is, two weeks later, Democrats are still reeling and anxious.” *Politico: “Beyond Senate defeat, ill omens for Keystone” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/beyond-senate-defeat-ill-omens-for-keystone-113015.html>* “In addition, Democrats would gain some political advantage from Obama settling the issue [Keystone] sooner rather than later, if only to keep it from burdening a 2016 White House run by Hillary Clinton.” *Los Angeles Times column: Doyle McManus: “A Bernie Sanders candidacy could help Hillary Clinton” <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-column-sanders-democrats-2016-20141119-11-column.html>* “When pressed, however, he [Sen. Sanders] acknowledges that he thinks even a losing campaign would be a good thing because of its potential to bring more attention to his ideas, widen the national debate and put pressure on Hillary Rodham Clinton or any other eventual Democratic nominee.” *Associated Press: “2016 contest overshadows GOP governors meeting” <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e4d6baa3a47047cdb3c0a2bc0b8b6df6/2016-contest-overshadows-gop-governors-meeting>* “While Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the overwhelming Democratic front-runner should she seek the presidency, the prospective Republican field is crowded and without a clear leader.” *Articles:* *Washington Post: “The candidate who matters most to GOP presidential hopefuls: Hillary Clinton” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-candidate-who-matters-most-to-gop-presidential-hopefuls-hillary-clinton/2014/11/19/b3edda4e-6f3a-11e4-8808-afaa1e3a33ef_story.html>* By Anne Gearan and Philip Rucker November 19, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EST Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says she’s old. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says she’s a loser. Operatives for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie whisper that he’s not afraid of her. For Republicans eyeing a run for president in a crowded 2016 field, one measure matters above all others: How they stack up against Hillary Rodham Clinton. “It would almost be political malpractice not to” go after Clinton, said former Mississippi governor Ronnie Musgrove (D), who is close to Clinton and her husband. As the prohibitive front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Clinton is the Goliath to all the would-be Davids. Attacking her is an easy way to impress donors, get noticed by potential supporters and the news media, and stand out among a growing throng of Republicans who have middling fame compared with hers. The Republican National Committee and America Rising, a GOP super PAC, have each launched opposition-research efforts aimed at identifying lines of attack on Clinton. The RNC has already deployed a team of 10 operatives to Arkansas — where former president Bill Clinton was governor — and elsewhere to dig up fresh dirt on Hillary Clinton. “She’s the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” said Brian Jones, a communications adviser to John McCain’s 2008 campaign and Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign. But there are risks for Republicans. The attacks, already in full swing two years ahead of the election, could become repetitive or tiresome. Or sexist: Swipes at Clinton’s age or health could backfire on a GOP field that is, at this point, all male. Party leaders, however, say they relish a fight with the former secretary of state, who remains a polarizing national figure and has seen her approval ratings fall since leaving the State Department. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said the party is treating Clinton as the presumptive Democratic nominee, no different from if she were an incumbent. “There’s no person in America I’d rather be running against than Hillary Clinton,” Priebus said. “When it comes to raising money, unifying our party and recruiting a lot of volunteers, Hillary Clinton is my best asset.” For now, Clinton is remaining above the fray, and her aides did not respond to requests for comment on the GOP attacks. Advisers close to her say that if she runs, there will be plenty of time to engage Republicans on her terms. Clinton leaves it to surrogates to mount any defense, as the pro-Clinton message outfit Correct the Record has done in the case of Clinton’s age and other issues. “Yes, there have been attacks on her after the midterms, but they have been hitting her hard for over a year,” said Correct the Record communications director Adrienne Elrod. “They are trying as hard as possible to make sure she’s not the nominee, and the reason they are doing that is that they don’t want to run against her.” But from the point of view of many Republicans, the attacks serve a simple purpose: to damage the presumptive Democratic nominee. In 2008, Republicans benefitted from the bitter primary fight between Clinton and Barack Obama, which aired a lot of dirty laundry. Republicans now need to keep up the pressure on Clinton during the Democratic primary season if Clinton faces no serious opposition, Jones said. “The party needs to keep applying pressure to her and keeping her and her team off balance, particularly if she’s running against Larry, Curly and Moe” on the Democratic side, Jones said. Clinton has said she is still considering whether to run and will probably decide after Jan. 1. She is quietly meeting with potential donors and possible campaign strategists, and is widely expected to make an official announcement by mid-February. She has given no sign that Republican attacks figure into that calculus. “The other side has no choice but to be constantly negative, because they know that Hillary has widespread grass-roots support and is the strongest, most qualified candidate if she decides to run,” said Seth Bringman, spokesman for the pro-Clinton Ready For Hillary super PAC. “The best way for her supporters to respond is by doubling down on the positive effort to build a grass-roots army of supporters to help her win.” Some of the attacks are personal: Walker, 47, said this week that he could run for president in 20 years and be the same age as Clinton is now. Some are about Clinton’s policies and politics, as articulated over her long career and on the stump for fellow Democrats in the midterms. Even before the full extent of the Democratic rout was known on election night, Paul tweeted a picture of Clinton side-hugging losing Kentucky Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes. He labeled it with the hashtag “#Hillaryslosers.” Republicans are hoping that Clinton is tainted by her party’s midterm defeat. They are also attacking her on issues such as Asia policy, the Keystone XL pipeline and the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Paul began focusing on Clinton before she stepped down as secretary of state. At a Senate hearing in January 2013, Paul told Clinton he would have fired her over the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Paul later suggested that the episode should disqualify Clinton from higher office. Paul, 51, and some other Republicans have also suggested Clinton may not be up to the physical rigors of a second run for president. She suffered a head injury in a fall two years ago that sidelined her for weeks but has said she has no lingering effects. Republican strategist Karl Rove came under fire this year for seeming to suggest that she had suffered a “traumatic brain injury” in the fall; he later disavowed intending to say that. In 2015, as Republican presidential hopefuls compete against each other, the RNC’s role will be to “reintroduce Clinton” in a negative light, said RNC communications director Sean Spicer. “It’s not a silver bullet, but it’s chink after chink after chink in her armor,” he said. The RNC’s war room has been trained on Clinton for months and made much of Clinton’s stumbles during interviews to promote her June memoir, “Hard Choices.” America Rising, the GOP research and communications shop founded by former presidential campaign operatives, has been leading the attack against Clinton for more than a year. Tim Miller, the group’s executive director, said Clinton’s “limbo state” — before the expected announcement of her candidacy — makes her especially susceptible to hits from Republicans. “It’s an opportunity for our side to continue to define her and to continue to highlight her weaknesses before she has a campaign infrastructure that’s fully up and operational,” Miller said. America Rising took another swing at Clinton on Tuesday over the Keystone oil pipeline, which was rejected by the Senate on Tuesday night. The project has divided Democrats, and President Obama has signaled that he is leaning against approving the huge project to pump oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Clinton has declined to offer a public opinion on Keystone, arguing that her connection to the State Department — which is leading the Obama administration’s review of the project — prevents her from taking sides. “She wrote a book called ‘Hard Choices,’ but she wouldn’t take an opinion on the Keystone pipeline,” Miller said. “She may be the only person in America without a position on the Keystone pipeline at this point.” A Clinton spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. For Clinton, however, there is little apparent upside to taking a stance now. If she comes out in favor of the pipeline, she will anger environmental and climate activists, including megadonor Tom Steyer and many other major Democratic contributors. If she opposes it, she will be at odds with many business leaders. Republicans intend to make life similarly uncomfortable for Clinton by combing through her State Department tenure and dipping into the scandals and controversies of her husband’s administration. Of course, they will also seek ways to tie Clinton to Obama, whose popularity is stuck underwater. “Like anything in life, preparation is the key to success,” Priebus said. “I’m a big believer that the most prepared team wins.” *The Hill: “Clinton enjoys unofficial candidacy” <http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/224638-clinton-enjoys-unofficial-candidacy>* By Amie Parnes November 19, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EST Sometimes Hillary Clinton is happy to embrace President Obama’s positions. Sometimes Clinton is happy to distance herself from Obama. And sometimes she just wants to stay out of it, such as with the battle over approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Clinton, who is weighing whether to make a second White House bid, hasn’t taken sides over the pipeline since the midterm elections spelled disaster for Democrats, nor did she weigh in in her memoir or during her book tour this summer. A Clinton spokesman didn’t respond to an email asking about the former secretary of State’s position, and more than 10 Clinton allies declined to comment, underscoring the precarious politics involved with a project that is vehemently opposed by green groups crucial in a Democratic presidential primary, but that is supported by many white working-class voters important in a general election. The Keystone caution differs from Clinton’s moves to distance herself from Obama’s handling of Syria and her willingness to tie herself to Obama on other issues, such as immigration. It shows a willingness by the front-runner for the Democratic nomination to handle the issues of Obama’s presidency on a case-by-case basis, in whatever way is most convenient for her own political future. “This is why it’s convenient not to be an official candidate,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of public affairs and history at Princeton University. “It’s easier to pick and choose what to speak about, while letting the president handle his own controversial issues.” On immigration, another high-profile issue confronting the White House, allies say Clinton will tie herself to Obama’s executive actions. They mostly see the expected immigration executive action as a win-win for Clinton, because Obama moving to give legal status to millions of immigrants could excite Hispanic and Asian-American voters who have become crucial parts of Democratic presidential coalitions. “It’s an early win for her,” said one former Clinton aide who worked on her 2008 presidential campaign. “The Republicans are still trying to figure out their position on this, and this helps her secure a huge bloc of voters. It’s probably the best thing Obama could have done for her.” Clinton knows that, if she runs for the White House, she’ll be asked about every move the president makes. She and her team will have to be ready to embrace Obama where it suits them, and to cast him aside when that would better serve her candidacy. And there will be some issues where it’s best to stay quiet — especially now, during an “interim period,” as one ally put it, when she’s not a candidate for the White House. They say that, for now, it makes the most sense to speak broadly about the challenges the country faces and not get weighed down by the trench warfare of day-to-day tactical battles. One of the only Clintonites willing to talk about Keystone said it’s a no-brainer for her to dodge the issue. “There are a million reasons for why she wouldn’t want to weigh in, but I can’t think of one good reason for her to speak her mind on the issue, at least right now,” the source said, adding that Clinton is “not at the State Department anymore, is not in elected office and is not a candidate.” Zelizer said Clinton likely hopes the issue will move on before she has to make a public comment about it. “If she has the option of keeping quiet, which as a not-yet candidate she does, this is a smart move,” he said. “She is hoping that the president can resolve this, or the issue fades before she needs to deal with it.” But it will be increasingly difficult to dodge these questions if her White House bid becomes official. And make no mistakes about it, Democratic rivals and Republicans alike will press her on the issue. “What is Secretary Clinton afraid of when it comes to Keystone?” said Tim Miller, the executive director of the super-PAC America Rising, which has been targeting Clinton. “Environmentalist mega-donors who did nothing to stop the Democrats’ widespread election losses? “It’s this type of overtly political posturing that turned voters off to her in 2008 and will cost her again next year,” Miller added. “Voters want to know where you stand.” But those in Hillaryland say she has lots of time to make her positions known. “This is her time to kick back, make a decision and not worry about the nitty-gritty,” said one former aide who worked on her 2008 campaign. “She can stay above the fray.” *Huffington Post opinion: Melanne Verveer: “Driving Growth through Women's Economic Participation” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melanne-verveer/driving-growth-through-wo_b_6179734.html>* By Melanne Verveer November 18, 2014, 4:13 p.m. EST Women's economic participation is a game-changer with the potential to transform entire economies and societies. The recently released World Economic Forum Gender Gap Report shows that while progress has been made in closing the gender gap, there is still much work to be done. In 2006, 56% of the economic participation gender gap had been closed, and that number is now 60%. It is critical that we focus our efforts on closing the divide in women's participation in the formal economy in order to grow economies, create jobs and enhance inclusive prosperity for all. As Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton put women's economic participation on the foreign policy agenda. Recently, at Georgetown University, she reiterated why: "If we pay extra attention to getting women into the formal economy, it will be good for everybody...We have to unlock the potential of every person, and grow the economies of every nation. It's the only way we're going to be able to grow together." As Secretary Clinton mentioned, if we were to close the gender gap on women's economic participation, global GDP would grow by over 12%. Some countries are tackling these issues head on. Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made women's economic participation, or womenomics, an integral part of his economic stimulus agenda. With an aging workforce and a low birth rate, Japan's labor force can no longer support the size of the country's economy, which has been stagnant for years. By closing the gender gap, Japan could boost its GDP by almost 13%. Prime Minister Abe has been working to reform the tax code, improve access to childcare and eldercare, reform immigration laws, and increase female participation in government in order to improve women's economic participation. Abe sees women's economic participation as critical to Japan's revitalization and long-term growth. This issue, however, is not just the responsibility of governments. The private sector plays a crucial role in catalyzing change, and corporations have the opportunity to be on the cutting edge. Access to finance, access to technology, sourcing from women-owned businesses, and changes to corporate culture all have the potential to increase women's participation and transform business as we know it. It has been demonstrated that diversity and inclusion are not only the right things for businesses to do, they also make the most business sense. Companies that are more diverse financially outperform their less diverse counterparts by about 18%. It has also been shown that companies with more women on their boards of directors experience higher financial performance. Accessing capital is a worldwide problem that female entrepreneurs face when trying to start or grow their small businesses. Women have a much more difficult time securing loans than men. This is as true for the CEO of a tech startup in the U.S. as for the seamstress in India who runs her own shop. Globally, women entrepreneurs, who earn billions in income each year, are a largely untapped market for financial institutions. By removing barriers and helping women secure loans, not only do women-owned businesses grow, but financial institutions can increase their profits as well. Access to technology is also becoming increasingly essential for women's economic participation. For example, a simple cell phone can revolutionize the way women do business. For a rural woman farmer trying to sell produce in Kenya, it can mean finding out where the closest market is on a given day. Cellular phones can also help women manage their finances and protect their savings. Mobile banking can enable the majority of the world's poor who are unbanked to access financial services for the first time. Likewise, mobile education applications provide training on important skills and resources to which women may not otherwise have access, such as financial literacy, management and leadership strategies, and networks of supporters and peers. Many companies have started to source their products from women-owned businesses, and women often prefer to buy products from other women. Adding more women to the supply chain is an essential step large corporations can take to to leverage the power of the female economy. Corporate culture can greatly women's participation in the workforce. For example, policies on parental leave, telecommuting, and flexible work hours influence women's ability to enter and remain in the workplace. Mentorship and sponsorship programs, elevating women into senior management positions, and adding women to corporate boards also further women's ability to succeed and make a greater contribution to the economy and society. This is an evidence-based case built on a growing body of research and data. Women are game-changers in the economic sphere; their full economic participation drives prosperity for all. Data and analysis have shown that women's economic participation is good for families, communities, societies, and countries, and it is good for business too. We can and must capitalize on the power of women's economic participation to transform the lives of individuals, businesses, and the entire global economy. *Politico: “Ready for Hillary ready to end” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/ready-for-hillary-ready-to-end-113018.html>* By Maggie Haberman November 18, 2014, 11:53 p.m. EST When staffers and supporters of Ready for Hillary gather Friday at a conference in Manhattan, the all-day event will mark the beginning of the end for the grassroots super PAC that was an impressive branding exercise that, for better or worse, helped freeze the field of competition against Hillary Clinton for 2016. The lower-dollar super PAC is set to begin its wind-down once Hillary Clinton declares her candidacy for president – something her allies insist she still may not do but which most expect her to. For the nearly two years it’s been in existence, Ready for Hillary has been described as a shadow campaign for Clinton, an imprecise shorthand that both oversold and undersold the work the group was doing. It was never intended to be a substitute for an actual campaign or signify a field operation that could be turned into the real thing with the flip of a switch, its organizers say – it was meant to harness energy, build a list and be the focal point where her supporters could look. There was never intense modeling beyond its direct-mail list, according to people familiar with its work. (Early discussions about doing more advanced modeling using voter data was abandoned, according to sources familiar with the work.) “The goal of this organization has always been clear — Ready for Hillary has an explicit mission and a stated path to accomplish it,” said Tracy Sefl, a senior adviser to the group. “Now, there are several million people who can take pride in — and rightly claim credit for — the progress made. Ready for Hillary isn’t done, but we’re still very grateful for the opportunity to reflect on where we are and what all of these supporters have helped build.” It also survived efforts to either curtail or outright stamp out its efforts in the first half of 2013, when some Clinton advisers grew alarmed by its presence. It ultimately became one of the most memorable political brands over the last two years. Exactly when it will come to an end is unclear – it will likely exist for a period of time if Clinton declares, going through a formal process of closing accounts and wrapping up loose ends. When it winds down, it will have a Facebook page with more than 3 million supporters and, people familiar with the group’s work say, an enhanced voter list that improved on Clinton’s own 2008 campaign data while attracting new names. The goal is to ultimately provide the new data to her campaign in the form of a swap, a move that the group’s critics have argued will prove harder than it thinks. They aggressively used social media and hawked “Ready for Hillary” merchandise, which raised money and helped build on the list. But the group’s officials say they have figured out how it will work from their end. And when she declares, there are tentative plans to find a way to move the supporters from the Facebook page over to her social media accounts, possibly through an email. Founded by former Hillary Clinton staffer Adam Parkhomenko, a 29-year-old who hatched the idea shortly after President Obama’s re-election, the group initially struggled for traction. But it soon became ubiquitous – the “Ready for…” phrasing worked its way into the political vernacular in the form of headlines and borrowed use by other elected officials. A pro-Elizabeth Warren group copied its name, appearing as “Ready for Warren.” “I’ve always looked at Hillary as a brand,” Parkhomenko, the group’s executive director, told Slate last year, at a time when few reporters were giving it much attention. “That’s been especially true in the last couple of years. It’s a brand I believe in. It’s a brand I want to protect. It’s a brand I want to build.” It may have been inadvertent, but “branding” was very much what Ready for Hillary accomplished – elevating her name and celebrity to great heights. The New Hampshire Jefferson-Jackson Democratic Dinner in October, where Bill Clinton spoke, was draped with signs made by the super PAC, which had “Ready” references to the state’s two top-level candidates, Gov. Maggie Hassan and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. In nearly two years, officials with the group said, it’s attracted almost 35,000 volunteers, hired 29 staffers raised more than $10 million and spent almost as much as it’s raised, primarily on fundraising and list-building. Ready for Hillary had trouble getting any press attention at first, but got key validation when it hired President Barack Obama’s former field organizer’s firm, 270 Strategies. Some Obama advisers have publicly questioned the utility for Clinton, who is still formulating a message for a likely candidacy, in having an apparatus bearing her name so early in the cycle. Some Obama advisers have publicly questioned the utility for Clinton, who is still formulating a message for a likely candidacy, in having an apparatus bearing her name so early in the cycle. Eventually, Ready for Hillary and another pro-Clinton entity, the high-dollar Priorities USA, brokered peace, in part with the help of current White House aide John Podesta, who was out of government at the time. It also got early support from top Bill and Hillary Clinton adviser Minyon Moore, a Dewey Square Group strategist who saw value in the organizing work the group was doing, even as other Clinton advisers said it would add to the aura of inevitability she was hoping to shed. Moore and another Dewey Square official, Jill Alper, have worked with the group since in a volunteer capacity, people familiar with the work say. When Craig Smith, a Clinton White House political director and old Arkansas friend of the former first couple, came on board as a senior adviser, it also added gravitas. And an early goal was to have a media-friendly approach. In the meantime, the group began establishing some form of a presence in every state, either through fundraisers or rallies. It became the official vehicle by which surrogates offered support for Clinton — with Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, an Obama supporter, coming on as one of the early big names. “We said from the beginning that empowering and engaging grass-roots supporters early on are the most critical components of building a winning, 21st century campaign — and frankly everything we’ve witnessed over the past year and a half of working with Ready for Hillary has only reinforced this perspective,” said 270 Strategies’ Lynda Tran. “We continue to believe that a successful, presidential-level effort needs to integrate a data-driven, people-focused approach with smart digital and communications strategies.” Yet, field organizing is difficult to do without a candidate, even when there is an idea of one. Outside groups rarely conduct field operations, since unlike TV ad spending by independent entities, it’s very hard to track and therefore not duplicate. It was “inspired by a campaign field structure, but the scale and focus are very different,” said one official working with the group. “The structure is essentially two streams that work in concert with each other — a general field stream and a constituency organizing stream.” That included a lot of chaser events during Clinton’s book tour, replete with a “Ready for Hillary” bus at which people who showed up to see her could leave their names. Clinton herself was said to appreciate the concept of the bus, which has visited college campuses. Among its most visible activities has been maintaining a presence in Iowa, where Clinton struggled in the 2008 caucuses. Veteran organizer Teresa Vilmain, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 campaign, has advised Ready for Hillary. Among the group’s major efforts was surrounding the annual and final Sen. Tom Harkin Steak Fry in September with a ring of signs that bore its trademark font, but simply said “Ready.” or “Thank you Tom.” “From the get-go, they were clear about their organizational goals and communicated them well. As in — find people that are RFH and collect their contact information,” she wrote in an email. Where some Clinton advisers have expressed concern is that her status as a political celebrity didn’t need enhancing, and a super PAC asking if people were “ready” for her implied that. And the group’s detractors have argued that almost everything it did would happen as soon as she declares. In a New York Times piece last year, some of the group’s detractors described it as a “make-work” program for people hovering around “Hillaryland.” Whether Clinton, who was a global figure as secretary of state, can effectively connect with voters after living in the State Department bubble and in a life of extreme wealth is a question her supporters have. Some RFH critics believe people involved with the group are seeking jobs with her eventual campaign. Clinton’s own aides haven’t addressed that, but the group’s supporters say they would be surprised if Clinton didn’t bring on some of those involved given their work so far. But ultimately, the perception of the group as a juggernaut helped freeze operatives who might have worked for a rival candidate, and gave pause to the group’s admirers had little downside. “They got a two-year head start,” said one supporter. *Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Fundraisers Rev Up for Possible Hillary Clinton Run” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/19/fundraisers-rev-up-for-possible-hillary-clinton-run/>* By Peter Nicholas November 19, 2014, 6:48 a.m. EST The fundraising machinery in support of Hillary Clinton’s anticipated presidential bid is churning along, with multiple events in the coming weeks aimed at smoothing her entrance into the 2016 contest. A group of New Jersey-based Democratic fundraisers and political operatives has scheduled a dinner in Newark on Monday to gather commitments for a donation to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign as soon as she announces she’s running, according to a person familiar with the event. About three dozen people are expected to attend. The organizers are Michael Kempner, a public relations executive, and Josh Gottheimer, who worked in Bill Clinton’s White House. The pair organized a similar event last month. “People understand that it will be very important for Hillary to make a significant financial statement right out of the box,” said the person familiar with the effort. “People want to be there to step up quickly and aggressively.” Separately, the super PAC Ready for Hillary is holding a fundraising event in Philadelphia on Dec. 2 with tickets ranging from $1,000 to $5,000, a copy of the invitation shows. Ready for Hillary is also holding a meeting of its national finance council in New York City on Friday. Mrs. Clinton isn’t a candidate yet, though she has said she’ll announce a decision in the new year. Ready for Hillary has been collecting names and email addresses of Clinton supporters, compiling lists that it will eventually make available to her campaign should she jump in the race. The event on Dec. 2 will be hosted by Leonard Barrack, a longtime Democratic fundraiser. Harold Ickes, a former Clinton White House official and a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign, is listed as the special guest. Those who donate $5,000 are invited to a special “VIP reception,” the invitation shows. *The Atlantic: “Hillary’s Silence on Iran and Immigration Reform” <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/hillarys-silence-on-iran-and-immigration-reform/382895/>* By Peter Beinart November 19, 2014, 7:00 a.m. EST [Subtitle:] The cautious Clinton of 2008 is back—and that shows why it's so essential she face a Democratic challenger in 2016. Two weeks after the midterms, we now know that President Obama is headed toward collisions with the Republican Congress over immigration reform, climate change, and perhaps a nuclear deal with Iran. What we don’t know is whether Hillary Clinton will have his back. On climate change, the presumptive 2016 Democratic nominee seems most in sync with her former boss. In September, she called warming “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world.” The New York Times recently speculated that since John Podesta, the man behind Obama’s climate-change efforts, will likely play a key role in her campaign, Clinton will publicly embrace Obama’s EPA regulations and his recent climate deal with Beijing, despite Republican fury. But on immigration and Iran, it’s harder to tell. On immigration, Clinton has a history of trying to play it safe. At a presidential debate in October 2007, she famously refused to state clearly whether she supported then-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s initiative to grant drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants. (“Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this?”) Today, Clinton clearly supports legislation to allow many of the undocumented to remain in the U.S. But when it comes to Obama’s effort to achieve that goal through executive action—an initiative he delayed this summer but seems set to implement now—she has studiously avoided taking a position. In September in Iowa, when an immigration activist named Cesar Vargas asked an autograph-signing Clinton “if you stand by the president’s delay on immigration,” she replied, “I think we have to elect more Democrats.” The following month in North Carolina, when 25-year-old Oliver Merino told Hillary that his mother risked being deported, she replied, “I understand immigration is an important issue, and we appreciate that. We thank you for your advocacy.” When it comes to Obama’s Iran policy, Clinton has been slightly less cagey and slightly more negative. In late 2007, she ran to Obama’s right on Iran, calling him “irresponsible and frankly naïve” for agreeing to meet without preconditions with Tehran’s leaders. This May, she declared, “I am also personally skeptical that the Iranians would follow through and deliver” on a nuclear deal. She’s also laid out tougher terms for such a deal than her former Obama administration colleagues. In July, she told Fareed Zakaria, “I believe strongly that it’s really important for there to be so little [uranium] enrichment or no enrichment, at least for a long period of time,” even though John Kerry, her successor as secretary of state, had already acknowledged, “I can’t tell you they might not have some enrichment” as part of a final nuclear deal. Just last week, Haim Saban, one of Clinton’s biggest donors, criticized Obama for having “shown too many carrots and a very small stick” in its dealings with Iran. Saban also endorsed legislation that would require Obama to gain congressional approval for any nuclear deal, something the White House will almost certainly resist. Perhaps the biggest reason Clinton hasn’t yet backed Obama’s efforts on immigration and Iran is that she hasn’t had to. Obama has not yet taken executive action on deportations, nor have his negotiators inked an agreement with Tehran. But that hasn’t stopped plenty of other politicians from tipping their hand. And it hasn’t stopped Clinton from taking positions on other issues—for instance, raising the minimum wage—where no presidential action is imminent. The other likely motive for Clinton’s coyness is her desire to avoid inheriting Obama’s baggage in 2016. Even if immigration reform is popular, Obama’s efforts to implement it unilaterally may not be. And as Saban’s comments suggest, an Iran deal will provoke fierce opposition not only among Republicans but among some of the hawkish “pro-Israel” Democrats to whom Clinton is close. But whether or not keeping her distance is good politics for Clinton, it’s bad politics for Obama. By distancing herself from Obama’s efforts, she encourages Democrats in Congress to do the same, especially those in more conservative states or dependent on more hawkish donors. And given the furious opposition Obama’s efforts will spark among Republicans, a public split among Washington Democrats will make it harder for him to prevail. All of which shows why it’s important that Clinton face a primary challenger. It’s the only way that progressives, who overwhelmingly support Obama on immigration and Iran, can influence her behavior. As I’ve written at some length, Clinton could prove an unusually savvy, capable, and effective president. But there’s a reason Democrats chose Obama instead of her in 2008: Because from granting drivers’ licenses for the undocumented to invading Iraq, she refused to break decisively from the Beltway conventional wisdom that many liberals believed was hurting the country. As Obama said at an Iowa dinner in October 2007, in his most devastating attack of the primary, “Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we’re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t do.” Clinton’s relative silence this year on both immigration and Iran suggests that some of that caution remains. If Democrats don’t want it to undermine Obama’s final year in the White House, they need to show that it could undermine her chances of getting their herself. *Politico: “Democrats to Obama: You broke the party, now fix it” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/barack-obama-democrats-113016.html>* By Edward-Isaac Dovere November 18, 2014, 10:35 p.m. EST Enough, Donna Brazile told White House political director David Simas the day after the midterms. Democrats are in worse shape than when President Barack Obama came into office — the number of seats they have in Congress, the number of governors, a party approval rating that’s fallen behind Republicans for the first time in recent history, enthusiasm, energy. The White House, Brazile said when she came to meet with Simas, has got to focus for the next two years on getting the party into better shape, and Obama’s the best and most effective person to get out the message. As much Hillary Clinton anticipation as there is, two weeks later, Democrats are still reeling and anxious. Obama may have built his political career without the party — and created anti-establishment alternatives — but he’s a lame duck with a new Congress that’s been elected to oppose him. He needs Democrats. And they need him. “The base craves his leadership,” Brazile said in an interview later that week, following a meeting of the DNC committee that’s beginning to set the rules for the next presidential nomination. “They want him in the mix, talking about what Democrats accomplished, what Democrats are fighting for, and what the president has done to make lives better.” Nancy Pelosi was reelected minority leader. So was Harry Reid. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s term at the DNC isn’t up until 2017. Obama said repeatedly before and after the votes were counted that he wasn’t going to fire anyone because of election results. But if no one’s going to take the blame for 2014, Democrats are hoping he’ll take responsibility for getting things better for 2016. “He may or may not be the best messenger,” said Vic Fazio, the former California congressman who was the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair for the 1994 rout. “But at this point, he is still our messenger. And the first year is very important.” At least until the next presidential campaign begins in earnest, Democrats say, it’ll be up to Obama to centralize the Democratic message around something other than simply trying to paint the Republicans as extreme. Interviews with leading party strategists turn to three main suggestions: Obama should be a much more frequent and strong voice on Democratic priorities, he should transform his West Wing political office from a midterm clearinghouse to an instrument for true party outreach, and he should reinvest his energy in the Democratic National Committee — including seeking a full-time chair who can begin the major clean-up and overhaul they need ahead of 2016. And if doing it for the party isn’t enough for Obama, Democrats say, do it out of self-interest. “A strong party is the key to a lasting legacy,” said a senior Democratic strategist. “Whether it’s for our ideals as Democrats or it’s for his personal legacy — if we lose the White House and continue to get gutted down ballot, they will repeal the ACA and everything else we’ve fought so hard for, and all of this will be for naught.” That should be a short-term worry for Obama too, Brazile said. “The Republicans have not retreated from the battlefield, so why should President Obama surrender?” she said. “He can’t give up, he can’t waver. All of that looks to Democrats like he doesn’t stand for much, and it’s not the truth.” In the West Wing, they’ve been projecting optimism since the midterms. The trip to Asia was a success, they say: Obama showed with the China carbon emissions deal how big and how bold he could go without Congress. He ignited a national debate from the other side of the planet by making a few short comments and releasing a fact sheet about net neutrality. There was progress, even, on the trade deals that might make up a big chunk of the limited agenda on which the White House is hoping to find workable compromises with Republicans. Look for more of that kind of leveraging of the president’s existing power and bully pulpit to tackle base priorities, aides say. White House chief of staff Denis McDonough initiated a process about a month before Election Day of internal conversations and outside advice, and they’re already in the initial stages of formulating a State of the Union they promise will be heavy on new proposals — which aides insist has so far not been reshaped by the Republican wins or loss of the Senate. Behind closed doors, they’re a little more shaken. “People are licking their wounds… trying to figure out where they go from here: ‘Can we be the phoenix rising from the ashes?’ Where are these issues where he’s going to dig in his heels and fight? Where does he compromise with Republicans, and how does he manage the politics of that?” said a Democratic strategist familiar with the White House. Through the election cycle, people in the White House would often say they felt frustrated and Obama to get out more and talk more about his message. Now, aides see two years of opportunities for a president who won’t be constrained anymore, who’ll be able to say what he wants without worrying about how it could scramble anyone else’s political considerations. Great, Democrats say. Now make something of it. Talk about the economic progress that’s happened. Talk about how to achieve job growth to build on it. “The best thing he can do is focus on income inequality, and talk about and propose things, and just be a fierce advocate for addressing the economic divide,” said another Democratic strategist with ties to the White House. “That will leave people after two years saying the Democratic Party really stands for something.” “What Bush failed to do, and to some extent Bill Clinton failed to do, is to make the final two years of their presidency something big, and advocate for it and make it a defining characteristic of the party,” the strategist said. “You have to come something that defines who your party is — even if you don’t make law and you’re not successful in the effort.” The White House declined comment on its own political plans, but over at the DNC, they say they’re already feeling good about the level of Obama involvement that many people in and around the party headquarters have complained about for years. “This president has been incredibly engaged and helpful to everything we’ve done,” said DNC communications director Mo Elleithee, citing Obama’s help on measures including retiring the DNC debt and beefing up the party data infrastructure. “He’s helped grow the party infrastructure nationally ever since his 2008 campaign, and he’s all in with us moving forward.” In Congress, where most Democrats feel bruised and battered from what most say has been a consistently standoffish and inattentive president, even among those who speak most warmly about him, there’s a warning that he can’t count on the caucus’s unwavering support over the next two years. “When it comes to climate, and when it comes to immigration, we’re in sort of alignment. In trade and other areas, it’s not so clear,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). “It’s going to depend on the issue, the kind of coalition.” But fixing the political problems is going to be even tougher given the history over the last six years, said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “We have lost our way. It’s a stormy ocean and we’re trying to find out way back to land to see where the hell we are,” Pascrell said. “But you can’t get back to land until you have a deep discussion, not just a philosophical, but a tangible, discussion about where we are as a party. It’s kind of difficult in the last two years of the presidency to do that because we have not had that kind of relationship.” Obama, said a White House aide speaking the day before the election, is very interested in the question of his political legacy himself. “He brought a bunch of people in the process in ’08. They sat out in ’10. Then it was a real question. Then they came out again in really good numbers in ’12. Are these people going to become Democratic voters? Are we going to be able to turn the Obama voter into a Democratic voter the way Reagan was able to turn the Reagan Democrat into a Republican?” the aide said. “If you can do that, we will not just be a presidential party, we will also have success in congressional elections, but also the priorities that we care about will be the ones that shape the discussion going forward.” Asked how that process was going so far, the aide deferred. “We don’t know. We’ll see.” *Politico: “Beyond Senate defeat, ill omens for Keystone” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/beyond-senate-defeat-ill-omens-for-keystone-113015.html>* By Andrew Restuccia November 18, 2014, 10:01 p.m. EST Never mind the cliffhanger defeat for the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Even if the Senate had passed the bill Tuesday, hints are mounting that President Barack Obama has hardened his stance against the $8 billion project and would veto any legislation green-lighting it, whether it comes from the current Democratic Senate or next year’s Republican Senate. The last two weeks offer the strongest evidence to date that Obama may reject the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline in the end: He made a groundbreaking global warming deal with China — the latest sign that he is building a serious climate change legacy. He has been more dismissive than ever of GOP arguments that Keystone would be a major job creator. And he has lost much of the political urgency for considering the pipeline — the most vulnerable red-state Democrats lost on Election Day, so there’s less reason to cater to endangered centrists begging for a “yes” vote on Keystone. Obama’s former aides, and others closely following the six-years-and-running Keystone drama, insist he still has plenty of wiggle room to rule either way when he finally renders a verdict, which could come in early 2015. The administration’s official stance is that it’s still awaiting the outcome of the State Department’s review of the project’s merits. But the latest remarks from the White House, and the president himself, have been increasingly bullish against the pipeline — and especially against attempts by Congress to force his hand. Some of his recent comments also mirror the arguments of green activists who allege that the pipeline would mainly be a boon for Canada’s oil export market. “I have to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States or is somehow lowering gas prices,” Obama said during a news conference last week in Myanmar. “Understand what the project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else.” Republicans made it clear Tuesday that they’ll try again when they take over the Senate in January, with a pro-Keystone majority large enough to overcome any filibuster. They and the pipeline’s Democratic supporters say they’re increasingly confident they can force the president’s hand by attaching a pro-pipeline measure to must-pass legislation or, less likely, by securing the 67 Senate votes needed to override a veto. “There’s always room for a deal,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a vocal Keystone supporter. But giving in on the pipeline would contradict Obama’s message on climate change, environmental groups and the president’s climate allies on the Hill say, especially given his devotion to reaching an international deal in Paris at the end of 2015. Despite the State Department’s repeated conclusions that the project would pose little risk of environmental damage, the pipeline has drawn greens’ ire because of the large amounts of greenhouse gases produced by western Canada’s oil sands region. “Given all the major strides the president has taken to cut carbon pollution, we are more confident than ever that he will reject this dirty and dangerous pipeline,” League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said. Approving Keystone would be “out of step with saving the planet from devastating climate change … just as we’re starting to make progress,” said Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who led the debate against the Keystone bill. Another Senate climate hawk, Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, was more cautious about reading too much into the Beijing deal as a crystal ball on Keystone. “The problem with these conversations is that we often presume they are logical … when we have a big and powerful industry that’s trying to have its way,” he said. The European Union’s top climate change official, Connie Hedegaard, has called on Obama to reject Keystone, saying it would send a “strong signal” about his seriousness on global warming. Green activists this week offered a preview of what they have in store for Obama if he approves the project and, in their view, tarnishes his environmental legacy. They staged sit-ins at the Senate offices of Democrats who supported the pipeline bill and flooded fence-straddling senators’ offices with phone calls, even accusing one blue-state senator — Cory Booker (D-N.J.) — of “throwing our families in the Heartland under the bus” if he were to vote yes. (Booker voted no on the bill.) While Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) desperately tried to whip votes for the Keystone bill, greens worked the phones to shore up opposition from liberal Senate Democrats. Top officials at the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club and 350.org all waited outside the Senate chamber as Tuesday’s drama played out, and people from the groups were seen congratulating several senators when the bill failed. The White House had stopped short of threatening to veto the bill, although press secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday that Obama “doesn’t support” the legislation and opposes efforts to circumvent the State Department process. Even if Congress never passes another Keystone bill, the completion of the State Department’s analysis would eventually bring the saga to a close. But when that happens is anybody’s guess. The department halted its review last spring to await the outcome of a Nebraska Supreme Court case involving a challenge to the pipeline’s route inside the state. The court could rule any day now, after which it could take weeks or months for the State Department to wrap up its analysis. The final outcome will pose political difficulties no matter how Obama rules, displeasing either his green base or pro-oil Democrats and jobs-eager labor unions. Opinion polls consistently find the project popular with large majorities of Americans. In addition, Democrats would gain some political advantage from Obama settling the issue sooner rather than later, if only to keep it from burdening a 2016 White House run by Hillary Clinton. Obama has never said where he stands on the pipeline’s merits, and his words and actions have been mixed — though increasingly critical. “The administration is looking to keep its options open here,” one former administration official who has been close to the issue told POLITICO earlier this year, following the release of the latest State Department environmental study. Obama rejected Keystone developer TransCanada’s initial permit application in early 2012, after Republicans pushed through a bill giving him just 60 days to decide. But after the company reapplied, he told the Army Corps of Engineers to speed up its review of Keystone’s southern half, which runs from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. (That portion is now operating.) He even went to a TransCanada pipe storage yard in Oklahoma and boasted that his administration “has approved dozens of new oil and gas pipelines over the last three years — including one from Canada.” But in his second term, with climate change becoming a growing priority, his tone has turned increasingly negative. He told Republican senators early last year that the administration is not “ideologically averse” to the pipeline, and that “some of the environmental concerns have been over-exaggerated,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said afterward. But he has also accused Keystone supporters of overstating its job-creation potential, while telling The New York Times that Canada “could potentially be doing more” to counteract the greenhouse gas emissions being unleashed from its oil fields. Obama’s most noteworthy public statement on the pipeline was his June 2013 declaration that “our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution” — but Keystone supporters and opponents differed dramatically on what they thought he meant. Greens argued that the pipeline couldn’t possibly clear that bar, while supporters of the project pointed to the past State Department studies as evidence that it already has. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who voted against the Senate bill Tuesday, said Obama needs to end the suspense. “Well, I do think the president ought to move ahead and make a decision,” King said. The power to make that decision was entrusted to him, and I think he should exercise it.” *Los Angeles Times column: Doyle McManus: “A Bernie Sanders candidacy could help Hillary Clinton” <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-column-sanders-democrats-2016-20141119-11-column.html>* By Doyle McManus November 18, 2014, 4:54 p.m. PST I'm going out on a limb here, but Bernie Sanders is not going to be our next president. Still, the independent socialist senator from Vermont is sounding more and more like a man who intends to defy the doubters and run. And he could play an important role in the campaign. Sanders hasn't formally announced his candidacy; he hasn't even changed his party registration. (If he runs, it will be in the Democratic primaries.) But he's doing everything an aspiring candidate needs to do. He's traveled to Iowa and New Hampshire. He's signed up (provisionally) a high-powered campaign manager, Tad Devine, who worked on the presidential campaigns of John F. Kerry and Al Gore. He's buttonholing reporters with even more zeal than usual. And this week, he even submitted to the gentle ridicule of faux conservative Stephen Colbert to win seven minutes of national television time. “A self-described socialist!” Colbert faux-sneered. “Do you frighten people when you walk around the Capitol? Are they afraid you're going to take their tractor and give it to the whole village?” “Hopefully we frighten the billionaire class,” Sanders replied as a youthful studio audience cheered. Get ready to hear Sanders repeat that phrase, “the billionaire class,” a lot. It's the core of his message, the theme that makes him passionate: his conviction that the wealthy have hijacked not only the economy, but also the political system. There may not have been a major-party presidential candidate with so blunt a populist message on the economy since Franklin D. Roosevelt ran against “economic royalists” in 1936. “The biggest issue in the country is that we don't discuss the biggest issue in the country,” Sanders told me in his Senate office last week. “How does it happen that today the economists tell us that 95% of all new income created in America goes to the top 1%? How does it happen that we have by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth, where one family, the Walton family of Wal-Mart, owns more wealth than the bottom 40% of the American people? How does that happen, and what do we do about it?” Sanders' answers on what to do come from a crisp checklist: Higher taxes on the wealthy, a much higher minimum wage, $1 trillion of new spending on roads and public transportation and European-style national health insurance (which he tries to make less foreign by calling it “Medicare for all”). He's asking the right questions. The stagnation of middle class incomes in the midst of an economic recovery has become the central challenge for both political parties. Exit polls in this month's midterm elections found that 63% of all voters believe the U.S. economic system isn't fair to most Americans, but “favors the wealthy.” But does Sanders really think his untrammeled populism can win him the nomination, much less a general election? “I'm running to win,” he insists. “It won't be just an educational campaign.” When pressed, however, he acknowledges that he thinks even a losing campaign would be a good thing because of its potential to bring more attention to his ideas, widen the national debate and put pressure on Hillary Rodham Clinton or any other eventual Democratic nominee. Win or lose, Sanders will fill a familiar role if he decides to run. Democratic presidential primaries almost always include at least one populist or quasi-populist candidate on the left. In 2008, it was John Edwards. In 2004, it was Howard Dean. In 1992, it was California's own Jerry Brown. And none of them won the nomination. This year, there could be three candidates running to the left of Clinton. In addition to Sanders, there might be Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (who says he's running, but hasn't succeeded in defining much of a theme yet) and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who spent most of the summer saying she wouldn't run, but recently modified that to “I don't think so.” Meanwhile, former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) has been talking about running as a moderate to Clinton's right. Challenges like these would be a good thing for Clinton. For one thing, they would give voters a reason to tune in to Democratic primary debates; otherwise, the brawling Republican field would get hours of television time all to itself. For another, if she has challengers on both the left and right, Clinton could conveniently cast herself as the woman in the middle, the champion of her party's broad center. And finally, it would be good for Clinton to work through her campaign style in more friendly waters. The last thing she wants is to sail through the primaries untested and have to develop her battle skills in actual combat with her Republican opponent. “She needs to get out of the cocoon of inevitability,” former Barack Obama strategist David Axelrod said last week. If Clinton wins the nomination, she's unlikely to thank her Democratic opponents for trying to stop her from breaking the glass ceiling — but she should. *Associated Press: “2016 contest overshadows GOP governors meeting” <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e4d6baa3a47047cdb3c0a2bc0b8b6df6/2016-contest-overshadows-gop-governors-meeting>* By Steve Peoples and Jill Colvin November 19, 2014, 3:30 a.m. EST BOCA RATON, Fla. (AP) — No fewer than a half-dozen potential presidential candidates are gathering in Florida as the Republican Governors Association prepares to select its next leader. The organization's annual conference begins Wednesday in a luxury oceanside resort where the nation's Republican governors will celebrate their party's recent success in the midterm elections. Privately, they're jockeying for position as the 2016 presidential contest looms. None of the most likely White House candidates is expected to seek to replace New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as chairman, a position with responsibilities that would conflict with the presidential primary season. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said he would not run for the RGA chairmanship for just that reason. "It's pretty obvious at least it's something I should consider," Walker said of a White House bid during an interview with The Associated Press. "And if I'm going to do that, I'm not going to put my colleagues in the position of having someone in place who isn't 100 percent committed to the leadership of the organization." The conference comes two weeks after the GOP's midterm rout, in which they gained control of Congress and expanded their majority of governorships across the country. In January the Republican Party will control 31 compared with Democrats' 19. The party's strong performance offers a presidential springboard to governors who won re-election, Walker among them, and others, like Christie, who played a leading role in the GOP's success. While Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the overwhelming Democratic front-runner should she seek the presidency, the prospective Republican field is crowded and without a clear leader. A handful of Senate Republicans may join the 2016 contest, but many donors and party officials would prefer a presidential nominee to emerge from the ranks of the Republican governors, who have executive experience and are not tainted by Congress' low approval ratings. Christie arrives in Florida in a strong position after having broadened his national network while raising tens of millions of dollars to help elect Republican governors. Christie and Walker will spend this week alongside a list of other prospective presidential candidates that includes Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. Governors, governors-elect, senior aides and prominent donors began to descend on the Boca Raton Resort & Club on Tuesday. The bright pink resort is a sprawling maze of fountains, manicured gardens, ballrooms and high-end restaurants, complete with its own beach club, marina and golf clubhouse. The coming days will be filled with dinners and receptions, where governors can meet privately with donors and strategists. While much of this week's action takes place behind closed doors, a Wednesday open session titled "Republican Governors: The Road Ahead" features five prospective presidential contenders: Pence, Perry, Jindal, Walker and Kasich. In one of the gathering's only formal agenda items, Christie will hand over the reins of the RGA on Thursday, ending what has arguably been a politically life-saving tenure as the group's chairman. Beyond boosting his 2016 prospects, he has used the position to help repair his reputation after the political retribution traffic scandal in New Jersey that badly tainted his brand earlier in the year. But the role has also cost him at home. An AP analysis of his public schedule shows that Christie will have spent about 40 percent of his second term out of state by the time he finishes up in Florida on Friday. At the same time, his popularity has slumped at home, according to a number of local polls, with increasingly vocal critics charging that he's neglected local issues. None of the Republican governors considering the presidency is particularly popular at home, however, according to interviews with voters after this month's midterm elections. Just a quarter of Louisiana voters said Jindal would make a good president, while one-third of Texas voters said the same of Perry. For Walker, who just won his third gubernatorial election in four years, just over 4 in 10 of Wisconsin voters said he is presidential material. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · November 19 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton is honored by the National Breast Cancer Coalition (Breast Cancer Deadline <http://www.breastcancerdeadline2020.org/donate/fundraising-events/2014-NY-Gala-Evite.html> ) · November 20 – Memphis, TN: Sec. Clinton attends the dedication of The Marlo Thomas Center for Global Education & Collaboration at St. Jude (WMC <http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/27188542/hillary-clinton-plans-trip-to-st-jude-former-president-bill-clinton-visits-arkansas> ) · November 21 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton presides over meeting of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (Bloomberg <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-02/clinton-aides-resist-calls-to-jump-early-into-2016-race> ) · November 21 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton is honored by the New York Historical Society (Bloomberg <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-02/clinton-aides-resist-calls-to-jump-early-into-2016-race> ) · December 1 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton keynotes a League of Conservation Voters dinner (Politico <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-green-groups-las-vegas-111430.html?hp=l11> ) · December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>) · December 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton honored by Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights (Politico <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hillary-clinton-ripple-of-hope-award-112478.html> )