podesta_email_01395.txt

podesta-emails 48,551 words email
-----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-----

					*H4A News Clips*

*[April 11, 2015]*

Summary of Today’s news

On Friday evening, President Obama and President Raúl Castro of Cuba shook
hands at a summit in Panama, marking the first full-fledged meeting between
presidents of the United States and Cuba in more than a half-century. *The
New York Times *and other outlets reports on what sources have told them
about Hillary Clinton’s expected presidential announcement. The records
released on Thursday by the National Archives at the Clinton Library
highlight how Hillary Clinton’s staff took a progressive stand on a number
of gay-rights issues.

Today’s Key Stories. 2
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506028>

Handshake for Obama and Raúl Castro of Cuba [Julie Hirschfeld Davis &
Randal C. Archibold, NYT, April 10, 2015] 2
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506029>

Hillary Clinton to Announce 2016 Run for President on Sunday [Amy Chozick
and Maggie Haberman, NYT, April 10, 2015] 4
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506030>

In Bill Clinton White House, Hillary Clinton's staff helped push on gay
rights [Josh Gerstein, POLITICO, April 10, 2015] 6
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506031>

National Coverage – HRC AND DEMS. 10
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506032>

National Stories. 10
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506033>

Hillary Clinton to announce 2016 bid Sunday with video [Brianna Keilar &
Jeff Zeleny, CNN, April 10, 2015] 10
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506034>

Hillary Clinton skeptics fear 'an unstoppable train' [Gabriel DeBendetti,
POLITICIO, April 10, 2015] 12
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506035>

*Concerns mount that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign will be no different
than her ’08 campaign.* 12
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506036>

Clinton studying up on upward mobility with Harvard economist [Annie
Linsky, The Boston Globe, April 10, 2015] 16
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506037>

Hillary Clinton begins her entry into the 2016 presidential race [Anne
Gearan & Philip Rucker, WaPo, April 10, 2015] 18
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506038>

Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign to Make a Low-Key Start [Peter
Nicholas & Laura Meckler, WSJ, April 10, 2015] 22
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506039>

Can Hillary Clinton run an intimate campaign? [Alex Seitz-Wald, MSNBC,
April 10, 2015] 25
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506040>

Hillary Clinton's 2016 Campaign Kickoff Will Look a Lot Like Her 2000
Senate Run [Emily Schultheis, National Journal, April 10, 2015] 27
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506041>

Hillary Clinton, First Lady, on Gay Marriage: A Case Study In Opacity
[Sasha Issenberg, Bloomberg, April 10, 2015] 29
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506042>

Hillary Clinton threatens to steal Marco Rubio's thunder [Daniel Lippman,
POLITICO, April 10, 2015] 30
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506043>

Hillary Clinton Is the Perfect Age to Be President [Dr. Julie Holland,
TIME, April 3, 2015] 31
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506044>

Hillary to Launch Campaign This Weekend With ‘Insane’ Fundraising Push
[David Freedlander, The Daily Beast, April 10, 2015] 33
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506045>

A contest, or a coronation? [The Economist, April 10th, 2015] 34
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506046>

Hillary Clinton Can't Coast on Her Belief in Climate Science [Rebecca
Leber, TNR, April 10, 2015] 39
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506047>

Review: ‘Clinton the Musical’ Proves Unimpeachably Amusing [Laura
Collins-Hughes, NYT, April 10, 2015] 41
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506048>

Bloomberg Politics Poll: Democrats and Independents Don’t Want a Hillary
Coronation [John McCormick, Bloomberg Politics, April 10, 2015] 42
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506049>

What losing in 2008 taught Hillary about how to win in 2016 [Jonathan
Allen, Vox, April 10, 2015] 45
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506050>

Clinton team courts progressive economists [Alex Seitz-Wald, MSNBC, April
10, 2015] 48
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506051>

GOP: Clinton announcement won't blunt Benghazi probe [Lauren French,
POLITICO, April 10, 2015] 49
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506052>

President Obama’s Quiet Case for Hillary Clinton in 2016 [Devin Dwyer, ABC
News, April 11, 2015] 51
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506053>

NRA convention becomes Hillary Clinton roast [John McCormick, Bloomberg
Politics, April 10, 2015] 53
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506054>

The Hillary Clinton steamroller rumbles to life [Harry Enten,
FiveThirtyEight, April 10, 2015] 56
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506055>

O’Malley aiming for late May announcement on ‘colossal undertaking’ [John
Wagner, WaPo, April 10, 2015] 58
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506056>

In Iowa, Martin O'Malley lays out vision for Democratic Party [Ari Melber,
MSNBC, April 10, 2015] 59
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506057>

National Blogs. 64
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506058>

Hillary Clinton Team Holds Off-The-Record Journalist Meeting Ahead Of 2016
Announcement [Michael Calderone, HuffPost, April 10, 2015] 64
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506059>

Hillary Clinton team woos reporters [Dylan Byers, POLITICO, April 10, 2015]
65
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506060>

Library documents show revisions on Hillary Clinton’s image, identity
[Rebecca Ballhaus, WSJ Washington Wire, April 10, 2015] 68
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506061>

The impossibility of Hillary Clinton ‘going small’ [Chris Cillizza, WaPo
The Fix, April 10, 2015] 69
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506062>

David Axelrod compli-sults Hillary Clinton [Aaron Blake, WaPo, April 10,
2015] 71
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506063>

Bloomberg falls for fake Nancy Reagan report [Hadas Gold, POLITICO, April
10, 2015] 73
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506064>

National Coverage - GOP.. 73
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506065>

National Stories. 73
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506066>

Jeb Bush's Emails: Why Are So Many Key Episodes MIA? [Pema Levy & Sam
Brodey, Mother Jones, April 10, 2015] 73
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506067>

Jeb Bush backed background checks at gun shows [Benjy Sarlin, MSNBC, April
10, 2015] 78
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506068>

In South Florida, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are forcing locals to pick sides
[Ed O’Keefe, WaPo, April 10, 2015] 79
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506069>

Secret Money Group Tied to Marco Rubio Super PAC Has Been Researching
Presidential Primary Voters [Scott Bland, National Journal, April 10, 2015]
82
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506070>

Hedge-Fund Magnate Robert Mercer Emerges as a Generous Backer of Cruz [Eric
Lichtblau & Alexandra Stevenson, NYT, April 10, 2015] 84
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506071>

As Scott Walker addresses NRA, concealed carry shifts surface [Matthew
DeFour, Wisconsin State Journal, April 10, 2015] 87
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506072>

The Best Reason to Take Rand Paul Seriously Has Nothing to Do With His
Politics [Jim Rutenberg, NYT Magazine, April 10, 2015] 88
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506073>

National Blogs. 91
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506074>

Jeb Bush hires two new foreign policy advisers [Ed O’Keefe, WaPo, April 10,
2015] 91
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506075>

How Rand Paul Can Get Better at Interviews [Alan Rappeport, NYT First
Draft, April 10, 2015] 92
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506076>

Ted Cruz: 'Jihad' Was Waged Against Religious Freedom Bills [Daniel
Strauss, TPM, April 10, 2015] 93
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506077>

Marco Rubio Assails Obama but Not Clinton at N.R.A. Forum [Nick Corasaniti,
NYT First Draft, April 10, 2015] 93
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506078>

Big National News. 94
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506079>

National Stories. 94
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506080>

White House: Iran deal requires phased sanctions removal [Jim Kuhnhenn,
WaPo, April 10, 2015] 94
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506081>

New Sea Drilling Rule Planned, 5 Years After BP Oil Spill [Coral Davenport,
NYT, April 10, 2015] 95
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506082>

General Electric to sell bulk of its finance unit [Andrew Ross Sorkin &
Michael J. de la Merced, NYT Dealbook, April 10, 2015] 97
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506083>

Tackling America’s Police Abuse Epidemic [Michael Hirsh, Politico, April
10, 2015] 100
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc416506084>

Other DEM Campaign News. 3
<https://d.docs.live.net/3ee74be98973740c/HRC/Clips/National%20H4A%20Clips%2020150411.docx#_Toc388948927>

Today’s Key Stories

Handshake for Obama and Raúl Castro of Cuba [Julie Hirschfeld Davis &
Randal C. Archibold, NYT, April 10, 2015
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/world/americas/cuba-us-obama-castro-terrorism.html>
]

*President Obama and President Raúl Castro of Cuba shook hands here on
Friday night, and American officials said they would hold discussions on
Saturday during a gathering of regional leaders, in the first full-fledged
meeting between presidents of the United States and Cuba in more than a
half-century*

PANAMA CITY, Panama — President Obama and President Raúl Castro of Cuba
shook hands here on Friday night, and American officials said they would
hold discussions on Saturday during a gathering of regional leaders, in the
first full-fledged meeting between presidents of the United States and Cuba
in more than a half-century.

The expected encounter was not on Mr. Obama’s official schedule, but it
held deep significance for the regional meeting, as the president’s move to
ease tensions with Cuba has overshadowed the official agenda.

Mr. Obama is nearing a decision on removing Cuba’s three-decade-old
designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, citing progress in the effort
to re-establish diplomatic ties after half a century of hostilities.

He spoke by telephone with Mr. Castro before the gathering, and on
Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry met with Bruno Rodríguez, the Cuban
foreign minister — the highest-level session between the governments in
more than 50 years — to lay the groundwork for the advancing
reconciliation. The much-anticipated handshake on Friday night came as
leaders gathered for a welcome dinner, where Mr. Obama and Mr. Castro were
seated at the same table, separated by two other people.

Before the official start of the summit meeting, Mr. Obama spoke at a civil
society forum. “As we move toward the process of normalization, we’ll have
our differences government-to-government with Cuba on many issues, just as
we differ at times with other nations within the Americas,” he said.
“There’s nothing wrong with that, but I’m here to say that when we do speak
out, we’re going to do so because the United States of America does
believe, and will always stand for, a certain set of universal values.”

The president rushed through a packed schedule on Friday as the summit
meeting got underway, beginning his day with a tour of the Panama Canal.

At a forum with business executives Mr. Obama promoted a $1 billion
investment package he has proposed for Central America in an effort to
address the causes of the surge of immigrants across America’s southern
border last summer. “The more we see our economies as mutually dependent
rather than a zero-sum game, I think the more successful all of us will
be,” he said.

Mr. Obama made it clear that he still had human rights concerns and was
determined to discuss them openly. He held a lengthy meeting with civil
society leaders from 12 other countries, including two from Cuba, after a
speech at the forum in which he referred to the American civil rights and
gay rights movements and to people who opposed apartheid in South Africa
and Communism in the Soviet Union.

“Civil society is the conscience of our countries,” he said.

Cuba is attending the Summit of the Americas for the first time since the
meeting’s inception in 1994. As senior Cuban and American officials spoke,
people representing pro- and anti-Cuban government groups clashed for the
third straight day on the sidelines, drawing a contrast with the diplomatic
warming.

Hours before Mr. Obama arrived to address the civil society forum at a
hotel here, members of groups sent by the Cuban government tried to block
access to dissidents, calling them mercenaries who did not speak for Cuba.

At one point, amid angry chanting by the various groups, one of Cuba’s
best-known government opponents, Guillermo Farinas, was jostled and
manhandled as he tried to pass through a crowd of pro-Castro demonstrators.

“These aren’t really dissidents, they aren’t really interested in democracy
and human rights,” Patricia Flechilla, a Cuban student and delegate at the
summit meeting, told reporters, going on to repeat a familiar complaint
from the Cuban government that opponents are paid and propped up by foreign
governments, namely the United States.

The fracas interrupted the work of the forum, made up of nongovernmental
groups from across the hemisphere, to produce a statement directed at the
region’s leaders.

Later, before Mr. Obama arrived, scores of people waving Cuban flags and
chanting “Long Live Fidel, Long Live Raúl” gathered outside the hotel.

Santiago Canton, executive director of RFK Partners for Human Rights at the
Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, said the presence of
Cuba at the summit meeting would inevitably lead to discord that only
highlighted the lack of democracy and human rights on the island. “People
were sent by the Cuban government to disrupt everything going on, and they
are doing that well,” he said after observing the clash. “Human rights and
democracy are weak points on the Cuban side.”

Representatives of the Cuban delegation said they would withdraw from the
civil society forum rather than “share space with mercenaries.”

Hillary Clinton to Announce 2016 Run for President on Sunday [Amy Chozick
and Maggie Haberman, NYT, April 10, 2015
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-announce-2016-run-for-president-on-sunday.html?ref=politics>
]

*Hillary Clinton’s campaign launch is expected to take a slow path forward,
starting with a visit to Iowa on Sunday.*

The prolonged prologue to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s second run for the White
House will reach its suspenseless conclusion on Sunday: The former
secretary of state, senator and first lady is to announce that she will
indeed seek the Democratic nomination for president.

Mrs. Clinton is expected to begin her campaign with a video message on
social media, followed by a visit to important early-primary states next
week, said two people briefed on her plans.

But for all the attention paid to how Mrs. Clinton would reveal her 2016
candidacy, little has been said about her reasons for mounting another
presidential bid. Her campaign rollout is expected to provide voters,
particularly users of Twitter, Facebook and other social media, a succinct
rationale that she is best positioned to address an American electorate
that has seen virtually stagnant wages for middle-income earners over the
last 15 years.

A fresh epilogue to Mrs. Clinton’s 2014 memoir, “Hard Choices,” posted on
The Huffington Post Friday morning, signaled a number of elements of what
is very likely to be a familiar feature of her campaign message: evoking
her new status as a grandmother to talk about creating opportunities for
all Americans.

“I’m more convinced than ever that our future in the 21st century depends
on our ability to ensure that a child born in the hills of Appalachia or
the Mississippi Delta or the Rio Grande Valley grows up with the same shot
at success that Charlotte will,” Mrs. Clinton wrote, referring to her new
granddaughter.

Mrs. Clinton will begin testing that and other themes in earnest beginning
on Sunday and stretching through next week when she travels to Iowa and
later this month to New Hampshire for a series of small-scale events where
she can field questions and address the concerns of the voters her campaign
calls “everyday Americans,” people made aware of her plans said.

In the early months of the Democratic primary contest, Mrs. Clinton’s
campaign hopes to capture some of the magic of her successful 2000 run for
the Senate in New York, when she worked to show some of the common touch
that had helped catapult her husband to the White House. Her governing
principle in the 2000 campaign was demonstrating that she would work hard
to earn every vote.

Mrs. Clinton’s team is also planning a slow expansion of its staff over the
course of the year, deliberately avoiding the appearance of a battleship
heading into the fight, as her organization seemed on her entry into the
2008 Democratic campaign. Back then, Mrs. Clinton arrived at some events in
Iowa on a chartered aircraft called the “Hill-A-Copter” that made her
campaign seem presumptuous.

But even as Mrs. Clinton attempts to set aside her celebrity and offer
herself as a fighter for ordinary voters, her finance team and the outside
groups supporting her candidacy have started collecting checks in what is
expected to be a $2.5 billion effort, dwarfing the vast majority of her
would-be rivals in both parties.

The Clinton campaign’s fund-raising staff and other aides have already
started working out of a new headquarters in Brooklyn, with almost the
entire team working there on Friday.

Mrs. Clinton has fielded advice from more than 200 policy experts in
formulating her economic agenda and still has not settled on the details.
Rather than deliver a robust policy speech immediately, she intends to ease
into presenting her ideas for alleviating the growing gap between rich and
poor and for increasing wages, said several people involved in her plans.
The slow pace will allow her to continue to generate news coverage as
Republican presidential hopefuls engage in heated debates in their crowded
primary field.

But the essence of Mrs. Clinton’s message has become clearer and was
reiterated in the new epilogue of her memoir on Friday. “You shouldn’t have
to be the granddaughter of a president or a secretary of state to receive
excellent health care, education, enrichment, and all the support and
advantages that will one day lead to a good job and a successful life,” she
wrote.

Many factors played into the timing of Mrs. Clinton’s announcement. Senator
Marco Rubio of Florida, whom Mrs. Clinton’s advisers are watching closely
as a potential opponent, staked a claim on Monday as his announcement date.
Mrs. Clinton’s announcement on Sunday will certainly draw attention from
Mr. Rubio’s entry into the race and could well eclipse it.

Some in her campaign are betting that Democrats will applaud the show of
force against a Republican. (Others involved insisted the date was selected
before Mr. Rubio scheduled his event, but said that the juxtaposition was
an added bonus.)

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers are holding a conference call for her entire staff
on Saturday afternoon, according to two people briefed about it. For all
the planning that went into Sunday’s event, her team has been working
feverishly in recent days, another sign of how the campaign’s
infrastructure has been slow to take shape.

In Bill Clinton White House, Hillary Clinton's staff helped push on gay
rights [Josh Gerstein, POLITICO, April 10, 2015
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/clinton-white-house-gay-rights-hillary-clinton-staff-116859.html>
]

*The records released by the National Archives at the Clinton Library here
Thursday demonstrate that Hillary Clinton’s staff took a progressive stand
on other gay-rights issues and helped push to torpedo anti-gay-rights
legislation.*

LITTLE ROCK —Newly-disclosed documents show President Bill Clinton’s White
House engulfed in a political firestorm over gay marriage in the mid-1990s,
but they offer no indication that Hillary Clinton pushed her husband to
abandon his opposition to such unions or to veto the Defense of Marriage
Act, which he signed two months before his re-election in 1996.

The records released by the National Archives at the Clinton Library here
Thursday demonstrate that Hillary Clinton’s staff took a progressive stand
on other gay-rights issues and helped push to torpedo anti-gay-rights
legislation.

Story Continued Below

The saga of the Clinton White House’s handling of the Defense of Marriage
Act, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court two years
ago, remains a bitter one for some gay activists. But the more than 5,000
White House documents made public for the first time Thursday offer what
could be a political silver lining for Hillary Clinton as she prepares to
announce her second presidential bid.

The files show several of her staffers lobbied actively on behalf of the
gay community during her husband Bill’s White House tenure, while
presidential aides debated how to position him on key issues given his
personal opposition to same-sex unions.

In an August 2000 memo, domestic policy aide Ann O’Leary — a liaison
between Hillary Clinton’s office and President Bill Clinton’s policy staff
— pushed for government-wide vetting of an executive order to ban federal
contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Writing
to Clinton Domestic Policy Adviser Bruce Reed, O’Leary said such a
directive could be modeled on a 1941 order by President Franklin Roosevelt
that banned racial discrimination by contractors.

An order forbidding contractors from discriminating against gays and
lesbians was eventually issued by the White House, but not until last year
— some two presidencies later. “Many of you have worked for a long time to
see this day coming,” President Barack Obama said when he signed the order.

Other memos made public this week at the Clinton Library show aides to
Hillary Clinton worked to defeat an effort spearheaded by Rep. Steve
Largent (R-Okla.) to prevent unmarried couples from adopting children in
Washington, D.C. The measure passed the House in 1998, but was later
dropped from an appropriations bill. In 1999, it was narrowly defeated in a
floor vote.

The files underscore how dramatically the politics of same-sex marriage
have changed over two decades. Most national-level Democratic politicians
now fully embrace gay marriage rights, and the Supreme Court is set to hear
a case later this month that could guarantee recognition of same-sex
marriages nationwide.

But back in 1996, Bill Clinton’s aides wrestled at length over the issue
before he signed DOMA, the law banning gay couples from receiving federal
benefits and declaring that states did not have to recognize same-sex
marriages from other states.

The records show the legislation caused political heartburn for the Clinton
White House, which was caught between the president’s stated opposition to
same-sex marriage and a desire to keep his gay and lesbian supporters
enthusiastic about his unfolding re-election campaign.

While there appears to have been little discussion of Clinton vetoing the
DOMA bill in 1996, some White House aides urged a softer line against gay
marriage and a full embrace of civil unions.

However, in April of that year, Clinton personally approved talking points
framing same-sex marriage as a threat to traditional marriage.

“The institutions of traditional marriage and family face tremendous
pressures in today’s society,” says a memo from White House Counsel Jack
Quinn bearing Clinton’s trademark left-handed check mark on the “AGREE”
line. “We must do everything we can to support and strengthen these
institutions.”

The talking points — sent to the Oval Office for clearance in response to a
request from a gay magazine, The Advocate — note that Clinton “has
previously said that he does not personally support same-sex marriages.”

The memo strikes a neutral tone towards discussions about civil unions,
supporting the idea of non-discrimination while again suggesting such
efforts could undermine male-female marriages or offend religious beliefs.

“The challenge in addressing these issues is to remain sensitive to the
traditional values of our communities while preserving the fundamental
right to live free from unjustified discrimination,” the position paper
said.

One memo released Thursday shows that two White House aides who served as
liaisons to the gay and lesbian community, Director of Presidential
Personnel Marsha Scott and domestic policy aide Richard Socarides, urged
Clinton to publicly oppose the GOP bill.

“We have been extremely successful in rebuilding our relationships to our
friends in the gay and lesbian communities despite the fiasco of gays in
the military, the disjointed handling of the Colorado case [at the Supreme
Court over an anti-gay-rights measure], and the President’s stated personal
opposition to gay marriage,” Scott and Socarides wrote in a May 1996 memo
addressed to Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes. “Our support for this bill
would be taken by many in the gay communities as an expression by the
President of deep ceded [sic] bias against gay people.”

They urged that Clinton reaffirm his “strong personal opposition to
same-sex marriage…but oppose this bill as an intrusion on what for over 200
years has been the prerogative of state legislatures.”

It’s unclear if such proposals ever reached Clinton. Other top aides,
including Scott, eventually argued to Clinton that he could not oppose DOMA
without appearing to renege on his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“Given your stated and longstanding opposition to gay marriage, we believe
there would not be a substantive basis for you not to sign the proposed
legislation if it were to be adopted by Congress,” White House Counsel Jack
Quinn, Communications Adviser George Stephanopoulous and Scott sent to
Clinton in May 1996.

The records indicate Clinton saw that memo, but they do not show explicit
action. However, another set of talking points approved by Clinton that
month take a fairly hard line against any federal recognition for same-sex
marriage.

“The President has long opposed gay marriage based on his belief that the
institution of marriage should be reserved for unions between one man and
one woman,” says a statement bearing Clinton’s check mark and a “THE
PRESIDENT HAS SEEN” stamp. The points go on to say that Clinton strongly
opposes “unfair discrimination….but he does not believe that the federal
government should promote gay marriages [and] does not believe it is
appropriate for federal resources to be devoted to providing spousal
benefits to partners in gay and lesbian relationships.”

When the White House signaled that Clinton would sign the bill, many gay
and lesbian advocates were furious, viewing the move as pre-election
pandering. “This is being seen as a clear and calculated signal from the
White House that we are abandoning the gay and lesbian constituencies,”
Scott wrote in an email to White House political aide Eric Fanning.

The documents also show that senior presidential aides made a series of
confusing and contradictory statements about gay marriage as the issue
intensified in late 1995 and early 1996, with brewing legal fights and a
Republican plan to press for passage of DOMA.

“The president doesn’t think that same-sex marriage should be outlawed,”
Deputy Press Secretary Ginny Terzano said in December 1995. The quote
featured in a Newsweek article grabbed the attention of Socarides, who
circulated it among White House staffers.

Some in the White House also flagged comments by Scott, who told a gay
audience in early 1996 that the administration was looking “for ways to
ensure that those of you in loving, long-term and committed relationships
can enjoy all the same benefits that [heterosexual couples] are entitled to
under the law.”

“Came up at 7:30 meeting this morning,” Deputy White House Counsel Kathleen
Wallman wrote, sending a Washington Times article about Scott’s comments to
White House Counsel Jack Quinn and another lawyer in the office, Steve
Neuwirth. “Not really our message.”

For her part, Scott sent a memo to Vice President Al Gore criticizing White
House Press Secretary Mike McCurry for linking Clinton’s DOMA opposition to
his view that “this is a time when we need to do things to strengthen the
American family.”

“This…is not the President’s position,” she wrote.

As public support for gay marriage has evolved , Clinton has cast his
signing of DOMA as a kind of defensive measure taken in the face of
overwhelming opposition to same-sex marriage in Congress and the likelihood
of an override or even a constitutional amendment if he vetoed the
legislation. However, among gay activists, the episode has long contributed
to an ambivalence about Clinton, who took historic steps as president on
behalf of the gay community but sometimes seemed to be triangulating on the
issue.

Clinton critics note that despite his claim that he reluctantly signed
DOMA, his re-election campaign advertised that fall on Christian radio
stations in 15 states touting his approval.

More recently, both Clintons have grown more receptive to same-sex marriage
and have gradually turned around on DOMA as well.

After saying in 2000 as a Senate candidate from New York that she would
have voted for DOMA, Hillary Clinton said in 2007 she favored repealing
part of the law that blocked federal benefits.

Bill Clinton also distanced himself from DOMA, before repudiating it
altogether in 2013 and urging the Supreme Court to overturn the
legislation, which said had become

a vehicle for discrimination. Three months after Clinton’s reversal, the
high court ruled the law unconstitutional in a 5-4 vote.

The newly-public library records also show one young woman’s brief and
successful drive to overturn a Clinton White House policy of not sending
presidential greetings — or any acknowledgement at all — to invites from
couples holding commitment ceremonies.

“I’ve learned that when an invitation comes in from a same-sex couple the
volunteers put it in a question box which staff go through….No greeting is
sent, nor is the couple responded to in any way,” White House Deputy
Director for Presidential Inquiries Kelley Van Auken wrote in a September
1999 email to more senior staffers. “I think a greeting should be sent. I
understand that it is not my beliefs that should determine what type of
cards are sent, as they come from the President, but I think sending a card
would fit in with this administration’s policies. He did sign the DOMA, and
therefore we would not be able to send the wedding greeting.”

Van Auken went on to argue that sending some good wishes would not be a
substantive policy change. “They are not asking for a card congratulating
them on their ‘legal marriage ceremony.’ Perhaps I’m playing with
semantics, but I don’t think some sort of recognition of this is too much
to ask for,” she added, urging that such couples be sent what volunteers
referred to as a Special Day card.

The issue was eventually escalated to an openly gay aide to Clinton, Staff
Secretary Sean Maloney (now a Congressman from New York), who was “very
much in favor” of the change. Within less than a month, couples began
receiving cards that read: “Hillary and I are delighted to join your family
and friends in sending congratulations as you celebrate this special
occasion. Best wishes for much continued happiness. — Bill Clinton.”

Van Auken was just 22 at the time and later became an aide to Rep. Susan
Davis (D-Calif.). Van Auken died last year at the age of 37, according to
the San Diego Union-Tribune.

National Coverage – HRC AND DEMS

National Stories

Hillary Clinton to announce 2016 bid Sunday with video [Brianna Keilar &
Jeff Zeleny, CNN, April 10, 2015
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/10/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-announcement-sunday/index.html>
]

*Hillary Clinton will launch her presidential campaign Sunday with a video
on social media announcing her candidacy, followed immediately by campaign
travel to build on the announcement, according to a source close to
Clinton's campaign in waiting.*

Hillary Clinton will launch her presidential campaign Sunday with a video
on social media announcing her candidacy, followed immediately by travel to
build on the announcement, according to a source close to Clinton's
campaign in waiting.

Her first stop will likely be to the early caucus state of Iowa, according
to the source.

Observers see the likely visit to Iowa as a show of humility by Clinton,
who came in third in the 2008 caucuses and who, so far, has dominated the
likely Democratic field for 2016.

Clinton has already filmed her campaign video, a person close to the
campaign said, which outlines the central themes of her second bid for the
White House. The message is intended to send a signal to Democrats that she
intends to aggressively fight for the party's presidential nomination.

The decision will sweep aside more than a year of speculation about her
political aspirations and allow her to start making her case to voters.
Advisers say she knows that Democratic activists are not interested in a
coronation and she intends to campaign as though she has a tough primary
challenge.

Central to Clinton's second presidential run will be reintroducing the
former first lady -- on her own terms -- to the American people. Democrats
close to Clinton have started to call her the most unknown famous person in
the world. Their argument is that people know of Clinton -- she has near
100% name recognition in most polls -- but they don't know her story.

Clinton is expected to trade big rallies for a series of smaller events
with voters, as she seeks to reintroduce herself to voters. Her supporters
have urged Clinton to take the time to meet voters one-on-one and build
their trust.

"The views about women candidates and how they should conduct themselves
has really changed since 2008," said Bonnie Campbell, the co-chair of
Clinton's 2008 campaign in Iowa. "First and foremost people vote for
candidates that they like, people who connect with them emotionally. I
think that helps with everybody but certainly it helps with women and the
men who love them. It just makes her a more complete person."

Clinton's presidential campaign has long been a foregone conclusion, and
speculation that she would take another shot at the White House has
followed the former first lady since she left the State Department in early
2013.

For much of the last two years, Clinton has crisscrossed the country
delivering paid speeches, selling her new memoir and stumping for Democrats
during the 2014 midterm elections.

In the coming weeks and months, the Clinton campaign will look to hone in
on that story, using themes such as Clinton's Midwestern upbringing, her
mother's perseverance in the face of neglectful parents and Clinton's own
time raising a daughter to cast the presidential hopeful in a more
favorable, softer light than she was seen during her 2008 presidential run.

Campbell said she saw voters in Iowa light up when they connected with
Clinton in coffee shops and in their homes, but those events were few and
far between compared to large rallies and speeches. She said Clinton's
empathetic side was not seen nearly enough during her 2008 campaign.

"Somehow, that did not come through in Iowa," Campbell said.

But her efforts to introduce herself come as Clinton is fighting fresh
questions about her trust and honesty. The controversy about using a
private email server while Secretary of State has already caused some
political damage, her aides concede, which is one of the reasons she is
jumping into the race to start campaigning on her own terms.

March found Clinton at the center of her own controversy over her exclusive
use of private -- rather than official -- email during her time running the
State Department. The controversy, again seized on by Republican critics,
escalated, and Clinton took to a quickly organized press conference at the
United Nations to respond to controversy.

Hillary Clinton skeptics fear 'an unstoppable train' [Gabriel DeBendetti,
POLITICIO, April 10, 2015
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-skeptics-fear-an-unstoppable-train-116868.html>
]

*Concerns mount that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign will be no different
than her ’08 campaign.*

It’s gotten to this point: Even the Democratic Party’s Hillary skeptics are
resigned to her being the party’s nominee.

“I don’t see a path for anyone not named Clinton,” declared former New
Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who served as United Nations ambassador
under Bill Clinton before running against Hillary in 2008.

“You know I don’t get along with her,” he noted, by way of explanation.
“I’m not a Ready for Hillary person. I’m trying to be honest with you.”

Added Bob Shrum, the veteran liberal strategist whose list of presidential
candidates (Al Gore, John Kerry) does not include anyone named Clinton:
“Assuming she remains healthy and runs the kind of campaign she will run, I
don’t see anyone beating her.”

Their conclusions are based on a range of factors, from Clinton’s standing
in the polls to her formidable fundraising potential. But there’s another
one: None of her potential challengers appear to have the will and/or the
ability to beat her.

Still, as Clinton prepares to announce her campaign on Sunday, there’s a
pervasive feeling among unaligned Democrats and Clinton loyalists alike
that at least one of the possible challengers will take the plunge and
creep up to 20 or 25 percent in the polls — enough to give her a scare.
It’s still a waiting game, though, because there’s no such consensus on a
few critical questions.

Namely: who, when and how.

Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, former Virginia senator Jim Webb,
and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders — the trio who have shown the greatest
interest in mounting a challenge to Clinton — face a steep path, Democratic
operatives say, while the two most famous names mentioned as potential
challengers — Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth
Warren — seem increasingly far from running.

Lincoln Chafee, the former Rhode Island senator and governor, emerged in
the last few days to stake a possible claim to be the Clinton alternative,
raising Warren-like concerns about Clinton’s closeness to Wall Street. But
he’s a maverick whose shift from Republican to independent to Democrat is
unlikely to excite the progressive base.

Nonetheless, the array of party operatives, Clinton allies, and former
Democratic presidential candidates who spoke with POLITICO described a path
for any of the would-be challengers similar to the ones O’Malley and Chafee
are trying to blaze: Distinguish themselves from Clinton on a series of
policy points, mostly by running to her left — and then, simply due to the
structure of the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus, one of them would likely
approach a 30 percent showing. But nearly every figure also cautioned that,
given Clinton’s lead in polls and in organizing throughout the country, the
path forward for any other candidate would be treacherous.

Nonetheless, the situation on the ground does not mirror 2007, when Clinton
was overtaken by a rush of support and money that flowed to the upstart
Barack Obama. By mid-April 2007, both Clinton and Barack Obama were both
polling in the 20-to-40 percent range nationally.

“It would take a formidable, inspirational candidate” to seriously
challenge Clinton now, says Richardson, who himself was at around 3 percent
in April 2007, and who added that O’Malley has emailed him to talk about
foreign policy. “I think while O’Malley is developing as a good candidate,
I don’t see the mix for a dramatic alternative there.”

That’s largely because Richardson’s 3 percent in 2007 is roughly three
times higher than O’Malley’s 1 percent in the RealClearPolitics national
polling average through March of this year. That leaves him alongside
Webb’s 1 percent and behind Sanders’s 4 percent. Clinton’s 60 is trailed by
Biden’s and Warren’s 12 percent, despite the former’s lack of political
organization and the latter’s repeated insistence that she will not run.
The numbers are similar in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to
vote in the primary contest.

Nonetheless, Clinton aides point to O’Malley as the most viable alternative
candidate, believing he will eventually pick up support from many of the
liberal activists currently urging Warren to run. The silver lining in his
low name recognition is that he has an opportunity to introduce himself to
the American people on his own terms.

Warren, meanwhile, repeatedly insists she will not throw her hat in the
ring despite an organized campaign put together by progressive groups
intended to draft the bank antagonist.

And even though the vice president has run for president twice before —
including against Clinton and Obama in 2008 — he has no political operation
to speak of. Biden’s supporters insist that he would need little
preparation to jump in due to his existing networks and the goodwill
generated by his trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina earlier
this year. But he shows no signs of seriously considering a run.

The biggest opportunity for a Clinton alternative would likely come in
Iowa, the site of her 2008 undoing, because the caucus system there is
friendly enough to protest candidates that someone else, or a group of
others, will almost certainly garner at least one-quarter of the vote. Even
Iowa’s sitting senator, Tom Harkin, won just 76 percent when he ran in
1992, despite the fact that none of his rival candidates, including Bill
Clinton, bothered to contest the caucuses.

But even a relatively promising showing in Iowa could be a one-off if it
doesn’t generate momentum for a challenger heading into New Hampshire. And,
for Clinton, “it’s kind of a luxury in a campaign when you’re worried about
only getting 75 percent of the vote,” notes Shrum.

One person who disagrees with the idea that challenging Clinton is a
hopeless task is former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, who vaulted from single
digits in the polls to mount a serious challenge against the far
better-known and better-funded Walter Mondale in 1984.

“I also discount the polls a great deal,” says Hart, who is personally
close with O’Malley and a past email correspondent with Webb. “At this
moment, and for a time period, they are name recognition functions and less
matters of preference.”

O’Malley, for one, has been trying to boost his name recognition as he
preps for a likely run.

He and Webb are expected to appear at South Carolina’s Clyburn Fish Fry on
April 24 — an annual event hosted by Rep. Jim Clyburn that frequently draws
presidential hopefuls to the early voting state — and the state party’s
convention the next day. Clinton is not currently scheduled to appear, but
may do so after formally announcing her candidacy.

It’s a reflection of a long-established pattern: O’Malley has been by far
the most aggressive candidate in terms of early state organizing, while
Webb has been slow to schedule events and Clinton has let others represent
her. Sanders, meanwhile, has appeared in early states but also spent
considerable time elsewhere — most recently a political trip with stops in
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Austin, and Chicago. The groups
supporting a Warren candidacy have also been organizing voters in the early
states, but absent a candidate, they have largely focused on shifting the
overall conversation to the left.

The four likeliest contenders — O’Malley, Webb, Sanders, and Chafee —
occupy vastly different lanes within the party, in terms of ideology,
experience, and preparation for 2016.

O’Malley saw his 2016 chances flicker when his expected successor lost his
2014 run for governor, in what was seen by some as a referendum on the
outgoing governor. He says he will decide whether to run for president
sometime this spring. But he has already pulled together a team of
operatives that includes Bill Hyers, the campaign manager for New York City
Mayor Bill de Blasio.

This year, he has already stopped by at least four events in each of Iowa
and New Hampshire, and one in South Carolina. He also recently hired a new
press secretary with New Hampshire experience.

Meanwhile Webb, a one-term senator and former Secretary of the Navy under
Republican President Ronald Reagan, has been more deliberate. After
announcing his exploratory committee in November, Webb has largely kept out
of the public eye. But he recently traveled to Iowa and has hired a state
campaign director.

Sanders, a self-described socialist who often rails against billionaires
and appears frequently on television, initially suggested he would decide
whether to run in March. But he told POLITICO that month that he would
likely push off a decision because of his work as the ranking member on the
Senate Budget Committee. His spokesman now says he will make a decision
“sooner rather than later.”

Chafee has been the most eager to take on Clinton, though his bid would be
regarded as an even longer shot after he declined to seek re-election for
governor in 2014 when it became clear he would face a tough Democratic
primary.

Indeed, none of these candidates will have the benefit of anything
approaching the widespread Clinton network, which was largely represented
by the independent political action committee Ready For Hillary that signed
up nearly 4 million voters over the last two-plus years.

In the face of such organizing, the non-Clinton candidates seemed so
daunted that none of them seized the moment in March when Clinton was
revealed to have used a private email system as secretary of state.

Former candidates and advisers say the best approach would be to chip away
at Clinton on a few policies — like Wall Street regulation — as a way to
start to gain traction.

“If the policies [Clinton] comes out with are all-inclusive, then a primary
is not necessary,” said Reverend Al Sharpton, who ran in 2004. But “if
they’re just running and there’s no policy debate, it’s just a vanity
exercise.”

O’Malley has said the presidency should not be “passed between two
families” — a reference to the Clintons and the Bushes — and has begun
tailoring his rhetoric on Wall Street policy to Clinton’s left, though he
has not attacked her by name.

Webb is taking a different tack, suggesting he is, in the words Rania
Batrice, his Iowa state director, an outsider who is well-positioned to
take on the Democratic Party’s most famous name.

“It’s safe to say that Iowans and the rest of the country are tired of the
‘same ol’, same ol” rhetoric when it comes to today’s political
atmosphere,” she wrote. “They’re ready for someone different, someone who
will put people ahead of politics. That is Jim Webb.”

But neither Webb nor Sanders can realistically claim that they are fresh
faces. At 69 and 73, respectively, each is older than the 67-year-old
Clinton. And while O’Malley is largely a new face on the national scene,
Clinton’s team can point to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showing
that over 60 percent of Democrats favor “experience” to “a new direction”
in a presidential candidate.

“A lot of this [talk of alternatives] is that journalism abhors a
presidential primary vacuum, so a lot of it is hothouse stories. They’re
not real stories,” said Shrum. “If you ask me, in all honesty, do I see a
path? No.”

Or, in the words of Richardson: “It’s very likely going to be an
unstoppable train.”

Clinton studying up on upward mobility with Harvard economist [Annie
Linsky, The Boston Globe, April 10, 2015
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/04/10/with-harvard-economist-raj-chetty-hillary-clinton-has-been-studying-how-encourage-upward-mobility-runup-her-campaign/OvuYUMVdb6rF5mxdnzuoeI/story.html>
]

*Hillary Clinton has been consulting with Harvard professor Raj Chetty as
she formulates her economic policy.*

Harvard professor Raj Chetty flew from Boston to New York City about two
months ago to give a private tutorial on his research into social mobility.
The student: Hillary Clinton.

In a conference room at her Manhattan personal office, he clicked through a
set of slides including a map of the United States that shows how poor
children are more likely to get ahead in some parts of the country than in
others. The meeting, which included members of Clinton’s staff, lasted two
hours.

Clinton absorbed the lesson well.

At a panel discussion at the Center for American Progress in Washington
last month, she cited Chetty by name and echoed his work: “Why do some
communities, frankly, have more ladders for opportunity than others?”
Clinton asked.

With Hillary Clinton expected to launch her presidential campaign on
Sunday, Democratic donors and strategists agree that her message will have
to address the yawning gap between the rich and lower classes in America.
How she will navigate this issue, and what the broader theme of her
campaign will be, has been one of the pressing questions of her precampaign
period.

Chetty’s emphasis on upward mobility offers a less divisive way to address
middle class economic issues than the rhetoric of income inequality that
progressives in the Democratic Party like Senator Elizabeth Warren of
Massachusetts and her followers are pushing. It’s also more palatable to
large corporations and wealthy donors who have funded her previous
campaigns.

The other key topic Clinton is expected to quickly embrace — women’s issues
— appears to be less fraught.

Clinton “leaned in” on that topic at an Emily’s List gala in Washington,
according to one of staff member at the organization. She delighted the
room when ticked off a list issues the group cares about: Access to paid
sick days, paid medical and family leave, affordable child care and more
flexible work schedules.

“It’s an outrage that so many women are still paid less than men for the
same work,” Clinton said. “These aren’t just problems for women. They’re
problems for families and for our entire economy.”

Clinton’s expected to make her first trip to Iowa next week. Emily’s List
activists are hoping that the trip — which will be heavily covered by the
national media — will coincide with Equal Pay Day on Tuesday, and bring
more attention to the gap in salaries between men and women.

And many are noting that Clinton is already embracing the historic nature
of her White House bid more than she did in 2008. She’s taken series shots
at Senate Republicans for stalling the nomination of Loretta Lynch for
attorney general via her Twitter feed. And she used Twitter for a playful
back-and-forth with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, where
both women touted their Wellesley College educations.

Albright wrote: “Statistics show that @Wellesley alums make great
Secretaries — right?”

Clinton replied: “There must be something in the water @Wellesley.
#YouGoGirl”

Over the past few weeks Clinton has hired staff for her campaign and found
office space in Brooklyn for campaign headquarters. A Clinton spokesman,
didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, Clinton’s precampaign has been winding down: The Ready for
Hillary super-PAC, formed to convince the former First Lady to run, spent
the week hosting a fire sale on merchandise with prices dropping each day.
On Sunday all items were 40 percent off. On Tuesday glassware was 50
percent off. On Wednesday fleece products were 60 percent off. On Friday
all T-shirts were on sale for $10.

The same activists buying up the “merch’’ are also ready to hear her start
making her case. And polls show that Americans continue to see the economy
as the most important issue facing the country.

The research Chetty and his team have done shows that children who grow up
in parts of the country with less segregation, less income inequality,
stronger schools, more social capital, and stable families are more likely
to improve their social standing as adults. He and his colleagues are
preparing to release policy prescriptions in coming months.

Clinton was “really interested in issues of social mobility and the
American dream” during their meeting Chetty said. “She really engaged with
the data,” Chetty recalled.

He also spoke at last year’s Clinton Global Initiative meeting, where he
mentioned his signature eye-popping statistic: “Chances of achieving the
‘American Dream’ are almost two times higher in Canada than the United
States,” he said, showing slide with data to back up the claim.

Other researchers on his project said that people from different political
backgrounds tend to seize on different parts of the work. “When you look at
the data it is a political Rorschach test,” said Nathaniel Hendren, an
assistant professor at Harvard.

Indeed, on Monday Chetty said he plans to talk with Republican Jeb Bush,
who is also mulling a White House run. He’s also sat down with Warren in
her Cambridge home and spoken with President Obama.

Thinkers in the left wing of the party are skeptical of what Chetty’s
findings will mean when injected into a presidential campaign.

“Social mobility is a good thing, but it is not the right question,” said
Damon Silvers, the Director of Policy and Special Counsel for the AFL-CIO.
“The right question is what happens to the majority of us who work hard and
don’t make it to the top of the pyramid?”

Clinton has sent some soothing signals to the progressive wing of the
party. She has consulted with Joseph Stiglitz in recent months, a Nobel
prize winning economist who recently wrote a book entitled “The Price of
Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future.”

During the Aspen Ideas Festival last year, Clinton was asked about income
inequality and seemed to fuse the ideas from thinkers on both wings of the
party. Her answer of noted the importance of bolstering the middle class
with the notion of helping children move up the social ladder.

“We’ve always been very proud of the fact that we have an upwardly mobile
expanding middle class society,” Clinton said. “We’ve had this American
Dream embedded in our DNA.”

Hillary Clinton begins her entry into the 2016 presidential race [Anne
Gearan & Philip Rucker, WaPo, April 10, 2015
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-begins-her-entry-into-the-2016-presidential-race/2015/04/10/f5f08ef0-df9c-11e4-a1b8-2ed88bc190d2_story.html>]

*Hillary Rodham Clinton’s long-anticipated entry into the 2016 presidential
race took shape Friday, with Democrats saying she will announce her
candidacy on Sunday and begin a series of deliberately small discussions
with voters next week.*

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s long-anticipated entry into the 2016 presidential
race took shape Friday, with Democrats saying she will announce her
candidacy on Sunday and begin a series of deliberately small discussions
with voters next week.

The low-key rollout — no big rallies or lengthy speeches — will end months
of speculation surrounding the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic
nomination. Clinton intends to begin her second White House bid via social
media, probably Twitter, and include a video that introduces her
economic-centered campaign message before jetting to Iowa next week for
public appearances, according to three Democrats with knowledge of her
plans.

Behind the scenes, meanwhile, Clinton’s fundraising machine is coming to
life. Her top bundlers are plotting aggressive outreach to thousands of
Democratic donors over the weekend and into next week to urge them to send
checks and make donations online as soon as the Clinton campaign’s Web site
goes live.

The strategists and allies spoke on condition of anonymity because they
were not authorized to discuss details of the forthcoming announcement.
Spokesmen for Clinton’s now-robust campaign-in-waiting declined to comment
Friday.

Clinton’s go-slow, go-small start is the opposite of how many Republicans
have entered or plan to enter the race. Instead of a splashy launch event,
Clinton’s plan is a calculated understatement. She is scheduling a series
of small roundtables and other give-and-take sessions with voters, first in
Iowa and later in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — the states
holding the first presidential primaries and caucuses early next year.

The idea is to showcase Clinton’s abilities as a problem-solver and
crusader for the rights of those struggling to climb into or stay in the
middle class. The intimate events with voters are also designed to help the
former secretary of state connect with ordinary Americans and listen to
their concerns, supporters said.

Jay Jacobs, a former New York Democratic Party chairman and longtime
Clinton friend, said he thinks the events will present Clinton “as she is
known by people who are close to her: as a very warm, genuine, thoughtful,
certainly intelligent, regular person.”

“There’s been so much that we’ve seen that seems to create an image, by the
press and by others, those who are looking to derail her, but now the
voters are going to hear from Hillary,” Jacobs said.

Clinton’s human-scale approach is modeled on the listening tour she
conducted across New York state at the start of her successful 2000 Senate
race. She came to that campaign as a sitting first lady and political
celebrity with no roots in New York, but her efforts to seek out New
Yorkers’ opinions — in diners as well as people’s living rooms and kitchens
— surprised many voters and some critics.

“It became a two-way conversation that impressed voters not by just what
she said, but by how intently she listened,” Jacobs said. “I think that’s
Hillary. That’s something that has worked before and it’ll work again.”

David Axelrod, who helped lead the insurgent 2008 Barack Obama campaign
that eclipsed Hillary Clinton’s first presidential run, welcomed the new
approach.

For 30 years, Hillary Clinton has been a fixture on the national stage.
Now, as she takes another shot at becoming the first female president,
she's hoping to battle any Clinton fatigue by touting her unique
experience. (AP)

“Humility is the order of the day,” Axelrod said. “Last time, they launched
as a big juggernaut cloaked in the veil of inevitability and at 20,000
feet. There was a tremendous backlash to that. It is imperative for her to
go out, to meet people where they live, to make her case, to deliver a
message, to listen to what they have to say and to ask for their votes.”

Axelrod added that Clinton must also articulate a message about economic
mobility during her launch that’s “compelling and authentic,” rooted in her
personal biography. “She needs to project what the cause is that she’s
fighting for here and give people a sense of where they fit into that
vision,” he said.

One open question for Clinton allies is what role her husband, former
president Bill Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea, will play in the
campaign. Both have made splashy media appearances in the past week, with
Chelsea on the cover of Elle and Bill on the cover of Town & Country. The
former president told the magazine that he plans to be merely a “backstage
adviser” to his wife, at least in the early stages of the campaign.

Widely considered by Democrats to be Obama’s heir apparent, Clinton has
hired several of the president’s top campaign strategists to work on her
2016 bid.

In polls, Clinton is the dominant Democratic candidate, and in general
election matchups she is at least slightly ahead of all likely Republican
challengers.

The potential to become America’s first female president is a lodestar for
Clinton’s campaign, and the soon-to-be candidate has strongly suggested
that she will stress her path-breaking role.

Clinton resisted pressure from some Democrats to begin her campaign earlier
this year, using the past several months to hone her message and assemble
an extensive operation to run a campaign and raise money. She has recruited
dozens of staffers who have been volunteering their time before the launch;
her team signed a lease last week on office space in Brooklyn to serve as
her national campaign headquarters.

Clinton’s Sunday announcement would come one day before the expected
campaign launch of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), who is planning a major
speech to supporters Monday afternoon at Miami’s Freedom Tower. On Friday,
Rubio released a YouTube video, called “A New American Century,” previewing
his announcement.

With Clinton’s launch, Republicans are revving up their attack machine. The
Republican National Committee announced an online ad Friday to highlight
past scandals, including her use of private e-mail at the State Department.

“From the East Wing to the State Department, Hillary Clinton has left a
trail of secrecy, scandal and failed liberal policies that no image
consultant can erase,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.
“Voters want to elect someone they can trust and Hillary’s record proves
that she cannot be trusted. We must ‘Stop Hillary.’ ”

Like the small-scale rollout in Iowa living rooms, Clinton and her advisers
are also modulating their fundraising early on to avoid appearing
presumptuous and keep the campaign focused on a grass-roots effort. Clinton
allies have been tamping down expectations for a massive influx of campaign
cash, but her fundraisers anticipate a rush of major donors trying to get
checks in the door on Day One.

“All the horses are in the gate just waiting for those gates to open,” said
John Morgan, a Clinton fundraiser in Florida. “There’s really nothing to do
until the gate opens. But the gate could open Sunday and it could be the
flood gate. The only issue they’ll have is how fast can they raise the
money, because the money is pent up.”

Clinton will raise only primary-season money at first, with a cap of $2,700
a donor. That is partly to avoid the appearance that Clinton is taking the
nomination for granted. The focus on Internet appeals will free up Clinton
to spend time on the trail talking to voters, rather than wooing wealthy
donors at glitzy, high-priced fundraisers.

“I don’t think the first thing out of the gate she should be doing is a
bunch of big fundraising events,” said one senior party strategist who
requested anonymity to speak candidly.

The approach is a notable contrast to former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who
has spent the better part of four months crisscrossing the country holding
closed-door finance events for his Right to Rise political action committee
and super PAC with tickets costing as much as $100,000 each.

“I think she’ll be in Iowa eating corn on the cob instead of clinking
champagne flutes with donors,” Morgan said. “She can do this much quicker,
much more efficiently because she’s not fighting for donors. Rubio, Bush,
that whole crowd is in mortal combat for dollars. She’s not. That’s her
advantage.”

The campaign is not expected to give titles to top bundlers or announce a
list of finance committee chairs or members at the outset, according to
Democrats with knowledge of the Clinton strategy.

One priority is creating an extensive small-donor network similar to the
Obama campaign’s much-admired list from his 2008 and 2012 campaigns, and
Clinton advisers see her announcement period as a ripe opportunity.

“We’re not going to take it slow,” said one Clinton fundraiser who spoke on
the condition of anonymity to discuss the campaign’s internal plans. “The
announcement is a good time to raise money, and we’ll have everyone out
there asking people to support her candidacy.”

The campaign will be able to build on the efforts of Ready for Hillary, an
outside group started in 2013 to lay the groundwork for Clinton’s run that
has held more than 1,000 grass-roots events in all 50 states. The group
amassed a donor pool of more than 135,000 people, the vast majority of whom
gave contributions of $100 or less, according to PAC officials.

Ready for Hillary will not be able to coordinate with Clinton once she
announces, but it could share its list of supporters with her campaign
through a list swap, campaign finance lawyers said.

The group may not even have to take that step, however. Once Clinton
declares her candidacy, the super PAC can simply direct its supporters to
her Web site, allowing her campaign to quickly build a small donor list.

Once she’s officially in, Ready for Hillary plans to post online the names
of hundreds of donors who have given or raised more than $5,000, according
to a person familiar with the plans. That list — which includes at least
222 donors who gave $25,000 — would be valuable not just for Clinton’s
campaign but for Priorities USA, the high-dollar super PAC planning to
finance a pro-Clinton television advertising campaign and facing pressure
to kick-start its fundraising.

Ahead of the campaign launch, Clinton released a new epilogue Friday for
“Hard Choices,” her State Department memoir coming out this month in
paperback. In it, she ruminates about a “memory quilt” she received as a
gift after her granddaughter Charlotte’s birth last September.

“I wondered for a moment what a quilt of my own life would look like,”
Clinton wrote. “There was so much more to do. So many more panels waiting
to be filled in. I folded up the quilt and got back to work.”

Matea Gold and Dan Balz contributed to this report.

Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign to Make a Low-Key Start [Peter
Nicholas & Laura Meckler, WSJ, April 10, 2015
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-to-announce-presidential-bid-sunday-1428679232>
]

*Hillary Clinton will launch her second campaign for the White House on
Sunday with much less fanfare than the standard 2016 rollout: She’ll post a
video online, followed by small events with voters spaced out slowly over
coming weeks.*

Hillary Clinton will launch her second campaign for the White House on
Sunday with much less fanfare than the standard 2016 rollout: She’ll post a
video online, followed by small events with voters spaced out slowly over
coming weeks.

The strategy stands in contrast to Republican contenders, who have kicked
off their campaigns with splashy events and cheering crowds. The lower-key
approach also differs from Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential effort, when
she often traveled with a large staff and Secret Service entourage that
kept her at a distance from voters.

Mrs. Clinton, given her long presence on the national stage and current
lack of serious competition, finds herself in the odd position of appearing
like an incumbent, which brings both benefits and drawbacks. While she
doesn’t need to prove she can draw a crowd, Mrs. Clinton needs to show
herself working hard for the nomination, her advisers say, to avoid giving
the impression it is hers for the taking.

Central to the task is laying out the rationale for her campaign, which
some supporters say has been absent amid Mrs. Clinton’s two-year pondering
about a run.

“I think No. 1 is to articulate what she’d like to do if she were president
and where she wants to take the country,” said Jeff Link, a Democratic
consultant in Des Moines, Iowa. “We haven’t heard that.”

The answer her campaign is set to offer: Mrs. Clinton is a fighter for the
middle class and a results-driven pragmatist who can make Washington work
again.

In the days following her announcement, Mrs. Clinton will likely hold a
handful of events followed by short bursts of travel through April. Behind
the scenes, her campaign team will settle into its new headquarters in New
York City, and a significant fundraising operation will gear up to begin
raising more than $1 billion.

She will be accompanied by fewer aides than in 2008, in hopes of seeming
more disarming and approachable, her team says.

“She needs to be a good retail politician, and go around the state and
engage in meetings with voters that maybe 20 to 40 people,” said Tom
Henderson, chairman of the Polk County Democratic Party, in Iowa’s largest
county. “That’s where all the activists come. Once you start to get the
activists on your side, then they will reach out to their neighbors.”

Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, made a similar point in an
interview with Town & Country magazine.

“I think it’s important, and Hillary does too, that she go out there as if
she’s never run for anything before and establish her connection with the
voters,” Mr. Clinton said.

Mrs. Clinton towers over her potential rivals in polling in a way that has
little precedent in recent presidential elections. On Friday, former
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is considering running against her for
the nomination, suggested that her dominance may be overstated.

“There is an inevitable front-runner who remains inevitable right up until
he or she is no longer inevitable,” he told MSNBC.

Mrs. Clinton will make her formal launch already under fire from both the
political right and left.

Republicans, presuming she is the likely general-election nominee, are
attacking her on a daily basis for her decision to use a personal email
account for public business as secretary of state and her family
foundation’s acceptance of donations from foreign countries.

“Voters want to elect someone they can trust and Hillary’s record proves
that she cannot be trusted,” Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican
National Committee, said in a statement Friday.

The RNC released an online ad with voices raising questions about her
record, as a woman meant to be Mrs. Clinton walks away from the camera
toward a stage. It ends with the message: “Stop Hillary.”

The RNC said it was spending more than $100,000 in online advertising
including promoting the Web ad.

Some liberal Democrats worry that she isn’t populist enough in her policy
outlook, especially when it comes to the economy and Wall Street, and is
too willing to make compromises. Some have launched a movement to draft
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) into the race, despite her repeated
statements that she won’t run.

Advisers say Mrs. Clinton’s core argument will be her support for the
middle class and that she is a pragmatist who can make Washington work
again. It is a case she has made in roundabout fashion in paid speeches,
interviews and other appearances. In coming weeks, she will make it in
town-hall meetings, diners and living rooms in states that hold early
nomination contests, including Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South
Carolina.

During her 2008 run, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign saw her chief challenge as
projecting strength, so voters would feel comfortable electing a woman as
commander-in-chief at a time when the U.S. was engaged in two wars. Now,
after four years as secretary of state, she has those credentials, advisers
say, and the goal is to show a softer side.

In a new epilogue being published with the paperback release of her most
recent book, “Hard Choices,” Mrs. Clinton writes of the joys of becoming a
grandmother. She segues from her personal experience to her policy
agenda—something advisers say she will do frequently.

“You shouldn’t have to be the granddaughter of a President or a Secretary
of State to receive excellent health care, education, enrichment, and all
the support and advantages that will one day lead to a good job and a
successful life,” she wrote in an excerpt published in the Huffington Post.

Mrs. Clinton is expected to frame the economic debate around the idea of
“responsible capitalism,” said one adviser. “You can support business, but
business needs to be responsible in how they make money and what they need
to give back to society,” is how the adviser put it.

She will also draw distinctions with Mr. Obama, emphasizing how she would
give high priority to forging close ties to Capitol Hill, something many
say Mr. Obama failed to do. In one speech last year, she seemed to offer a
veiled criticism of the president.

“I mean, some people can paint a beautiful vision,” she said at a CNN
event. “And, thankfully, we can all learn from that. But then, can you,
with the tenacity, the persistence, the getting-knocked down,
getting-back-up resilience, can you lead us there?

Can Hillary Clinton run an intimate campaign? [Alex Seitz-Wald, MSNBC, April
10, 2015
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/can-hillary-clinton-run-intimate-campaign>]

*Alex Seitz-Wald explores how Hillary Clinton can run a campaign that
maximizes intimate contact with voters.*

After a long wait, Hillary Clinton will finally makes her second
presidential bid official Sunday with a social media “soft launch,”
followed by a trip to Iowa to meet with voters, sources tell msnbc.

Unlike her 2008 bid, when Clinton sometimes came off as imperious, aides to
the all-but-declared presidential candidate say this time she will focus on
smaller, intimate events that will allow her to spend quality time with
voters and connect with them in casual settings.

But how does the biggest political celebrity in the world go small? How
does someone who travels with a large coterie of reporters, aides, and
Secret Service do intimate? It’s a challenge the nascent Clinton campaign
acknowledges they don’t yet have a perfect solution for, and likely never
will.

“It’s really hard,” said former Obama White House communications director
Anita Dunn. “You have to balance the needs of the press corps and their
wish to be in every event, with trying keep the event from feeling as
though a small number of people are performing a staged play for the
benefit to the press corps.”

“Candidates love this part,” Dunn continued. “You want to make sure the
press can cover the campaigning without becoming the campaign.”

Aides want to showcase Clinton’s warmth and sense of humor, which can be
lost in larger events, and bring the high-flying former secretary of state
down to the earth. But they acknowledge it won’t be easy and will likely
frustrate the press at times.

Every candidate has to deal with this problem at some point if they’re
lucky and make it to the big leagues, but Clinton is in the unique position
of starting from day one with a footprint closer to that of an incumbent
president running for reelection than an upstart primary candidate.

How do Clinton's 2016 and 2008 campaigns compare?

She’s already under Secret Service protection, thanks to her time as first
lady, and has had a dedicated traveling press corps for more than a year.

Ryan Williams, a Republican strategist who was Mitt Romney’s press
secretary in 2012, thinks Clinton’s team is dreaming.“It’s utterly
impossible,” he said. “My guess is Hillary Clinton’s intimate campaign will
be nothing more than a staged photo opportunity designed to look like
something that it’s not. You’re at a stage where it should be open access
to voters, spontaneous interaction with voters, and that’s just going to be
very hard for her.”

When Clinton returned to Iowa last year for the first time since she lost
the state’s critical caucus in 2008, more than 200 reporters showed up from
as far away as Sweden and Japan.

She and her husband pulled up in an eight-car motorcade of armored SUVs,
and a metal barricade separated her from voters as she worked a ropeline
with federal agents looming on either side of her.

When Romney got Secret Service protection after winning the Republican
nomination in 2012, “it was night and day,” Williams said, explaining the
agents make everything more complicated and want to preserve a buffer
between the candidate and the public.

Clinton’s campaign-in-waiting has worked with the Secret Service to try to
pare down the agency’s footprint around Clinton as much as possible, and
give the candidate room for spontaneous interactions with voters. They’ll
also have to push back on local law enforcement, who often seek to add a
second, more visible layer of protection around candidates.

But Robert Gibbs, the former White House press secretary who traveled with
Obama extensively during the primary, said Clinton’s team is smart to focus
on small events. “There’s no doubt that the logistics are hugely
challenging for these things,” he said. “But the pictures are really great,
and those stories are the kind that candidates tell for the rest of the
campaign.”

And Gibbs said Clinton handled this well in New Hampshire, when a flurry of
town hall events helped her come from behind to beat Obama.

Iowa native Tommy Vietor, another former Obama aide who helped Clinton with
her book tour last year, said the issue will sort itself out over time.

He predicted a huge crush of press coverage for Clinton’s initial foray on
the campaign trail that will die down quickly. “If she spends time in Iowa,
her events will be competing with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz going for the
jugular, and that will make for sexier copy, and she’ll have a chance to
have a slightly more relaxed conversation with voters,” he said.

And campaigns have long known that the further they venture from Des
Moines, the fewer reporters who will be willing to make the trek. “It’s
totally doable,” he said.

Still, no one disputes that reporters will end up frustrated at times. Some
events may be closed to the press, others may have limited access, and many
may have access to only a select “pool” of reporters who represent each
type of outlet on behalf of their colleagues.

To offset perceptions that’s cutting off the press, Clinton may regularly
take questions from reporters after events where some were denied access.
Or she could prioritize local media and give a few minutes to the local TV
affiliate or newspaper, like Obama did during the primary.

The format of the events could further inflame relations between Clinton
and the press, which she acknowledged are “complicated,” but pooling
coverage may be the only way to satisfy all sides. After all, Clinton wants
reporters to cover her small events as much as they want to cover them. If
a touching connection is made with an Iowa voter and there’s no reporter
around to Tweet it, does it make a sound?

The awkwardness of huge media attention combined with small spaces was on
display last month when Jeb Bush visited the house of a former state
Republican Party chairman in New Hampshire. Aides removed the furniture
from the living room and reporters piled in.

C-SPAN broadcast live from the kitchen, showing a room packed wall-to-wall
with reporters watching a handful of voters chat.

Hillary Clinton's 2016 Campaign Kickoff Will Look a Lot Like Her 2000
Senate Run [Emily Schultheis, National Journal, April 10, 2015
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-2016-announcement-20150410>
]

*Hillary Clinton’s 2016 launch will mimic a number of features of her
successful 2000 Senate run.*

April 10, 2015 Hillary Clinton's 2008 primary loss looms large at every
step of her 2016 campaign, but the Democratic frontrunner's team is looking
farther back for lessons from the past, namely to the summer of 1999. That
was when Clinton—then the first lady and still living in the White
House—embarked on a "listening tour" across the state of New York ahead of
the official launch of her 2000 Senate campaign.

Now, as she prepares to officially start her campaign Sunday, Clinton's
plans are strikingly similar. Out are the mega-rallies. Instead, the
candidate is planning a series of smaller, less-scripted events that allow
her to interact one-on-one with voters. And on both her 1999 listening tour
and her 2016 kickoff, the goal is the same: build the candidate's
credentials as one that connects with voters, knows the issues they care
about and makes it clear she isn't taking anything for granted.

"In 1999, it was an introduction to voters, it was an introduction to her
as a candidate," said Lee Miringoff, a veteran pollster at Marist College
in New York. "That's why it worked for her, because it sort of took on the
issue directly that she wasn't from New York and therefore was going to
have to do some listening."

Karen Finney, an aide to Clinton at the time and a staffer for her emerging
2016 campaign, said the former secretary of State is "very good at making
the people who she's talking with very comfortable and at ease." In
thinking about the current campaign, Finney added that Clinton herself will
play a big role in how comfortable and connected voters feel at events like
these.

That will be critical for Clinton to right the problems that sundered her
2008 effort. Then, as now, she was the frontrunner bolstered by a massive
campaign funding apparatus and a legion of political connections. But she
didn't build the personal connection with Democratic voters that
then-candidate Obama rode to victory.

Among the biggest questions about the up-close-and-personal approach is
whether Clinton will be to create events that actually feel intimate, given
the political and media circus that already track her every move. Some say
that true one-on-one interaction for her is near impossible. "It's a
tremendous challenge to be an average person when 200 people follow you
everywhere," said veteran New York Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf.

Ann Lewis, a longtime Clinton adviser who was involved in the 2000 Senate
effort, said that with increased national attention to presidential
politics, they've become more "ceremonial"—making it hard for voters to see
the actual human being behind the celebrities presidential hopefuls become.
"It gets harder, obviously with the size of the press corps and the size of
the attention," she said. "My guess is there will be a certain tension in
there between what the campaign hopes to achieve, and just the reality of
how much attention it is likely to get."

In 1999, Clinton kicked off her listening tour at the Pindars Corners, New
York, farm of retiring Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whom she was running
to replace. According to The Washington Post at the time, protesters stood
outside with signs like "Hillary Listen: Go Home!" or "A New Yorker for New
York."

The carpetbagger issue was one she addressed directly that day. "It's a
fair question," she told reporters there. "I have some work to do to
demonstrate that what I'm for is as important if not more important than
where I'm from."

After the farm, her tour took her outside of New York City and its suburbs,
which make up the Democratic core of the state, and into all of the state's
62 counties—including significant time in the traditionally Republican
upstate. And mainly, the 1999 tour was about proving that she could handle
New York issues and had a genuine interest in the state and its people. The
events varied: Some were small meet-and-greets at a diner or a farm; others
involved a speech to a bigger group, aides from the 2000 campaign said,
with Clinton shaking hands and meeting voters on the rope line afterward.

In her 2003 memoir Living History, Clinton described it as "getting a
nonstop crash course in New York and its issues," adding that it took time
before voters stopped viewing her as "a curiosity" and started having "real
conversations about the issues that mattered to them."

It wasn't immediate: the initial listening tour events weren't quite as
small as the ones that later became a big part of her campaigning style.
And even then, Clinton's star power meant she traveled with a large press
corps in tow—the New York press corps can be large and unruly, and the
level of interest in a First Lady running for office brought national
reporters along for the ride too. Events near New York City tended to
succumb more to the political circus, former aides said; ones far upstate
were often far smaller and felt more intimate. ("What a lot of us really
enjoyed about going upstate is that you could do those kinds of events,"
Finney said.)

At events, Clinton would listen, nodding her head and taking notes in the
notebooks she carried with her to events—her way of showing she was really
paying attention, aides say. "She would come back to the campaign office
with notebooks full of notes," Lewis said, adding that "you could watch in
her early years in the Senate" as ideas she'd written down in the notebooks
made their way into policy proposals. (Her body language didn't go
unnoticed by the press: "Now Playing In Our Area: Nodding Hill," said one
Newsday headline out of the tour, in a play on the 1999 movie "Notting
Hill.")

Though she had a few slip-ups along the way, Clinton generally received
high marks for the tour—and on the whole, it did what it set out to do.
"Something like that can achieve the goal even if she flubs a line here and
there, because the notion, by its title, it suggests that you're reaching
out and taking in," Miringoff said.

Hillary Clinton, First Lady, on Gay Marriage: A Case Study In Opacity
[Sasha Issenberg, Bloomberg, April 10, 2015
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-10/hillary-clinton-first-lady-on-gay-marriage-a-case-study-in-opacity>
]

*A trove of papers released yesterday at the Clinton library shows that,
even before homebrew e-mail servers were an option, Hillary Clinton’s
operation had mastered low-tech workarounds to avoid leaving a paper trail
of her real-time views on controversial subjects.*

LITTLE ROCK — A trove of papers released yesterday at the Clinton library
shows that, even before homebrew e-mail servers were an option, Hillary
Clinton’s operation had mastered low-tech workarounds to avoid leaving a
paper trail of her real-time views on controversial subjects.

Even though the First Lady maintained her own correspondence office, in at
least once instance, her staffers punted an inquiry about her views on a
timely controversial issue then dividing Democrats to her husband’s staff.

“We have received a few letters on the subject of same-sex marriage,” Alice
J. Pushkar of the first lady’s staff wrote to Kyle M. Baker, on her
husband’s side of the White House, on September 18, 1996. “I think that it
would be more appropriate for a response to come from the President on this
than the First Lady. Would it be possible to get a First Lady version of
the P-323?”

“What DOMA did is at least allow the states to act.”

Later that day, Baker’s office generated a form letter, which is among the
hundreds of thousands of previously unreleased papers made public. “Thank
you for contacting Hillary regarding marriages of couples of the same
gender. She has asked me to respond on her behalf,” read the letter
approved for Bill Clinton’s auto-pen signature. “In 1992, I stated my
opposition to same-gender marriage, and recently, when the issue was raised
in Congress, I said that if a bill consistent with my previously stated
position reached my desk, I would sign it.”

A little more than 24 hours after that letter was prepared, Clinton did
sign the Defense of Marriage Act, ignominiously doing so past midnight in
an empty White House without any cameras present. In a contemporaneous
signing statement, a belated effort to placate liberal supporters he knew
abhorred the bill, Clinton expressed worry that it could serve to “provide
an excuse for discrimination.”

Hillary Clinton appeared to get through the election season without having
to commit to a position of her own. In an interview earlier that year with
the San Francisco Examiner’s Carla Marinucci, she had said that her
“preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriages”
but did not share her view of same-sex unions. Promoting her book It Takes
a Village, Clinton told Marinucci that “children are better off if they
have a mother and a father,” but also that “there are people who are able
to fulfill the functions of child rearing who don’t fit into the
traditional pattern.”

 As a Senate candidate, Clinton couldn't maintain the ambiguity. In January
2000, she said she would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and,
despite supporting some rights for same-sex couples, she did not believe
that they should be entitled to marry. "Marriage has got historic,
religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I
think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a
woman,” she said then.

In 2013, after she left the State Department, Clinton said she had changed
her position and now favored recognition of gay marriages. But even last
year, fifteen months after her husband conceded in a Washington Post op-ed
that he had come around to the view that the Defense of Marriage Act had
always been unconstitutional, Hillary appeared to be still defending the
bill, at least on practical grounds.

“What DOMA did is at least allow the states to act,” she told NPR’s Terry
Gross in an interview that turned contentious when Clinton was asked to
trace her change of opinion on the gay marriage. “It wasn't going yet to be
recognized by the federal government, but at the state level there was the
opportunity. And my husband, you know, was the first to say that, you know,
the political circumstances, the threats that were trying to be alleviated
by the passage of DOMA thankfully were no longer so preeminent and we could
keep moving forward, and that's what we're doing.”

Hillary Clinton threatens to steal Marco Rubio's thunder [Daniel Lippman,
POLITICO, April 10, 2015
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-threatens-to-steal-rubios-thunder-116870.html#ixzz3WwgA98pv>
]

*Hillary Clinton’s campaign launch could steal some of the media coverage
of Marco Rubio’s own campaign announcement. *

Marco Rubio’s parade is in danger of getting rained on. His advisers had
closely monitored Hillary Clinton’s possible announcement date to ensure
that the Florida senator could own the news cycle for his own launch.

Looks like their forecasts were off.

For their part, the Rubio camp and independent GOP strategists are saying
they are not worried about bad timing, and believe it could even help him
by creating a split-screen effect in which Rubio is paired up with Clinton
instead of the whole Republican field.With Clinton expected to kick off her
presidential campaign on Sunday with a social media announcement, the
Florida senator could see his own launch event in Miami on Monday evening
overshadowed by the Hillary media coverage.

“To the extent that Hillary’s entrance is going to increase interest in the
2016 race, we welcome that,” said Rubio spokesman Alex Conant.

“I have no concerns,” he added. “Not a single reporter has said that
they’re not coming because Hillary Clinton is going to announce a web
video.”

He said that Rubio’s message that the American dream is being threatened is
independent of who else is in the race and the timing of their
announcements. To keep Rubio in the spotlight, they’ve scheduled several
network interviews over the course of the week, and Fox News’ Sean Hannity
plans to interview Rubio on Monday night after his speech.

“We really like the contrast the American people are going to see over
Sunday and Monday,” Conant said.

GOP strategist Ben Porritt said the timing may not be ideal for Rubio, but
that his camp shouldn’t be overly worried. He said Rubio and Clinton
clearly have different audiences.

“If you had to go back in time, and you’re Sen. Rubio, you would love to
have the whole day to yourself, but you can’t,” Porritt said.

And media attention is far from the only metric that determines the success
of a kick-off. Money is critical too, Porritt said, and Rubio’s
announcement should lead to a “huge boom in fundraising” in the 48 to 72
hours after his speech.

GOP operative Ana Navarro tweeted on Friday that “Anybody who thinks a
Hillary video on Sun will overshadow a Marco speech on Mon, has either
never seen a Hillary video or a Marco speech…”

Republican strategist Doug Heye said there was “enough oxygen for both
announcements to get a lot of coverage” and Clinton can be the “best foil”
that a Republican like Rubio could have.

But Heye said Rubio would be wise to tweak his speech with fresh barbs
against Clinton, using her own words from the day before against her.

Hillary Clinton Is the Perfect Age to Be President [Dr. Julie Holland,
TIME, April 3, 2015 <http://time.com/3763552/hillary-clinton-age-president/>
]

*At 67, Dr. Julie Holland argues that Hillary Clinton is the perfect age to
be President.*

At 67, Hillary Clinton is now a “woman of a certain age.” So much emphasis
and worry are put on physical aging in women that the emotional maturity
and freedom that can come at this time are given short shrift. That robs
everyone of a great natural resource. For women of a certain age, it is our
time to lead. The new standard for aging women should be about vitality,
strength and assertiveness.

One of the largest demographics in America is women in their 40s to 60s,
and by 2020 there will be nearly 60 million peri- and post-menopausal women
living in the U.S. Because women’s average life expectancy is currently 81
years, we’re easily spending a third of our lives postmenopausal. That is a
great opportunity for growth and change.

Estrogen is a stress hormone that helps a woman be resilient during her
fertile years. Its levels rise and fall to help her meet her biological
demands, which are often about giving to others: attracting a mate, bearing
children and nurturing a family. When estrogen levels drop after menopause,
the cyclical forces that dominated the first half of our lives have been
replaced with something more consistent. Our lives revolve less around
others and become more about finally taking our turn.The long phase of
perimenopause is marked by seismic spikes and troughs of estrogen levels,
which can last for more than a decade in many women. But afterward, there
is a hormonal ebbing that creates a moment of great possibility. As a
psychiatrist, I will tell you the most interesting thing about menopause is
what happens after. A woman emerging from the transition of perimenopause
blossoms. It is a time for redefining and refining what it is she wants to
accomplish in her third act. And it happens to be excellent timing for the
job Clinton is likely to seek. Biologically speaking, postmenopausal women
are ideal candidates for leadership. They are primed to handle stress well,
and there is, of course, no more stressful job than the presidency.

In my new book, Moody Bitches, I look at how women are taught from an early
age that moodiness is a problem to be fixed. That is simply wrongheaded.
Women’s moods are our body’s intelligent feedback system. If we learn to
manage them properly, they are a great resource and a tremendous source of
power. They show us when we are primed for certain challenges and
opportunities.

And the postmenopausal emergence, if you will, coincides with the point at
which most women will have a fair amount of experience under their belts.
(Perhaps they’ve already served as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State,
for instance.) This is often the right time to make a push, to take more of
a leadership position, enter a new arena or strike out on one’s own. My
mother was a great role model in her perimenopause, taking her symptoms in
stride and referring to her hot flashes as “power surges.” She got another
degree and switched careers; that appealed to me as a teenage girl. Now I
see this rise in power as a way to channel new energy and even new anger.
It’s a chance to make changes that should’ve been made decades ago. This
may also be the time when children — adolescents in particular — are ready
to take on more responsibility, so perhaps there is a benefit for everyone
in changing that family dynamic.

“I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit,
for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” said a
73-year-old Ronald Reagan of 56-year-old Walter Mondale. Hillary would
begin her presidency at exactly the same age Reagan did, but her life
expectancy would be longer than that of any other President in recent
times. And she would have all the experience and self-assurance of a
postmenopausal woman, ready to take her rightful place at the table — or in
the Oval Office.

Julie Holland, M.D., is a psychopharmacologist and psychiatrist, and the
best-selling author of Weekends at Bellevue: Nine Years on the Night Shift
at the Psych ER and Moody Bitches: The Truth About the Drugs You’re Taking,
the Sleep You’re Missing, the Sex You’re Not Having, and What’s Really
Making You Crazy, out this month

Hillary to Launch Campaign This Weekend With ‘Insane’ Fundraising Push
[David Freedlander, The Daily Beast, April 10, 2015
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/10/hillary-to-launch-campaign-this-weekend-with-insane-fundraising-push.html>
]

*In a few days, Clinton will at last announce the obvious—she’s running for
president. And she’ll use her first week as a candidate to raise “an insane
amount of money,” an insider says.*

In a few days, Clinton will at last announce the obvious—she’s running for
president. And she’ll use her first week as a candidate to raise “an insane
amount of money,” an insider says.

After the announcement comes the deluge.

Hillary Clinton is expected to announce her presidential campaign this
weekend, most likely on Sunday, sources in the Clinton operation tell The
Daily Beast.

After that, the nascent campaign will embark on a fundraising push that the
Clinton camp says will dwarf anything seen in the history of presidential
politics.

“They are going to raise in one week what some Republican presidential
candidates are going to raise the entire cycle,” said one Clinton aide.

On Saturday afternoon, Ready for Hillary, the super PAC that has been a
Clinton campaign-in-waiting in the years since Clinton left the State
Department, will host what is likely a final fundraising push at
SouthwestNY, a sleek Tex-Mex restaurant steps from the rebuilt World Trade
Center.

From then on, Ready for Hillary will encourage its 3.6 million supporters
to give to Clinton’s real campaign while the super PAC quietly dissolves.

Ready for Hillary has raised close to $15 million from nearly 150,000
donors, and Clintonistas believe that those same donors alone could give as
much as 10 times that amount to a Clinton campaign.

They are expected to be joined in this fundraising by Clinton allies like
EMILY’s List, the organization dedicated to electing pro-choice women to
office that is viewed as central to Clinton’s 2016 chances.

Regardless of when she announces, the plan, one Clinton insider told The
Daily Beast, was to do a massive fundraising push through her website and
with allied organizations to raise “an insane amount of money” right out of
the starting gate.

A Clinton spokesman did not return a request for comment.

“They are going to raise in one week what some Republican presidential
candidates are going to raise the entire cycle.”

Clinton is likely to announce her run for president on Twitter, linking the
announcement through a variety of social media platforms.

Clinton has been unusually active on Twitter in recent weeks to generate an
audience for her expected announcement.

Since the last week of March, she has tweeted twice: in support of the
Affordable Care Act and against an Indiana law that some say would
discriminate against gays. She has also weighed in on the shooting of an
unarmed black man in South Carolina—“Praying for #WalterScott’s family.
Heartbreaking & too familiar. We can do better—rebuild trust, reform
justice system and respect all lives.”; paid tribute to retiring Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid; and come out against “payday lenders.”

After Clinton announces her candidacy, she will likely jet off to the early
primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire early next week. While most
presidential campaigns strategize over how to get media attention, Clinton
operatives are trying to figure out how to wrangle a ballooning press corps
that for weeks has competed over such small-bore issues as which empty
Brooklyn loft space will house her campaign headquarters and looked for
meaning in every Clinton facial expression and utterance since 2012.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have always been prodigious Democratic
fundraisers, but they will enter the 2016 election cycle as newcomers to
the post-Citizens Unitedworld of campaign finance. Super PACs associated
with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), for example, have raised $31 million since he
announced his campaign last week. And former Florida governor Jeb Bush has
embarked on a “shock and awe” fundraising blitz to overwhelm his Republican
rivals.

Hillary Clinton intends to upstage them all.

A contest, or a coronation? [The Economist, April 10th, 2015
<http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21648005-she-has-no-serious-rivals-yet-democratic-nomination-voters-still-have-plenty>
]

*Hillary Clinton will have to overcome her past in order to compete
effectively in 2016.*

FOR five seconds Hillary Clinton’s voice cracked and her eyes grew damp. It
was in January 2008 in a coffee shop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. A
sympathetic voter had just asked her how she coped with the hardships of
running for president. “How do you do it?” asked Marianne Pernold Young, a
local portrait photographer, mentioning that Mrs Clinton’s hair always
looked perfectly coiffed. “How do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?”

Pundits rushed to analyse the moment. Mrs Clinton was exhausted, they
intoned. The former First-Lady-turned-senator knew that her younger rival,
Barack Obama, was walking away with a race for the Democratic nomination
that had once seemed hers to lose.

As the media juggernaut gathered speed, the strange intensity of America’s
relationship with Mrs Clinton was laid bare. Supporters hailed the fleeting
display of emotion as proof of their heroine’s humanity, often hidden by
her discipline and caution on the campaign trail. Opponents recalled Edmund
Muskie, a Democrat whose presidential bid was derailed in 1972 when he
teared up in the face of harsh press attacks, and wondered if the 2008
primary was now over. Back inside the Café Espresso, suspicious journalists
surrounded Mrs Pernold Young. Betraying the toxic state of Mrs Clinton’s
relations with the press pack, many asked if she was a planted campaign
stooge.

The candidate herself cornered a press aide and fretted that voters might
think her weak, and not ready to be commander-in-chief. Mr Obama took a
different view. Watching footage of his rival as he trundled across New
Hampshire in a campaign bus, he thought it a worryingly touching moment. “I
don’t like this. I actually think this could really help her,” David
Axelrod, the political guru at Mr Obama’s side, later recalled muttering.

Seven years on, as America waits to see how Mrs Clinton will conduct a
second bid for her party’s presidential nomination, that flash of
vulnerability is still cited in New Hampshire, the state that next January
will host the first primary elections (and the second vote, after the Iowa
caucuses) of the 2016 presidential cycle. This time it inspires a
consensus: Mrs Clinton needs more such moments.

New Hampshire voters expect to meet candidates in diners and veterans’
halls, and to hear them speak in a neighbour’s sitting-room. They have a
record of dethroning front-runners who take the state for granted. Mrs
Pernold Young still lives in Portsmouth, and jokes that “The woman who made
Hillary Clinton cry” will be carved on her tombstone. Over breakfast at the
Café Espresso, she says she will back Mrs Clinton this time round, after
supporting Mr Obama in the 2008 primary. Appalled by the “quagmire” in
Washington, and disappointed by how long it took Mr Obama to learn the ways
of government, she likes the idea of electing a worldly insider like Mrs
Clinton, sighing: “I don’t want another trainee.” But she does not want a
coronation either. She notes that some friends roll their eyes at another
Clinton presidency, especially as no serious Democratic rival has yet
emerged. “I’d like to see Hillary be challenged,” she says.

Such views are widespread, and have been heard within the Clinton camp. Two
close advisers, Robby Mook and Marlon Marshall, visited New Hampshire and
Iowa just before Easter, meeting local Democratic power-brokers. One of
these was James Demers, a strategist and lobbyist who was one of Mr Obama’s
first big backers in New Hampshire. The message from Mrs Clinton’s inner
circle was that the former secretary of state will run as though she faces
a bitterly contested primary, Mr Demers says. She will use the race to
explain to America why she wants the presidency, while building the sort of
campaign machinery that propelled Mr Obama to the White House in 2008.
Whether her primary involves one, two or ten candidates, Mrs Clinton “knows
that she has to earn every vote”.

As one of the most famous people in the world, constantly watched by the
Secret Service, it will be hard for Mrs Clinton to campaign in the
traditional New Hampshire way, says Terry Shumaker, a lawyer who co-chaired
both of Bill Clinton’s campaigns in the state. But he thinks she must try,
using the “intimacy” of the state to communicate with the whole country. He
describes his old friend as an economic centrist, who sees government as a
positive force but believes that business is the engine of the economy. In
2016 she can add domestic and global experience to the mix. “There is a
huge hunger for Washington to work again,” he says. And with Islamic State
fanatics on the prowl, voters have a “visceral” need to feel safe.

Not all Democrats are convinced. Martha Fuller Clark, a state senator and
big Obama backer in 2008, notes that New Hampshire Democrats are not “100%
for Hillary”. She herself remains uncommitted, noting that a potential
rival, the former governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, has been active in
the state. In her telling, New Hampshire Democrats want a candidate who
will fight against inequality and for the middle class. They worry about
climate change, and are unhappy that so much outside money is flowing into
their state, notably since the Supreme Court eased the rules on political
spending. They want to hear from Mrs Clinton how to “move from a plutocracy
back to a democracy”, says Mrs Fuller Clark.

Sisters are doin’ it for themselves

That echoes complaints from other Democrats, such as Gary Hart, a former
presidential contender, who recently said it should “frighten every
American” that the Clinton machine reportedly intends to raise $1 billion.
Once the real campaigning starts, the former secretary of state needs a
strategy to engage and excite the broader electorate, especially the young,
Mrs Fuller Clark adds: not least because she thinks that female politicians
are judged more harshly than men, which makes it hard to be accessible.
“Women really want to do a good job, something that constrains them from
engaging more freely with voters.”

After years worrying about the Middle East and Russia, Mrs Clinton will be
grilled about health care, or the lack of full-day kindergartens in half
the towns in New Hampshire, predicts Colin Van Ostern, a member of the
state’s Executive Council. He thinks this will do Candidate Clinton much
good: “What Hillary Clinton needs is exactly what New Hampshire demands.”

The challenges of a fresh Clinton candidacy were summed up by Bill Clinton,
the man with the potential to be the campaign’s greatest asset and worst
liability. No living ex-president enjoys higher approval ratings, as
Americans forget the scandals of the 1990s and remember the economic
growth, balanced budgets and bipartisan reforms of the welfare system that
were achieved on Mr Clinton’s watch. Yet in 2008 an ill-disciplined Mr
Clinton caused chaos in his wife’s campaign.

The former president recently told Town & Country magazine that he was not
sure he was any good at campaigning any more because “I’m not mad at
anybody,” citing the mellowing effects of being a grandfather. Despite that
disclaimer, Mr Clinton could not resist analysing his wife’s putative
campaign in some detail, noting that it is hard for any party to hold the
White House for longer than two terms, and arguing that should his wife
run, she should “go out there as if she’s never run for anything before and
establish her connection with the voters.”

The problem is that the Clintons have run for many things before. Mrs
Clinton first entered the governor’s mansion in Arkansas in 1979, and has
been in the public eye ever since. This makes connecting with ordinary folk
a challenge. In a speech last year to a convention of car dealers, she
confided that: “The last time I actually drove a car myself was 1996.” The
fact that she typically received six-figure sums for such speeches does not
help either.

Republicans may be expected to paint her as part liberal-elitist, and part
big-government statist. Playing on lingering public disapproval of the
Obamacare health reforms, Republicans may try to revive memories of Mrs
Clinton’s failed attempts at expanding health coverage during her husband’s
presidency.

Republicans will also try to use her record as secretary of state from
2009-13 against her. It is common to hear them talk of a world made more
dangerous by a naive, feckless “Obama-Clinton foreign policy”. Mrs Clinton
is blamed on the right for her role in offering Russia a “reset” in
relations, for clashing with the Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu,
and for generally squandering her time as America’s top envoy. Of her boast
of having travelled to 112 countries, one putative Republican challenger,
Carly Fiorina, a former boss of Hewlett-Packard, scoffs that: “Flying is an
activity, not an accomplishment.”

Without a scrap of evidence, many conservatives remain convinced that Mrs
Clinton chose out of political calculation not to protect an American
mission in Benghazi, leading to the deaths of America’s ambassador to Libya
and three aides, then sought to cover up her blunders. Such suspicions have
not been allayed by the recent revelation that Mrs Clinton used a private
server throughout her time at the State Department, preserving for the
archives only the e-mails that she deemed relevant and deleting the rest.
And she will face queries about donations from foreign governments, some
less than democratic, to the Clinton Foundation, a family charity that also
serves to keep her in the public eye.

The Democratic grassroots have their own gripes with the Clintons. They
have not forgotten that Mrs Clinton voted for George W. Bush’s Iraq war as
a senator. It took her until March 2013 to come out for gay marriage. But
mostly the left of the party worries that the Clintons are too soft on
capitalism. They recall Mr Clinton’s presidency as a time when the rules on
Wall Street banks were loosened, in their view setting the scene for the
later financial crash. It remains an article of faith among trade unions
that the North American Free Trade Agreement signed by Mr Clinton with
Mexico and Canada sucked jobs out of the American heartland.

Standin’ on their own two feet

Though no credible Democratic challenger has emerged, many Democrats see
(or want to see) a vacuum to Mrs Clinton’s left. Mr O’Malley, who as
governor of Maryland was hardly a socialist banner-waver, now sides with
groups who insist that America can afford to increase federal benefits for
the old, breaking with years of broad consensus that Social Security is
doomed to insolvency unless benefits are eventually curtailed and taxes
raised.

Lots of leftists still long for Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
to make a populist bid for the presidency, demanding tougher regulation of
Wall Street, fewer free-trade deals and more redistribution to the middle
class. Mrs Warren says she is not running, but the clamour continues. It is
in part an attempt to put pressure on Mrs Clinton to tack to the left.

Some critics worry that Mrs Clinton is too old (she would be 69 in January
2017, making her the second-oldest newly elected president, eight months
younger than Ronald Reagan). Others fret about her health (she suffered a
blood clot on her brain in 2012). She cannot do much about either charge.

She could deal with a different concern—that no one knows what she really
believes—but she is in no hurry. Candidates usually take sharply
ideological positions during primaries, to woo the die-hard activists who
vote in them, before tacking back to the centre as the general election
nears. However, if Mrs Clinton faces no real primary challenger, she may
not need to do this. Instead, she will need to woo enough Democrats to
build a sense of excitement and grassroots involvement, without alienating
swing voters. And if she cannot achieve the same stellar levels of support
among black and young voters that Mr Obama did, she will need to fill the
gap some other way.

She has made her pitch to women clear. She stresses her desire to help more
of them into the workforce. She solemnly declares that women should receive
equal pay for the same work as men (a position with which no one
disagrees). In the past she has campaigned to make it easier for women to
sue over alleged discrimination.

A big test involves white voters without a college education, who make up
about a third of the electorate, but have drifted from the Democrats since
Bill Clinton’s day. Mr Obama only won 36% of their votes in 2012, and might
have done still worse if he had not successfully painted his Republican
opponent, Mitt Romney, as their worst nightmare of a boss.

Should Mrs Clinton win the general election, she will also need to be ready
on Day One to deal with Republicans. There is virtually no chance that
Democrats will win the House of Representatives in 2016, and even if they
retake the Senate they will not have a filibuster-proof majority.

Expect Mrs Clinton to run to Mr Obama’s right on foreign policy. In
interviews since leaving the State Department she has said that she urged
him to take a muscular approach to Russia. She has chided Europeans for
failing to stand up to Vladimir Putin (she wants them to send arms to
Ukraine, for example), while crediting the reset with achieving at least
one arms-control agreement and securing Russian help in talks to curb
Iran’s nuclear ambitions. She has called the latest draft deal with Iran,
brokered by America and other world powers, an “important step”, whatever
that means. Last year she signalled that she would be more comfortable with
stricter curbs on Iran’s nuclear programme. In a rare overt criticism of Mr
Obama, she said in 2014 that the failure to help non-Islamist Syrian rebels
fight against Bashar Assad had left a “big vacuum” for Islamic State and
other jihadists to fill.

Mrs Clinton has come close to echoing Republican grumbles that Mr Obama is
too apologetic about American power. She says that her country cannot solve
all problems, “but there’s not a problem that we face that can be solved
without the United States.” While ruling out a return to the hubris of the
George W. Bush years, she hints that the time has come for America to
re-engage with the world.

In domestic forums Mrs Clinton is fluent in the language of the modern
business-friendly centre-left. She is keen on public infrastructure,
universal education for the youngest children, lowering the cost of college
and experimenting with German-style wage-subsidies for the working poor.
She likes to see church groups working alongside strong trade unions and
community organisations, and uses “evidence-based” as high praise for any
policy. In 2008 she sometimes sounded like a deficit hawk, with slogans
like: “We’ve got to stop spending money we don’t have.” In 2008 she also
called for a “time out” on new trade deals, though as secretary of state
she backed new pacts. During primary debates she called herself “committed
to making sure Social Security is solvent” and said that the best route to
reform lay through bipartisan compromise.

And ringin’ on their own bells

Yet even policy experts invited to private sessions with Mrs Clinton in
recent months are not sure where she stands. One centrist policy adviser
says that, after being quizzed by her about paths to restoring middle-class
prosperity, he thinks (and certainly hopes) that she will say that it is a
false choice to argue that fairness and economic growth must be in
opposition to each other.

Such centrists would like to hear her thank Mr Obama for saving the economy
from disaster after the financial crash in 2008 and praise him for
expanding health care. Then she could change the subject, turning the
country’s attention to the task of building an economy for the 21st
century, harnessing growth to boost middle-class wages. If it sounds to
voters more like a third term of Bill Clinton than four more years of Mr
Obama, that would suit many Hillary-backers just fine.

Hillary Clinton Can't Coast on Her Belief in Climate Science [Rebecca
Leber, TNR, April 10, 2015
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121387/hillary-clinton-2016-climate-change-platform-needs-detail>
]

*Hillary Clinton will be the only legitimate contender for the White
House—declared or presumptive—who embraces the scientific reality of
climate change.*

This weekend, Hillary Clinton reportedly will announce her candidacy for
president. In doing so, she will be the only legitimate contender for the
White House—declared or presumptive—who embraces the scientific reality of
climate change.

Clinton could coast through the primary with an environmental platform that
rests entirely on this fact, and remain vague on her plans for climate
action. But she would be blowing a tremendous opportunity.

Environmentalists aren't sure where Clinton stands these days, though she
did work to boost her climate credentials in two high-profile speeches
months before the official launch of her campaign. At September's National
Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, Clinton called climate change “the most
consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a
nation and a world.” And two months later, in a speech to the League of
Conservation Voters, she said, "The science of climate change is
unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say, sea levels are rising, ice
caps are melting, storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc."

But those speeches only signal that she's not, say, Ted Cruz. Little is
known about her specific policies on the environment. She’s never tweeted
about climate change, and she’s steered clear of debates over the Keystone
XL pipeline. "You won't get me to talk about Keystone because I have
steadily made clear that I'm not going to express an opinion," Clinton said
in Canada the same week the Senate debated a Keystone bill. So far, the
most promising sign that her campaign will be aggressive on the environment
is her hiring former White House senior adviser John Podesta, who led the
Obama administration's recent strategy on climate.

Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica hopes Clinton uses her high
profile to elevate the climate debate in America, much like President
Barack Obama has.

“I think the real difficulty is whether or not it’s a proactive debate
where Clinton is proactively pushing her vision and what it means for the
United States and globe if she will be responding in a defensive manner to
Obama’s climate plan,” Pica said. “She should model what the president is
doing right now. He has the bully pulpit of the presidency and he is trying
to steer proactively the climate debate."

Some environmentalists worry she will dodge difficult policy issue,
including methane emissions from fracking, leasing public lands to energy
companies, and offshore drilling.

“The question isn’t whether or not Hillary Clinton’s talking points are
better than those of Ted Cruz, or if she’ll say nice things about renewable
energy," 350 Action spokesperson Karthik Ganapathy said. "Rising above
climate denial isn’t the bar here; the real question is how her policies
stack up against the science, and whether or not they’ll actually keep
fossil fuels in the ground to avert the worst impacts of global warming."

Realistically, Clinton will get support from national green groups
regardless of what she does. She'll support clean energy and Obama's major
climate policies. That's good enough for most supporters.

A few groups, like Friends of the Earth and 350.org, have called out the
Clinton Foundation's ties to the oil and gas industry and criticized her
past comments about Keystone. In 2010, Clinton hinted she was “inclined” to
approve the Keystone pipeline when she was secretary of state. She also
aggressively promoted natural gas as “the cleanest fossil fuel available”
and hired a former oil industry representative to push the fossil fuel
abroad. Environmentalists want to see Clinton temper her support for
fracking by acknowledging its problems—that it leaks greenhouse gas
emissions, causes minor earthquakes, and contaminates groundwater.

Taking specific stances on environmental issues carries its own risk, but
there might be a bigger payoff. After all, Clinton will have to energize
the Democratic base in order to win her general-election campaign.
“Presidential candidates who propose to aggressively invest in clean energy
jobs and reduce climate pollution would enhance their appeal to young and
Latino voters, as well as other groups," LCV Senior Vice President for
Campaigns Dan Weiss said. It could even help in swing states. "Iowa
farmers, for instance, strongly support investments in wind energy. Small
business owners in southern Florida would benefit from such policies that
reduce the potential of floods from sea level rise," he said.

For too long, Democratic candidates have been content to mock Republican
climate-deniers while proudly proclaiming their belief in the science of
climate change. In 2016, that will no longer suffice. Obama's recent
controversial executive actions ensure that climate change will be an
election issue. If an international deal to cut emissions is successful by
the end of 2015, then the ensuing debate could dominate the early primaries
in 2016. Clinton will have to answer questions about where she stands. She
shouldn't wait until then to give us her answer.

Review: ‘Clinton the Musical’ Proves Unimpeachably Amusing [Laura
Collins-Hughes, NYT, April 10, 2015
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/theater/review-clinton-the-musical-proves-unimpeachably-amusing.html?_r=0>
]

*‘Clinton the Musical’ portrays Hillary Clinton well and is an entertaining
show for all.*

First came the gnashing of teeth over Hillary Clinton’s private email
account, and her soon-to-be announced presidential campaign. Then, with a
TED talk, Monica Lewinsky signaled her return to the spotlight. Now a show
called “Clinton the Musical” has opened Off Broadway.

A person could be forgiven for wanting to hide under the bed until the
1990s stopped making a comeback.

But cowering would be a mistake. Far better to crawl out from behind that
dust ruffle, head over to New World Stages and let “Clinton the Musical”
quell your fears.

Smartly silly, hilariously impudent and sneakily compassionate, it is
nearly guaranteed to leave you humming a bouncy, exuberant tune called
“Monica’s Song” — the lyrics are unprintable — and thinking far more fondly
of the eight scandal-plagued years this country spent with a president from
a place called Hope. In this frothily satirical political history — which
has a book by the Australian brothers Paul and Michael Hodge, and music and
lyrics by Paul Hodge — No. 42 is actually two presidents: the urbane,
silver-haired WJ Clinton (Tom Galantich) and the louche, rutting Billy
Clinton (Duke Lafoon).

“In my whole life I have only ever loved two men,” Hillary (Kerry Butler)
says. “And they happen to be the same man.”

So the famous Bill-and-Hillary package deal the country got in the 1992
election is a three-for-one bargain here, with WJ, Billy and brainy,
resilient Hillary tussling for dominance in a White House designed by
Beowulf Boritt, where the portraits on the walls show past presidents and
their amours.

Chief among the enemies waiting to pounce is the deliciously sex-crazed
special prosecutor Kenneth Starr (Kevin Zak), who gets his chance when
Billy takes up with Monica (Veronica J. Kuehn). The prosecutor and Linda
Tripp (Judy Gold), Monica’s predatory confidante, are the show’s only real
villains. Newt Gingrich(John Treacy Egan) is more of a buffoon.

Reworked and largely recast since its run last July at the New York Musical
Theater Festival, “Clinton” is now directed and choreographed by Dan
Knechtges, and its tone is affectionately lampooning. Chelsea Clinton is
mentioned by name only once, not cruelly. An occasional appearance by Socks
the cat is enough to remind us that a family, not just a presidency, was at
stake amid the Lewinsky scandal.

And Hillary? She tells us at the start that this is the story of her first
presidency, and she comes off awfully well. In a flattering blue pantsuit
by David C. Woolard, with hair designed by Tom Watson that looks
consistently great, Ms. Butler makes a peppy, very funny Hillary whose
ambitions are huge but whose capability is never in question.

The show’s poster art notwithstanding, “Clinton” doesn’t pit Hillary and
Monica against each other. It’s sympathetic to both of them, painting
Monica as naïve and terribly young. That lack of meanspiritedness is
crucial to its success.

“Clinton the Musical” isn’t the sort of show that the real-life subjects
are likely to find entertaining, but for the rest of us, it’s 95 minutes of
healthy catharsis.

Bloomberg Politics Poll: Democrats and Independents Don’t Want a Hillary
Coronation [John McCormick, Bloomberg Politics, April 10, 2015
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-10/bloomberg-politics-poll-democrats-and-independents-don-t-want-a-hillary-coronation>
]

*If Hillary Clinton is to become her party's 2016 presidential nominee,
independents and even Democrats overwhelmingly want to see her earn the
title, according to a Bloomberg Politics national poll that also shows
increasing headwinds for her candidacy.*

If Hillary Clinton is to become her party's 2016 presidential nominee,
independents and even Democrats overwhelmingly want to see her earn the
title, according to a Bloomberg Politics national poll that also shows
increasing headwinds for her candidacy.

As Clinton prepared to formally announce her candidacy on Sunday, nearly
three-quarters of Democrats and independents in the survey said it would be
a good thing for the Democratic Party if she were to face a "serious"
challenger for the nomination. Democrats and independents hold the same
view, with 72 percent of both groups saying her party would be best served
by a robust primary.

That presents a potential opening for other Democrats considering bids,
including former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and possibly Vice
President Joe Biden.

“She’s not a naive person. She knows the law and has been in government and
knows records retention issues.”

Leave Little

Facing a serious challenge "would prepare her for debates and things like
that against the Republican nominee," said poll respondent Marc Witte, 66,
a Democrat and clinical counselor from Poland, Ohio. Yet Witte, who
supports Clinton, isn't quite sure he wants Clinton to face an overly
combative challenger. "That could be a bad thing," he said.

The poll, taken April 6-8, also indicates that Clinton will confront
continued skepticism about whether she has been truthful in saying that
she's turned over all e-mails relevant to her time as secretary of state.
Fifty-three percent of Americans say they think she purposely withheld or
deleted some relevant e-mails from a private account and home server she
used while in office. Just 29 percent of respondents said they thought she
was being truthful.

Even 26 percent of Democrats believe she has purposefully withheld e-mails
or deleted them. That number jumps to 60 percent for independents and 81
percent for Republicans.

Clinton's office said March 10 she gave 30,490 work-related e-mails to the
State Department, which is reviewing them for public release. An additional
32,830 e-mails, which Clinton said involved personal matters such as
wedding planning or yoga routines, were deleted.

"She's not a naive person," said poll respondent Leake Little, 54, a
Democrat who works as a services consultant from San Francisco. "She knows
the law and has been in government and knows records retention issues."

Little said the e-mail controversy is the top issue concerning him about
Clinton's candidacy, in part because it's the most recent. "It raises a
huge character issue for me. It goes to whether I can literally trust her,"
said Little, a services consultant from San Francisco. "Her actions just
don't add up."

The e-mail controversy may be one of the factors depressing Clinton's
overall standing. Just 48 percent view her favorably, down four points
since December and marking the first time her standing has fallen below 50
percent in Bloomberg polls dating to September 2009. Her high was 70
percent in December, 2012.

More than a quarter of those who view her favorably also say she hasn't
been truthful about her e-mails.

And the percentage of Democrats who say they will definitely vote for her
if she is the Democratic nominee has dropped a full 10 points, to 42
percent from 52 percent in a Bloomberg poll in June, 2013. Just 18 percent
of poll respondents say they definitely will vote for her for president,
compared to 23 percent two years ago.

One thing is clear: The historic possibility of a woman becoming president
isn't a major influence on attitudes. The vast majority of poll
respondents–83 percent–say they wouldn't be more or less inclined to vote
for Clinton because she would be the first female president.

"Clinton’s strong performance in 2008 seems to have addressed any question
of whether a woman could be a capable president. It’s a non-issue now,"
said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., which
conducted the poll. "At the end of the nomination fight, it was clear she
had paved the way for other women with her '18 million cracks' in the glass
ceiling. It turns out she may have paved the way for herself."

Women and liberals are more likely than others to say they'd be more
inclined to vote for Clinton because of her gender. Seventeen percent of
women say the idea of electing the first female president makes them more
inclined to vote for Clinton, more than double the percentage of men who
say that. Among those who consider themselves liberals, a quarter said
Clinton's gender makes them more likely to back her.

"I just think it is time," said Jennifer LaDuca, 43, a full-time human
resources management student and part-time thrift shop worker from
Ahwahnee, Calif. "I would vote for almost any woman candidate over a male,
as long as they weren't too out of line with my political thinking."

LaDuca, who considers herself a Democrat, said she's leaning toward
supporting Clinton if she runs. She said her grandmother, who passed away
in 2011 at the age of 98, voted for Clinton in the 2008 primary. "I would
have loved for her to see Hillary Clinton get elected in her lifetime," she
said.

As is typical for Clinton, more women view her favorably than men, 54
percent to 42 percent. Still, her standing with women has dropped 9 points
from two years ago.

Her ratings have suffered among independent women, with 44 percent viewing
her favorably and 48 percent unfavorably. That’s a profound drop since June
2013, when that group viewed her favorably by almost a 2-1 ratio, 60
percent to 33 percent. Clinton's standing among Democrats remains strong at
82 percent, although that number has dropped six points since June 2013.

Like her husband, former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton posts
stronger numbers among younger Americans, who may not as well remember the
controversies of the Clinton White House. Among those 34 or younger, 52
percent view her positively, compared to 46 percent of those 55 and older.
Four in 10 independents view her favorably.

Among Democrats, 42 percent said they would definitely vote for her in a
general election, down 10 points since June 2013. For Democratic women, the
number isn't much higher, 46 percent. That's down 8 points since June 2013.

Bill Clinton's standing in the poll has dropped only slightly, with 60
percent viewing him favorably compared to 64 percent in a September 2012
Bloomberg poll. That's well above his wife's number. Properly harnessed–and
kept on message–he could prove to be a significant asset on the campaign
trail.

The poll, which included interviews with 1,008 adults, has a margin of
error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points on the full sample.

What losing in 2008 taught Hillary about how to win in 2016 [Jonathan
Allen, Vox, April 10, 2015
<http://www.vox.com/2015/4/10/8383283/hillary-2016-campaign-gender-strategy>
]

*When Hillary Clinton launches her campaign Sunday, she’ll do something no
other plausible presidential candidate – including Clinton herself – has
done before: she’ll run like a woman.*

When Hillary Clinton launches her campaign Sunday, she’ll do something no
other plausible presidential candidate – including Clinton herself – has
done before: she’ll run like a woman.

If she plays it right, it will be a feature, not a bug, of Hillary for
President (2016 remix). The feminine motif will be fully integrated into
her persona, her rhetoric, and her platform, according to interviews with a
half-dozen sources close to Clinton.

That’s a hell of a pivot from her 2008 campaign, when she all but refused
to acknowledge what some of her advisers failingly insisted was intrinsic
to her story. The new approach also owes to a shift in political
atmospherics that favors attention to lower- and middle-class economic
concerns, such as early-childhood education and paid time off, that
motivate women voters, as well as many of their husbands, fathers, and sons.

"The culture has changed on these issues," said Neera Tanden, the president
of the Center for American Progress and a former Clinton policy aide.
"Hillary has not changed on these issues."

There’s an obvious gap, a window of opportunity, separating women’s
participation in elections and their power in government. Women made up 53
percent of the electorate in the 2012 presidential election, and yet only
104 of the 535 full voting seats in the House and Senate are held by women.
The historic dominance of men in elective office, from the presidency to
Congress and the statehouses, has led to a chronic tilt away from the
perspectives and priorities of women.

Clinton’s strategy weaves together the immutably unique and historic aspect
of her candidacy — her gender — with a domestic and foreign policy
worldview that emphasizes the ways in which the full participation of women
in society leads to greater stability and economic growth. In a similar
vein, the cultural shift that Tanden points to can be seen in the
Republican field’s quick adoption of President Barack Obama’s rhetoric – if
not his policy choices – on economic inequality.

Ann O’Leary, a former Clinton adviser who has worked with her on the
Clinton Foundation’s early childhood education program over the past couple
of years, says that pattern will repeat itself on family issues of
particular importance to women that have become hot topics for men, too.

"Any candidate, whether it’s Hillary Clinton or someone on the other side
of the aisle, is going to have to take positions on these issues, because
there’s more demand for it," she says.

Clinton's transformation begins

Clinton’s shift began with her concession speech in June 2008: She agreed
to talk about herself and her place in the women's movement only after
intense pressure from a set of her advisers who had lost out during the
campaign. Ultimately, she spoke of the "18 million cracks" her supporters
had put in the glass ceiling of the White House with their votes. She
echoed Sojourner Truth’s famous "Ain’t I a woman" speech in weaving
together the hopes of women and African Americans that day, and used
Harriet Tubman to accomplish the same rhetorical union in her Democratic
National Convention speech that same year.

At the State Department, Clinton created the post of ambassador for global
women’s issues, directed American diplomats to push their foreign
counterparts on the rights of women and girls, and established programs
such as the "Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves" a partnership of
governments, businesses and nonprofits that is designed to protect women
from the deadly fumes of open-fire cooking.

Now she has concluded that running as a woman — and emphasizing issues that
bolster the security of women and their families — is a strength that melds
her political and policy identities and addresses some of her biggest
problems as a candidate.

Still, it’s a strategy that even allies acknowledge comes with the risk
that Clinton could turn off voters by overplaying the gender card.

"You don’t want to get so pigeonholed," one veteran Clinton adviser said.
"I don’t think she wants to run as the woman candidate just for women."

It's about you and me, not just me

Clinton’s at her best when she’s the champion of a cause — particularly an
underdog constituency — that is larger than herself. The clearest examples
come from her equation of women's rights and gay rights with human rights.

But she's been knocked, and fairly, for too often making her political
story about herself, like when she kicked off her last campaign by
declaring, "I’m in, and I’m in to win." This time, she's determined to
connect herself with others first as an advocate and then as a presidential
aspirant.

"She needs to explain to people why she wants to do this that is not about
her," the veteran adviser said.

That’s why she’ll start with a listening tour. That’s nothing new: Clinton
conducted listening tours on proposed changes to Medicare when she was
first lady and before her 2000 Senate campaign in New York. When she
launched her first presidential campaign in 2007, she did "more talking
than listening," the Associated Press observed.

Now she wants to show that her platform is, at least in part, a reaction to
public demand. That is, don’t expect thick policy briefs to appear online
anytime soon.

"She’s very much going to be in listening mode before she starts rolling
out policies," said O'Leary, the former Clinton aide who worked with her on
early-childhood education.

Will the real Hillary Clinton please stand up?

After years of high-profile battles — with Republicans, the press, and even
members of her own party — Clinton retreated into a defensive posture in
public. That was evident during her book tour and at an uncomfortable press
conference after it was revealed that she prevented the State Department
from having access to her email.

A byproduct of that defensiveness, bordering at times on paranoia, has been
that she has struggled to come off as genuine in the eyes of her detractors
and even some of her loyal allies.

Again, running as a woman begins to address that deficiency as a candidate.
There’s no storyline in Clinton’s career that is as consistent as her
efforts to advance the causes of women and girls.

From her early work at the Children’s Defense Fund through her roles as
first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the United States, secretary of
state, and philanthropist, Clinton’s rhetoric and areas of policy focus —
from expanding health insurance to securing human rights for women — have
been inextricably tied to a desire to strengthen women’s standing in
society.

Republicans know both parts of that: that she’s been consistent on women’s
rights, and that she is perceived as less than honest. That’s why they made
hayof donations to the Clinton Foundation from countries with bad records
on women’s rights and why Rand Paul, who launched his candidacy on Tuesday,
told Politico, "There’s a lot of stuff there that is, I think, going to
shake the confidence of Americans in her ability to lead in an honest
fashion."

The shift: is it about us?

Last but not least, the electorate has shown signs that it’s more inclined
to support both women candidates and an issue set that Clinton has pushed
in the past and that will be emphasized more in this campaign.

Clinton will promote those issues as essential to strengthening families,
particularly in the lower and middle economic strata. While some of the
specifics may have to wait, they’re likely to include moving toward equal
pay for women, expanding paid leave for parents, increasing the minimum
wage, cutting the costs of childcare, cutting taxes for the middle class,
and providing access to pre-kindergarten education across the country.

Clinton will frame the basket of kitchen-table issues as strengthening the
economic standing of families, even as many of the policy goals would
disproportionately benefit women — and appeal to women voters. That could
force Republican candidates into difficult choices about whether to support
small-government orthodoxy in the face of increasing demand for policies
that help families balance work and home life.

The Republican governors of Indiana, Texas, and New Mexico highlighted
their own efforts to boost early-childhood education in their
state-of-the-state addresses this year. Yet Indiana Gov. Mike Pence turned
down federal funding to expand his state’s more targeted plan last year,
explaining in an Indianapolis Star op-ed, "I believe Indiana must develop
our own pre-K program without federal intrusion."

Ultimately, Clinton and her advisers believe they’ve found a way to marry
the narrative of the nation’s cultural shift toward women with her personal
story.

"Gender will be certainly more of an issue this time than last time, in
part because there’s going to be a strong effort to talk about who she
really is," one longtime Clinton hand said, adding, "The trailblazing
doesn’t end with her inauguration."

Clinton team courts progressive economists [Alex Seitz-Wald, MSNBC, April
10, 2015
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-team-courts-progressive-economists>]

*Clinton’s team has been making a concerted effort to reach out to
progressives economists and activists, and last week joined a meeting on
inequality organized by economist Joseph Stiglitz and the Roosevelt
Institute, a progressive think tank, msnbc has learned.*

Clinton’s team has been making a concerted effort to reach out to
progressives economists and activists, and last week joined a meeting on
inequality organized by economist Joseph Stiglitz and the Roosevelt
Institute, a progressive think tank, msnbc has learned.

The Washington, D.C., meeting included officials from the labor unions SEIU
and AFL-CIO, congressional staffers, representatives from advocacy groups
like Color of Change, American Women, and the Black Civic Engagement Fund,
and others, including former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg.

The aim was “creating an agenda to combat inequality that goes further than
anything we’ve seen so far and rewrites the rules of how our economy and
markets are structured,” Roosevelt Institute spokesperson Marcus Mrowka
told msnbc.

After the meeting, Stiglitz held a private dinner with three Clinton aides
at the restaurant Poste. Clinton was represented by Jake Sullivan, a top
State Department aide who is likely to join her campaign’s policy team,
speechwriter Dan Schwerin, and Anne O’Leary, a senior fellow at the Center
for American Progress who also works on a Clinton Foundation-related
initiative. Roosevelt President and CEO Felicia Wong was also in attendance.

Dan Geldon, an adviser to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whom some
liberals are pushing to run against Clinton, attended the larger meeting,
but did not attend the dinner.

Stiglitz is influential among progressives, who view him as one of the
Democratic Party’s counterweights to the influence of former Bill Clinton
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Clinton herself has earned criticism from
some on the left for ties to Wall Street and fears she would follow in
Rubin’s footsteps.

In an essay distributed to attendees, Stiglitz called for an alternative
analytical framework to economic growth and equality, which have often been
assumed to be in competition with each other. “The increase in inequality
and the decrease in equality of opportunity have reached the point where
minor fixes — such as modest increases in the minimum wage and continuing
to strive to improve education and educational opportunity — will not
suffice. A far more comprehensive approach to the problem is required,
entailing redistribution and doing what one can to improve the market
distribution of income and to prevent the unfair transmission of advantage
across generations,” he wrote.

Clinton is expected to put inequality at the center of her campaign’s
economic message, but to address is in a less confrontational manner than
Warren. A recent 160-page white paper from the Center for American Progress
on “Inclusive Prosperity” gives a hint about her agenda.

Mrowka said the meeting was constructive and that Clinton aides were
receptive.

GOP: Clinton announcement won't blunt Benghazi probe [Lauren French,
POLITICO, April 10, 2015
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-announcement-benghazi-probe-116861.html>
]

*House Republicans investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi and
Hillary Clinton’s email practices as secretary of state said in interviews
that her official entry into the presidential race won’t have any bearing
on their probes.*

House Republicans investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi and
Hillary Clinton’s email practices as secretary of state said in interviews
that her official entry into the presidential race won’t have any bearing
on their probes.

But the political stakes of the Clinton congressional investigations are
about to skyrocket. Both parties will be watching the committee’s work
intently for ammo to use against Clinton or to call foul on the GOP for
attempting to smear a presidential contender.

“Secretary Clinton’s decision to seek the presidency of the United States
does not and will not impact the work of the committee,” said Rep. Trey
Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. “The
Committee needs to and expects to talk with Secretary Clinton twice, as
ensuring the committee has all relevant material is a condition precedent
to asking specifically about Libya and Benghazi.”

But Democrats would like nothing more than an ongoing spectacle of
congressional Republicans looking like they’re tripping over themselves to
go after Clinton. Avoiding such an atmosphere amid the heightened attention
will be a major political challenge for Gowdy, a former U.S. attorney
tapped to head the Benghazi panel and the initial investigation into
Clinton’s email use.

Democrats are already accusing the South Carolina Republican of
“slow-walking” his investigation to coincide with Clinton’s presidential
bid.

“You knew from day one that she would appear before the committee [so it’s]
interesting that they need to hear from her now that it’s the start of the
2016 election season,” said Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.). “I knew that the
select committee was not going to be about the facts and the evidence. My
sneaking suspicions was that it was going to be an excuse to go after
Secretary Clinton.”

The former secretary of state has always been a central figure in the House
GOP’s investigation of the militants who attacked a U.S. outpost in
Benghazi. But Clinton’s formal jump into the presidential race will magnify
every Republican move on this front. Clinton’s campaign kickoff comes just
as Gowdy — who has also been informally tapped to head up the House’s
initial investigation of her email use — is asking Clinton to make her
first appearance before the panel. She has been asked to testify before May
1. Gowdy said Friday the committee is still working with Clinton to
schedule the hearings.

Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, another member of the Benghazi panel, said
Gowdy is determined not to allow the committee to become a 2016 battlefield.

“Our job has everything to do with the truth and nothing to do with who may
or may not be the next president of the United States,” said Jordan.
“That’s our charge, that’s our mission and that’s solely what we’re about.
How that impacts the presidential, that’s not even the focus of the
committee.”

Republicans on the committee said the reason Clinton is being asked testify
in such close proximity to her campaign announcement is because the State
Department took so long to produce documents. The committee has been given
access to thousands of pages of emails and evidence but is asking for more.

“This, quote, perception that some may have could have been avoided if the
State Department would have given us the documents a year ago,” Jordan
said. “If we would of had the documents or if the State Department or
Secretary Clinton would have told us months and months and months ago that
she had a separate account…this could have all been avoided.”

The committee became aware that Clinton used a private email late last
summer but only discovered the extent to which Clinton kept her emails from
the State Department on a private server in March.

Both sides say their general tactics won’t change with Clinton about to be
an official presidential candidate; her campaign launch is expected this
weekend. Republicans are still expecting the former secretary of state to
appear at least twice before the panel. Gowdy invited Clinton to testify in
a closed-hearing on her use of a private email and server and another
public hearing on the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi
attacks.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Benghazi Committee, said he
would continue to criticize Gowdy’s tactics, including holding interviews
privately issuing subpoenas without consent.

“It’s been a select committee on Hillary Clinton and it will continue to be
that. They ought to do what I’ve said many times, allow her to come into a
public forum, a hearing, and let her testify,” the Maryland Democrat said.

Cummings added that Clinton indicated to the committee she would be willing
to answer questions on her email use and the Benghazi incident during a
public hearing. Clinton reportedly told Cummings last year she was prepared
to testify as early as December — before her email use was made public - on
the Obama administration’s response to Libya.

Gowdy has said he offered Clinton the private hearing on her emails to
avoid the appearance of politicizing the committee and has repeatedly
stressed that the committee is concerned only with correspondence related
to Benghazi.

”Our Committee has no interest in any emails related to the Secretary’s
personal, private matters nor is our Committee seeking documents unrelated
to Libya and Benghazi during the relevant time periods,” Gowdy said last
week. “The Committee is, however, committed to reviewing and considering
every document related to the work the House of Representatives charged us
with doing.”

But Sanchez said Democrats’ hands are largely tied because of the
committee’s broad mandate from Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio.)

“There is not a lot we can do because…the select committee pretty much has
a blank check. There is unilateral power to subpoena so there is not a lot
we Democrats can do,” she said.

Still, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Democrats will still be watching
closely to debunk what they see as myths about Benghazi and step in if
Republicans try to turn the committee into a campaign tool.

“She’s been their target all along. In that sense, nothing has changed
[because of her likely announcement] about the degree that they’ve turned
the select committee into an arm of the NRCC,” he said.

President Obama’s Quiet Case for Hillary Clinton in 2016 [Devin Dwyer, ABC
News, April 11, 2015
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obamas-quiet-case-hillary-clinton-2016/story?id=30234096>
]

*President Obama has praised Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the 2016
presidential election.*

In her final days as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton said goodbye to
President Obama over a lunch of fish tacos in the dining room off the Oval
Office. As a parting gift, she gave her former rival 20 pages of
recommendations for what to do in his second term.

“Tearing up, I hugged the president and told him again how much our work
and friendship meant to me,” Clinton writes of Obama in the new epilogue of
her book “Hard Choices.” “And that I'd be on call if he ever needed me.”

As the 2016 presidential campaign kicks into gear, Obama needs Clinton more
than ever before – a message he’s made increasingly clear over the past two
years, without having to pick up the phone.

Obama has heaped more effusive praise on his former secretary of state than
just about any other high-profile Democrat, including his own vice
president, Joe Biden, who has also aspired to the nation’s top office.

Obama has declared Clinton “a world figure” and an “extraordinary talent.”
He said in a joint interview with “60 Minutes” that she was “one of the
most important advisers” he’s had, and a “strong friend.”

“If she’s her wonderful self, I’m sure she is going to do great” in the
campaign, Obama said in an interview this week.

The accolades and encouragement are a far cry from the lukewarm “likable
enough” description Obama affixed to Clinton during a 2007 primary debate.
White House officials told ABC News that the president “thinks very highly”
of Clinton as a candidate and that she has a “strong case to make” to
become his successor.

To be sure, President Obama remains coy about an explicit primary
endorsement and, officials say, will likely keep a low profile in the early
stages of the campaign. He told CBS News in an April 2014 interview that
Biden would also be a strong candidate as “one of the finest vice
presidents in history.”

“I don’t necessarily want to jam them up,” Obama said of his potential
involvement with the candidates in the early Democratic field.

'Clinton the Musical' Looks Back, Just in Time for 2016

Still, as Clinton formally launches her second presidential bid this
weekend as the dominant Democratic front-runner, Obama is quietly banking
on her to be the defender of his legacy.

He’s cited her discipline, stamina, thoughtfulness and “ability to project”
their shared values as factors that make her “extraordinary” in his eyes.

On Twitter, Clinton has given an unabashed embrace of her former boss’s
policies, defending Obamacare and his immigration executive action. She’s
also defended the administration’s sweeping reforms of the financial system
and the president’s economic blueprint outlined in his State of the Union.

Ties to the Obama White House already run deep. The Clinton campaign
apparatus is stuffed with former top Obama administration policy makers and
strategists, including former White House communications director Jennifer
Palmieri, former Obama senior counselor John Podesta, and former Michelle
Obama aide Kristina Schake.

Administration officials deny any planned direct coordination between the
Obama White House and the Clinton campaign on messaging or legislative
agenda, but do not rule it out.

“I’m confident that there will be a lot of agreement between the priorities
that she articulates and the kinds of priorities this president has been
fighting for the last six years,” said spokesman Josh Earnest late last
month.

Rand Paul Predicts Hillary Clinton Revelations Will 'Shock People'

Page 2 of 2

Obama, Clinton Remain Allies

On a personal level, Obama and Clinton have maintained in close touch,
holding occasional in-person meetings and regularly exchanging email
messages,officials say. They last met together in the Oval Office in late
March when they discussed their families, current events and politics,
aides said.

“Are there going to be differences? Yeah. Deep differences? Of course,”
Clinton told “60 Minutes” in the 2013 joint interview. How those play out
on the stump will be a difficult balancing act. Obama and his policies
remain highly popular among Democratic voters, but much more contentious
among independents and Republicans.

Forty-seven percent of Americans approve of President Obama’s work in
office, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. The same
number disapprove.

For now, the soon-to-be-candidate Clinton is signaling that her focus will
be on the overlap in interests and priorities with Obama – revealing less
daylight than many pundits had initially expected.

Will we see President Obama and Hillary Clinton exchange another bear hug
on stage? Maybe not soon – but don’t rule it out.

“As it relates to the president’s intentions to wade into a Democratic
primary, that’s not something that he often does,” Earnest said. “But we’ll
see. A long way until the Democratic convention.”

NRA convention becomes Hillary Clinton roast [John McCormick, Bloomberg
Politics, April 10, 2015
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-10/nra-summit-turning-into-hillary-clinton-roast>
]

*Prospective 2016 Republican presidential candidates and the leaders of the
National Rifle Association focused more on Hillary Clinton than President
Barack Obama on Friday as they criticized their gun-control views and other
policies.*

NASHVILLE—Prospective 2016 Republican presidential candidates and the
leaders of the National Rifle Association focused more on Hillary Clinton
than President Barack Obama on Friday as they criticized their gun-control
views and other policies.

"We're onto her. She's been coming after us for decades," NRA Executive
Vice President Wayne LaPierre told the group's annual convention. "Hillary
Clinton hasn't met a gun control bill she couldn't support."

In a sprawling ballroom at the Music City Center convention center,
LaPierre took members of the nation's largest and most powerful gun
organization on a stroll down memory lane of Clinton controversies, saying
the former secretary of state, senator and first lady "has more 'gates'
than a south Texas cattle ranch."

"Hillary Clinton has more 'gates' than a south Texas cattle ranch."

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre

Clinton is poised to announce her second bid for the presidency as early as
this weekend.

"We will stand and we will fight with everything we're got and in 2016, by
God, we will elect our next great president of the United States of America
and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton," LaPierre said.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who announced his candidacy last month, made a
reference to a cannon involved with the Texas Revolution in the 1830s, as
he noted Clinton's pending entry into the race.

"This weekend, Hillary Clinton is announcing for president," he said.
"Well, I'll tell you, if Hillary Clinton is going to join with Barack Obama
and the gun-grabbers that come after our guns, then what I say is come and
take it."

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush called the Second Amendment "the original
Homeland Security Act," as he pitched his record on guns.

“I’ve been in the trenches with you. And when I was governor, we were
passing laws and creating protections for gun-owners that set the bar for
other states to follow," he said. “I will match my record against anyone
else’s when it comes to the support and defense of the Second Amendment."

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida kept his criticism directed at Obama.
"Strong defenses, both on the national and the personal level, are means of
preventing violence, not of promoting it," he said. "Weakness, on the other
hand, is the friend of danger and weakness is the enemy of peace. President
Obama has been a weak president. The only thing President Obama has
strengthened over the last six years has been his own, unlawful power."

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker criticized Obama's unsuccessful efforts to
tighten gun regulations. "Mr. President, last time I checked, the Second
Amendment is part of the Constitution," he said. "You don't get to pick and
choose which part of the Constitution you like and which part you don't."

Walker said his support for the NRA and less restrictive gun laws isn't
just because his state has a strong hunting heritage. "When we signed into
law concealed carry, it was about freedom," he said.

Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg

Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, arrives at the podium.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, looking out onto the audience at the start
of his remarks, made a Clinton reference as well. "I think all of us are
what Hillary Clinton once called the 'vast right wing conspiracy,'” he
joked.

Jindal called the NRA the "most effective civil rights organization" in the
U.S. "It is our duty to not only exercise our freedoms, but to defend the
freedoms of all Americans," he said.

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is known for jogging with a firearm,
told the gathering that he had "hung out the 'open for business' sign for
gun manufactures." The best defense against crime is an "armed citizenry,"
he said.

Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon-turned-conservative-activist, sought to assure
NRA members about a 2013 statement he made about semi-automatic weapons.
"I've learned how to express myself better," he said. "I am extremely
pro-Second Amendment."

Despite what he has seen on the streets and in emergency rooms, Carson said
he remains solidly pro-gun. "I spent many a night operating on people with
gunshot wounds to their heads," he said. "It is not nearly as horrible as
having a population that is defenseless against a group of tyrants who have
arms."

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee ended his speech with a "God bless
the NRA," after arguing that guns are central to the nation's self-defense.
"We will not disarm and America will never fall," he said. "It will not
fall because we will not let it."

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina kept his focus on Obama, as he
said that virtually all of the Republicans likely to run for president are
supportive of gun rights. "The next time you vote for president, make sure
they've at least run a lemonade stand, they're proud of their country in
terms of being exceptional and they know somebody who owns a gun," he said.

In total, almost a dozen prospective Republican candidates spoke Friday
afternoon, near the start of a three-day convention that organizers say
will draw about 70,000. Absent were New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who weren't invited.

Christie, who once criticized the NRA after the group featured Obama's
children in a video, received a marginal grade (C) from them before of his
successful 2013 re-election.

Paul, who opposes gun control legislation and has been an outspoken on the
Second Amendment, is in the midst of a four-state tour following his
Tuesday presidential campaign announcement.

With the exception of Christie, nearly all of the prospective Republican
candidates are opposed to new limits on the purchase or use of guns. Their
NRA ratings range from A-plus to an A-minus.

The Hillary Clinton steamroller rumbles to life [Harry Enten,
FiveThirtyEight, April 10, 2015
<http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-hillary-clinton-steamroller-rumbles-to-life/>
]

*Hillary Clinton boasts a historic lead in the 2016 Democratic primary. *

Let’s do something a little unusual. Instead of going through all the
reasons that Hillary Clinton is so likely to win the Democratic nomination
(and she is) and then tucking a caveat-laden paragraph at the bottom of
this article, let’s start with one big caveat:

Presidential elections aren’t baseball. They take place just once every
four years, so we don’t have thousands of at-bats to analyze. Clinton, who
will reportedly officially announce her campaign Sunday, could lose the
primary. Perhaps there’s some scandal we’re unaware of. Perhaps she’ll have
to drop out because of some health issue. Maybe Martin O’Malley will
straight-up beat her; stranger things have … well, OK, maybe not.

Clinton’s primary campaign is by far the most dominant for a non-incumbent
president since nominations began to be determined by caucuses and
primaries in 1972. The best predictors we have all say Clinton is going to
be the Democrats’ 2016 presidential nominee.1

Endorsements

Clinton has pretty much already won the endorsement primary, the
all-important pre-voting race to lock up party establishment support.2 Last
time she ran for president, Clinton lost the endorsement primary. By this
point in the 2008 campaign, she had only one senator endorse her publicly.
According to a CNNcount in February, Clinton has already secured
endorsements from 27 of 46 Democratic senators. That’s a ton of support so
early in the campaign.

Clinton’s strength is unique. Most years, the campaign is barely underway
in early April. And in the years in which endorsements come quickly,
elected officials usually wait at least until a candidate formally declares.

But here’s the more amazing thing about those 27 endorsements: That total
would still be impressive even if no one else were to endorse Clinton. Only
George W. Bush’s 2000 machine picked up more senator endorsements (33), and
it took him the entire primary campaign. He didn’t reach 27 until November
1999. The only other two campaigns to come close to 27 were Bob Dole’s in
1996 and Al Gore’s in 2000; each picked up 26. Like Bush, Dole and Gore
rolled over the competition.

Just as important as the number of endorsements is where they are coming
from on the ideological spectrum. Clinton is earning endorsements from the
left, center and right of the Democratic caucus. In this kernel density
function of endorsers plotted against their congressional voting record, we
see that the senators who have endorsed Clinton look ideologically very
similar to those who haven’t (more negative scores are more liberal):

Unlike in 2008, Clinton has her left flank well-covered. She has the
endorsement of liberal stalwarts such as Sens. Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth
Warren. Clinton also has the endorsement of moderate senators such as Joe
Manchin and Claire McCaskill.

Polling

Clinton also has the most dominant poll numbers of any candidate at this
point in the election cycle in the modern era. Early primary polling is not
the be-all and end-all, but candidates who are polling very well across the
board early tend to win their nominations. In an average of polls taken
since the beginning of the year, Clinton is above 50 percent in Iowa, New
Hampshire and nationally. No other non-incumbent in the modern era has done
that in the first half of the year before the primaries began.

It’s only in Iowa where Clinton doesn’t have an outright claim to the
strongest polling average in recent history. But she’s still in a strong
position at 62 percent — about where Gore was in early 1999. Gore went on
to win Iowa with 63 percent of the vote and every single primary after
that. Dole was the only candidate besides Clinton and Gore to hit at least
40 percent in early Iowa, New Hampshire and national polling. He won 44
states and easily took the 1996 GOP nomination.

Clinton is in a far stronger position than she was last time around. Back
in 2008, she was trailing in early Iowa polls. She earned only a third of
the vote in early New Hampshire polls and was below 40 percent nationally.

Nor are there any real holes in her support. According to YouGov
pollingconducted in March, 68 percent of Democrats believe she is “about
right” ideologically.3 Only 12 percent of Democrats would not consider
voting for her, according to a February CBS News survey. In the latest
Marist College survey, she earns more than 60 percent among liberal,4
moderate and conservative Democratic primary voters.

Clinton’s early polling tells the same story as the endorsements: Democrats
don’t seem open to other options. It’s not a situation likely to tempt a
formidable Democrat to jump into the race. Which brings us to the third
point …

The (lack of) competition

Clinton looks like she’ll have perhaps four competitors for the nomination:
O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee, Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb. Sanders is the only
one who currently holds elected office. Only O’Malley has ever been elected
as a Democrat to any office for more than one term.

Chafee, who is from Rhode Island, has never won a Democratic primary for
any office. He served in the U.S. Senate as a Republican and was an
independent governor. The only time he could have won a Democratic primary
(for governor), he bowed out because he faced a bruising campaign. He
frequently had an approval rating of around 30 percent in blue Rhode Island.

O’Malley’s turn as governor of deep-blue Maryland went so far south that a
Republican succeeded him, which is a fate that didn’t even befall Chafee.
As I’ve written previously, O’Malley’s ideological record and donor base do
not suggest that he can successfully challenge Clinton from the left.

Although Sanders caucuses with Democrats in the Senate, he’s a
self-described socialist. If he ends up running, he’ll win some plaudits on
the left, but that’s about it.

Webb, like Chafee, is a former Republican with little history with the
Democratic Party. That might be forgivable if he were actually a mainstream
Democrat, but he was the fourth-most-conservative Democratic senator during
his final term in Congress.

When you look at the board, there is no Barack Obama waiting in the wings.
Warren has endorsed Clinton and has given every indication that she is not
going to run.

At this point, Clinton’s path to the nomination looks easier than anything
we’ve seen before.

O’Malley aiming for late May announcement on ‘colossal undertaking’ [John
Wagner, WaPo, April 10, 2015
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/10/omalley-aiming-for-late-may-announcement-on-colossal-undertaking/>
]

*With the announcement of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid
close at hand, Martin O’Malley says it could be late May before he shares
his decision about moving forward.*

DES MOINES, Iowa -- With the announcement of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2016
presidential bid close at hand, one of her potential Democratic rivals,
former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, says it could be late May before
he shares his decision about moving forward.

O’Malley said in an interview Thursday night that there are “fewer and
fewer” factors left for him to weigh and that he continues to hear from
fellow Democrats that “our country’s looking for new leadership.” But
O’Malley said he remains engaged in conversations with friends and family
about what would be “a colossal undertaking.”

“You have to allow the time to give your friends the ability to tell you
whether they think you’re crazy or whether they’re on board," O'Malley
said. "You have to give your family the ability to tell you that as well.
And that requires an amount of time and patience.”

[More bad news for Hillary Clinton’s fiercest rival]

O’Malley, who is barely registering in early polls but has been warmly
received by Democratic audiences, spoke following an event Thursday night
where close to 150 people packed into an Irish bar in the Beaverdale
neighborhood here. After delivering a speech laced with populist themes,
O’Malley, who has a side career as a musician, picked up a borrowed
acoustic guitar and played a folk song, as he has in several other recent
appearances in early nominating states.

[In Iowa, O’Malley sounds a lot like a Democrat liberals love: Warren]

Asked in the interview if Clinton’s entrance into the race will affect his
thinking, O’Malley said: “Not any longer.”

“My sense, having traveled around the country now over the course of the
last year, is that Americans … feel that their politics has been very badly
damaged, that the rules have been unfairly manipulated in ways that
threaten the future of our American Dream and of a growing American middle
class,” he said. “And people in our party, I think, are looking for new
leadership that will break with the failed policies of our past and create
a new and better day for our country. That’s my sense.”

Running for the presidency, he added, is “a colossal undertaking, and you
have to be equipped to climb the mountain and not fight the mountain. You
have to be prepared to climb it, and that takes a lot of work. That takes a
lot planning, and that takes a lot of thought.”

The former governor is in the midst of a two-day swing through Iowa that
also included appearances Thursday before the House and Senate Democratic
caucuses of the state legislature and at a fundraiser in Indianola for
state Rep. Scott Ourth.

On Friday, O’Malley is booked to appear here at a Polk County Democrats
awards dinner, along with another potential Democratic presidential
candidate, former senator James Webb of Virginia.

During remarks at Ourth’s fundraiser, held at a local winery, O’Malley
referenced his work in Iowa during the 1984 presidential cycle for the
campaign of “a little-known, 1 percent candidate named Gary Hart.”

Hart faced a formidable front-runner that year in former vice president
Walter Mondale. After beating expectations in Iowa, Hart went on to upset
Mondale in New Hampshire and became his chief rival for the Democratic
nomination, eventually falling short.

“I know how seriously you take your responsibility,” O’Malley told the
Democratic activists in the room. “I know that you have the ability to
actually change the course of history.”

In Iowa, Martin O'Malley lays out vision for Democratic Party [Ari Melber,
MSNBC, April 10, 2015
<http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/martin-omalley-iowa-2016-interview>]

*Martin O’Malley says if he runs for president, he will try to pull the
Democratic Party back to its populist roots.*

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley says if he runs for president, he will
try to pull the Democratic Party back to its populist roots.

“You know what it’s about? It’s really about calling our party back to its
true self,” he said in a wide-ranging MSNBC interview airing Friday. “Our
politics has been greatly impacted, for the worse, by big money and the
concentration of big money.”

O’Malley, in Iowa this week for meetings and a local Democratic Party
event, took a break to talk about his potential 2016 challenge to former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at Smokey Row Coffee, a bustling coffee
shop on the West side of Des Moines. Clinton is expected to begin her
presidential campaign as early as this weekend.

Widely known as number-crunching technocrat, O’Malley sounds pretty blunt
when criticizing what he calls Wall Street’s growing dominance of campaigns
and government – including some members of the Obama administration.

“For 30 years we’ve followed this trickle-down theory of economics that
said, ‘Concentrate wealth at the very top, remove regulation and keep wages
low so we can be competitive – whatever the hell that means,” O’Malley says.

“What it led to was the first time since the Second World War where wages
have actually declined, rather than going up – where almost all of the new
income earned in this recovery has gone to the top 1%,” he says, invoking
the famous phrase from the Occupy Wall Street protests.

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” he continues, arguing, “these things are
not effects that blew in on a gulf stream or on a polar vortex – these are
the products of the policy choices we made over these 30 years.”

O’Malley says the system is rigged “in many ways” – a concern pressed by
the “Elizabeth Warren wing” of the Democratic Party – and contends middle
class priorities should be “at the center of our economic theory.”

Asked whether President Obama has appointed the wrong people to the
Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department, O’Malley
responds, “Yes, I would say that.” He laments that no bank executives went
to jail for “wrongdoing” in the financial crisis.

“I think that the S.E.C. has been pretty feckless,” he says, “when it comes
to reigning in reckless behavior on Wall Street.”

O’Malley has clearly honed his campaign lines on this theme.

While his op-eds are peppered with references to the S.E.C.’s civil
liability standards and the Depression-era Glass-Steagall bank regulation,
he has more relatable examples at the ready in Iowa.

“There are more repercussions for a person being a chronic speeding
violator in our country,” he argues, “than there is for a big bank being a
chronic violator of S.E.C. rules!” O’Malley posts similar lines and videos
on his social media accounts. He also tries to channel the anger against
Wall Street into an argument for a stronger federal government.

“We can’t expect Wall Street to police itself – that’s why we have a
federal government,” he declares.

O’Malley freely admits most Iowans he meets haven’t heard of him, but he
believes they are receptive to his economic focus – and they aren’t all
ready for Hillary.

Many Iowans want to literally “meet every candidate” before they decide, he
says, and they don’t accept “the inevitability or the punditry or whatever
the polls happen to say.”

O’Malley should know. He got started in politics working on Gary Hart’s
1984 presidential campaign in Iowa, and he believes history shows there’s
really no such thing as inevitable candidates.

“There is an ‘inevitable’ front-runner who remains ‘inevitable’ right up
until he or she’s no longer inevitable,” he says. “And the person that
emerges as the alternative is the person that usually no one in America had
heard of before – until that person got into a van and went county to
county to county.”

O’Malley is careful not to criticize Hillary Clinton by name, but her
presence clearly looms over his possible candidacy.

Her perceived dominance in the Democratic Party constrains the momentum of
any potential challenger. From O’Malley to Vice President Joe Biden, the
would-be alternatives are treated by politicos and reporters as little more
than the negative space in Clinton’s painting, and yet it’s the very
prospect of anointing a nominee that seems to animate O’Malley’s rationale
for running.

On the stump and in our interview, he talks about the need for a real race,
an “alternative” choice and a “contest of ideas” – paeans to the democratic
process that can be read as Clinton code words.

Asked about the dynasties that could compete in the presidential race,
O’Malley says the presidency shouldn’t be a “hereditary right.”

He has hit that theme before, telling George Stephanopoulos last month that
the White House shouldn’t simply “pass back and forth between two
families.” The line speaks to Bush and Clinton fatigue, but isn’t exactly
a substantive disqualification for higher office. (Former Sen. Lincoln
Chaffee, by contrast, said this week that Clinton should not be president
because of her vote for the Iraq War.)

O’Malley looks like a politician out of central casting – piercing green
eyes, close cropped hair, crisp suit – he was even part of the basis for
the ambitious mayor in “The Wire,” which dramatized the drug trade and
extreme poverty O’Malley confronted as the mayor of Baltimore. Yet his
conventional appearance belies some pretty liberal politics – voters may
find activist tendencies under that Brooks Brothers suit.

“I’ve actually done the things on a state-wide basis,” he argues, that
national Democrats “only talk about doing.” And he ticks off a battery of
liberal reforms like a proud father.

“We made it easier for people to vote not harder. We passed marriage
equality. We made it easier for new American immigrants to get driver’s
licenses so they can travel to and from work, and take care of their
families.”

“We made it easier for people to vote not harder,” he says. “We passed
marriage equality. We made it easier for new American immigrants to get
driver’s licenses so they can travel to and from work, and take care of
their families. We raised the minimum wage. We passed a living wage. We
made bigger investments in improving the education of our children and made
our schools No. 1. We made bigger investments in infrastructure, water,
wastewater, cyber and the rest – and created a better rate of job creation
than our neighbors north or south of us.”

He continues, “So look, these are the things that actually make our economy
grow and make our middle class stronger. And it is why the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce named our state No. 1 in innovation and entrepreneurship three
years in a row. It is why we maintain the highest median income of any
state in the nation over these last eight years. So these are the
differentiators. People want leaders who have the ability to get things
done.”

If that weren’t wonky enough, O’Malley is also eager to explain his
numerical approach to governing, the idea that “the things that get
measured get done.”

He established statistical measuring programs – Citi-State and Comp-Stat –
to focus law enforcement and government services. Some dubbed it
“Moneyball” for government.

Reflecting on that approach, O’Malley says any organization can use
metrics, accountability and technology to improve results, including the
federal government.

He rattles off tools that would make most people’s eyes glaze over –
“performance management” and “graphical information technologies” –
insisting these dry concepts helped stop drug dealers from murdering
children. “We achieved the biggest reductions in crime of any major city in
America,” he says.

The statistics themselves have been in some dispute in Maryland, but even
conservative estimates showed robberies and aggravated assaults down over
30%, while successful homicide investigations rose from 54% to 80%.

Unlike many traditional urban crackdowns, however, O’Malley took on violent
crime while advancing criminal justice reforms, including repealing the
death penalty and harsh marijuana laws.

The federal death penalty is back in the news after a jury convicted
Dzhokar Tsarnaev in the Boston Marathon bombing case this week, and
O’Malley says he remains opposed to capital punishment even in cases of
domestic terrorism.

“I’m opposed to the death penalty; I don’t believe that it works,” he says.
“In the case of this individual, I probably think killing’s too good for
him – he should rot in prison for the harm that he’s done to so many people
and children.”

O’Malley also argues the U.S. is also in the wrong camp on this issue
internationally.

“The countries on this globe that are responsible for the greatest numbers
of public executions are places like Yemen, North Korea, Iraq, Iran,
communist China,” he says. “I don’t believe our country belongs on that
list.”

That’s an unusual position for an aspiring national Democrat. Ever since
Michael Dukakis was pilloried for being “soft on crime” and opposing the
death penalty, the party’s presidential nominees have supported it.
(Clinton and Obama firmly backed it, while Kerry revised his opposition in
2004 to support capital punishment for terrorists.)

O’Malley’s critiques of the criminal justice system also provide common
ground with at least one Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Rand
Paul. At his presidential campaign launch this week, Paul said the U.S.
should repeal “any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of
color.”

O’Malley says he agrees with Paul’s statement – and as a chief executive he
tried to change the “different standards of justice” for crimes occurring
“in poor neighborhoods, neighborhoods of color” or “wealthier
neighborhoods.”

O’Malley has also faced criticism, however, for using the kind of
aggressive policing that led to the arrest of one out of every six
Baltimore residents in a single year. The NAACP and American Civil
Liberties Union filed a suit alleging police harassment on his watch, but
he counters that Baltimore faced an emergency, and he still built a
multiracial mandate for policing.

“In our city, when I was elected mayor, [we] had sadly allowed ourselves to
become the most violent and addicted city in America,” O’Malley says. “I
was elected on a campaign that promised that we would recover all of our
neighborhoods from the 24/7 drug dealer occupation and appallingly high
homicide rates. And so that’s what we set out to do. And in re-election – I
was re-elected with 88% of the vote.

“All along the course of that – we had to keep a precious consensus
together to save lives,” he continues. “And there is no issue more
difficult to bring people together around over racial divides than the
issue of law enforcement. But we managed to do it. We made our police force
more diverse. We reduced, during my time in office, police-involved
shootings. We also reduced violent crime, and the city is moving in a much
better direction.”

It’s the kind of thoughtful, evidence-based answer that could appeal to
Democratic voters concerned about racial divides and policing in America
today – if there is room and time for that debate.

O’Malley’s greatest political vulnerability, however, may be the belief
that voters will analyze their choices the way he does – methodically,
rigorously, even dispassionately. Yet without a larger disruption in the
Democratic primary, it’s not clear whether that debate will begin this year.

National Blogs

Hillary Clinton Team Holds Off-The-Record Journalist Meeting Ahead Of 2016
Announcement [Michael Calderone, HuffPost, April 10, 2015
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/hillary-clinton-journalists-2016_n_7039814.html?1428672137>
]

*Hillary Clinton's campaign team held an off-the-record dinner Thursday
night in Washington, D.C., for roughly two dozen journalists and staff
members at John Podesta's house. The team will also hold a private event
for journalists Friday evening. *

NEW YORK -- Hillary Clinton's campaign team held an off-the-record dinner
Thursday night in Washington, D.C., for roughly two dozen journalists and
staff members at John Podesta's house, according to sources familiar with
the matter.

The dinner signals that the Clinton team is trying to engage with top
reporters in the days before the former secretary of state's expected
announcement of a 2016 presidential run. It also suggests the new campaign
team is looking to change course from the toxic relationship with the press
that plagued the 2008 race.

Podesta, the campaign chairman and a seasoned cook, made a pasta with
walnut sauce for the dinner guests, which included reporters from The New
York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, The
Associated Press and several major TV networks.

A Huffington Post reporter attended the dinner, but did not discuss it with
this reporter.

The guests also enjoyed a shrimp appetizer, homemade cookies, and a
selection of wine and beer -- including, appropriately, Brooklyn Lager.

Several key Clinton staffers, including Campaign Manager Robby Mook,
Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri and top aide Huma Abedin, also
attended.

A Clinton spokesman declined to comment on the gathering.

Clinton has long had a fraught relationship with the media, going back to
scandals and controversies during her husband's presidency in the 1990s.
But in recent months, Clinton sources have promised that the 2016 campaign
would be different.

She took questions from the press for about 15 minutes last month following
revelations that she exclusively used a private email account for
government business throughout her four years as secretary of state, but
hasn't since given an interview.

During a journalism awards ceremony late last month, Clinton suggested she
wanted a fresh start with the Fourth Estate.

"I am all about new beginnings," Clinton said. "A new grandchild, a new
email account. Why not a new relationship with the press? So here it goes.
No more secrecy. No more zone of privacy. But first of all, before I go any
further. If you look under your chairs, you'll find a simple nondisclosure
agreement."

Hillary Clinton team woos reporters [Dylan Byers, POLITICO, April 10, 2015
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-campaign-reporters-media-116834.html>
]

*On Thursday night, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff John Podesta held a
private dinner at his Washington home with campaign reporters.*

On Thursday night, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff John Podesta held a
private dinner at his Washington home with campaign reporters, part of a
larger Clinton-team effort to build a rapport with the men and women who
will spend the next 18 months covering Clinton’s bid for the White House,
POLITICO has learned.

That effort is seen as a necessity for a candidate who, in the early months
of 2015, has had no safe harbor in the media. To date, The New York Times
alone has published more than 40 articles related to Clinton’s use of a
private email account while secretary of state, and many other news
outlets, including POLITICO, have come forward with revelations of their
own. Meanwhile, right-wing media outlets criticize her daily and left-wing
outlets are unabashed in their desire for a more liberal alternative.

Just last month, Clinton herself acknowledged that her relationship with
the media was “complicated,” but said she wanted to build “a better
relationship.” Without a formal campaign in place, however, she has been
forced to assume a defensive posture. Now, with the launch of her campaign
just around the corner, political strategists say the candidate and her
team are set to wrest control of the narrative and go on offense.

“Politics, especially political reporters, abhor a vacuum, so media outlets
are going to hunt and peck for stories that create the dynamic of the
campaign being a yet-unannounced HRC presidential vs. the august members of
the Fourth Estate,” Chris Lehane, the Democratic communications strategist
and Clinton White House alum, told POLITICO. “Once the campaign is off and
running like Usain Bolt, based on the big idea she offers as her rationale,
it will develop specific reporters and outlets that take a franchise
interest.”

The current state of Clinton-press relations reflects “the natural lay of
things. She’s not a candidate, there’s not an affirmative message yet, and
there’s not yet an apparatus fully capable of combatting [these stories],”
said Nick Merrill, a Clinton spokesperson. Merrill confirmed that the
Clinton team had media outreach plans in the works, but said he was not in
a position to discuss them.

Being able to go on the offensive is especially important for a candidate
like Clinton, who has few sympathizers in the media. Supporters have long
grumbled that the Times and its mainstream brethren are especially tough on
Clinton — the newspaper’s executive editor Dean Baquet calls the coverage
“aggressive and fair” — but the past six weeks have only increased their
fears. Meanwhile, right-wing media outlets have been using the new
revelations to relentlessly attack her, while left-wing publications have
been busy pushing their own populist alternatives.

The trifecta of right-wing attacks, left-wing angst and mainstream scrutiny
has already made for a far rockier campaign rollout than Clinton likely
anticipated. Though a mid-March CNN/ORC poll had her beating every
potential Republican challenger by double digits, a new Quinnipiac
University poll released this week shows that her support has been
“wilting” in the key battleground states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia. In
each state, a majority of those surveyed said that Clinton’s private email
use was either “very important” or “somewhat important” to their vote in
2016, and well more than a third of voters in each state said the issue
made them less likely to vote for Clinton.

While the formal launch of a campaign will allow Clinton to take some
control into her own hands, the absence of a viable primary challenger
could pose its own problems, strategists said. With no real competitor, the
media will be all the more eager to assume an antagonistic role.

“In the absence of a primary opponent, the press may feel obliged to fill
that role, giving her the scrutiny and vetting normally provided by an
opponent,” Paul Begala, the political consultant and chief strategist for
Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, said. “If so, there is not much Hillary can
do about it, nor should she try.”

Of the three sectors of American political media, it is the mainstream that
has emerged as Clinton’s greatest obstacle. The fact that the
hardest-hitting Clinton coverage has come from the Times, The Washington
Post, POLITICO and other mainstream sources — rather than, say, The Weekly
Standard or Washington Free Beacon — has revived concerns among her staff
about Clinton’s poor relations with mainstream reporters.

“We have been aggressive and fair,” Baquet, the Times executive editor,
said of his newspaper’s coverage of Clinton. “I’d say that’s been the same
for coverage of all the candidates. Some of the Republicans have gone so
far as to say they don’t read us. If everyone thinks you’re tough, you’re
doing something right.”

In the past few weeks, Gawker and ProPublica have opened a new vein of
Clinton coverage. On March 27, the two sites reported that longtime Clinton
confidant Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then-Secretary Clinton
“gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine
service officer.” Days later, Gawker reported that Blumenthal and another
Clinton official had secretly lobbied Clinton “on behalf of a billionaire
in the former Soviet state of Georgia who was seeking closer ties with
Putin’s Russia — seemingly in violation of a federal law designed to
prevent foreign powers from covertly wielding influence within the United
States.”

Critical coverage in outlets like the Times and ProPublica is far more
dangerous to Clinton’s campaign than that of partisan outlets, strategists
say, because the scrutiny is driven by reporting, rather than ideological
analysis (there are exceptions with Gawker, which can be quite
opinionated). Weeks of Fox News roundtables about Benghazi conspiracy
theories don’t pack nearly the punch that a groundbreaking report from the
Times can.

Merrill, the Clinton spokesperson, said he didn’t have a problem with the
Times’ aggressive approach to the email scandal, especially since they
broke the story. He was less forgiving of the Gawker-ProPublica report:
“ProPublica, to be honest, I think my response to somebody who asked me
that was just, ‘Seriously?’” (ProPublica editor-in-chief Stephen Engelberg
did not respond to a request for comment regarding Merrill’s criticism.)

The drumbeat of investigations from the Times and other mainstream outlets
might be more tolerable if Clinton had more allies on the left.
Unfortunately for her, liberal pundits like Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes,
and progressive publications like The Nation and The New Republic have seem
more interested in floating alternatives like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie
Sanders.

Late last year, The Nation made it its stated mission to find a populist
challenger. Katrina vanden Heuvel, the magazine’s editor, told POLITICO
that Clinton “would be better served if she has competition.” In Harper’s,
Doug Henwood slammed Clinton as a hawkish centrist, a charge that has been
echoed directly or indirectly across the liberal blogosphere and even on
MSNBC.

“The Elizabeth Warren piece of it does make it tough for her with Chris
Hayes and Rachel Maddow and those guys,” said Bill Burton, the Democratic
strategist and former Obama deputy press secretary. “It is a challenge.”

Then there are the right-wing publications, which attack Democrats as a
matter of course. To date, however, right-wing attacks on Clinton have been
relatively muted, in part because several conservative sites are focused on
the Republican primary. Behind the scenes, however, Republican groups are
building a massive opposition effort, much of which will be leaked to
conservative and mainstream outlets over the course of the next 18 months.

Clinton may never be able to quell the right, but by launching her
campaign, she can at least make progress on the left and the mainstream,
the strategists said.

“[The] campaign will convert some of the current entities by (a) being on
the offensive and creating the conflict that drives coverage on its own
terms; (b) filling the cup so that reporters can provide their daily quota
of inches, clicks, tweets and retweets; and (c) demonstrate [the] capacity
of the candidate where she can look like a giant towering over the sea of
leprechauns across the aisle,” Lehane explained.

“In this day and age,” he added, “the ability to develop a national online
network will provide a bulwark of support and be available to serve as both
a sword to push out her candidacy and a shield to deflect the incoming.”

Of course, not everyone is so bullish.

“You do get the sense that it’s coming at her from all sides,” said one
Democratic strategist who asked not to be quoted by name. “You do wonder if
at some point she’s taking so much water that it all falls apart.”

Library documents show revisions on Hillary Clinton’s image, identity
[Rebecca Ballhaus, WSJ Washington Wire, April 10, 2015
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/10/library-documents-show-revisions-on-hillary-clintons-image-identity/>
]

*While the Clintons were in the White House, Hillary Clinton’s advisers
worked hard to strike a balance between portraying the first lady as a
mother and wife and as a political figure in her own right.*

LITTLE ROCK, Ark.—While the Clintons were in the White House, Hillary
Clinton’s advisers worked hard to strike a balance between portraying the
first lady as a mother and wife and as a political figure in her own right.

As such, a 1997 Q&A with Mrs. Clinton for a Scottish newspaper, the Press
and Journal, came under plenty of scrutiny.

Edits to Mrs. Clinton’s answers reflect her staffers’ efforts to show the
first lady’s admiration of Bill Clinton as a president but also as a
husband. In one draft, a reference to Mr. Clinton as “my President” is
changed to “my husband.” In the same draft, a section in which Mrs. Clinton
described the president as “optimistic” and “determined” received a key
addition: “On a more personal level, I think he is a great father and
husband.”

The drafts were found in a folder containing the records of Michael O’Mary,
who was a speechwriter in the first lady’s office. The documents were part
of a trove of paper records released this week by the William J. Clinton
Library. Unlike releases made last year, these files weren’t released in
electronic form.

The author or authors of the edits aren’t clearly identified, and the exact
sequence of the drafts isn’t clear.

One section on how the Clintons met received particular scrutiny. Copies of
several drafts show repeated changes to the story, which appeared to waffle
between a variation of these two narratives:

“I met my husband at Yale Law School. We met at the library, where, after I
caught him looking at me, I introduced myself to him. Later, he joined me
in a long line to register for classes, and we talked and talked. Before we
knew it, we had walked all the way to the university art museum, where Bill
showed me some of his favorite sculptures.”

And:

“I met my husband at Yale Law School. We met at the library where I
introduced myself to him. Later, he joined me in a long line to register
for classes, and we talked for an hour. When we got to the front of the
line, the registrar said, ‘Bill, what are you doing here? You already
registered?’”

Staffers also struggled with how to answer the question, “What is your
greatest ambition?” What appears to be an early draft answered: “To be a
responsible and loving mother and wife and to instill values in my daughter
that will serve her well as she grows up and has to navigate through a
complicated world.” Scribbled underneath was another line geared more
toward portraying Mrs. Clinton as a political figure: “Second, to live up
to the American ideal of citizenship.”

Similarly, the answer to “How would you best like to be remembered?” was
expanded to portray Mrs. Clinton not just as a supporter of her husband but
as a champion of human rights. One draft showed this answer: “For using
this rare opportunity to support my President and his vision of where to
take our country on the eve of a new century.” In what appears to have been
a later draft, this was added: “I also hope to use the platform I have to
speak out for people on the margins of society, especially women and
children, who too often don’t have a voice in the political, social,
economic and civil life of their countries.”

Among the questions Mrs. Clinton and her staff declined to answer: “What is
the first thing you would do if all your numbers came up in the Lottery?”
and “What is the most embarrassing situation you have found yourself in?”

The edits reflect the tension for Mrs. Clinton’s staff in representing a
first lady who was markedly different than her predecessors. Mrs. Clinton
is a graduate of Yale Law School and became the first female law partner of
a law firm in Arkansas after graduating. She became a U.S. senator after
leaving the White House and is expected to announce her own presidential
campaign as soon as this weekend. Her immediate predecessor, Barbara Bush,
by contrast, dropped out of college and didn’t have a professional career
before becoming second and then first lady.

Previous documents released by the Clinton Library have demonstrated the
struggle her staffers faced in improving Mrs. Clinton’s image. In 1995, a
memo detailed her advisers’ suggestions—including Mrs. Clinton appearing as
a guest on the TV show “Home Improvement”—for how to make the first lady
appear “likeable.” In a 1999 memo, as Mrs. Clinton was preparing her Senate
campaign, a memo advised her: “It’s important that people see more sides of
you, and they often see you only in very stern situations.”

The impossibility of Hillary Clinton ‘going small’ [Chris Cillizza, WaPo
The Fix, April 10, 2015
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/10/the-impossibility-of-hillary-clinton-going-small/>
]

*Hillary Clinton’s campaign cannot feasibly take a “go small” approach.*

The Hillary Clinton for president campaign is coming. For real, this time.

How do I know? Because since late Thursday afternoon when Business Insider
reported that Clinton would make an announcement over the weekend, the
political world has been ablaze with attempts to nail down the second that
this event-we-have-known-was-coming-for-the better-part-of-the-last-year
was actually going to happen. The Guardian reported later Thursday that the
announcement would come via Twitter Sunday at noon -- followed by a trip to
Iowa. Then, early this morning, CNN confirmed that the announcement was
coming Sunday, potentially with a video published on social media. Then
the Post confirmed it. And NBC. And everyone else.

The feeding frenzy was officially on.

The furor created by the exact date and time Clinton would announce her
candidacy speaks to the total and complete impossibility of Clinton
carrying off a "going small" strategy that she and her team seem set on
pursuing. Wrote Dan Balz and Anne Gearan in the Post:

The approach — described by Democratic strategists and advisers familiar
with her plans — is intended to address some of the key shortcomings of
Clinton’s 2008 run for the White House, when she often came off as flat and
overly scripted before large crowds. The go-slow, go-small strategy, these
advisers say, plays to her strengths, allowing her to meet voters in
intimate settings where her humor, humility and policy expertise can show
through.

Look, I absolutely get the logic behind the strategy. Clinton ran as
"Hillary Clinton" in 2008, to her detriment. Her campaign seemed to
believe that voters in places like Iowa and New Hampshire would vote for
her simply because of her political celebrity. They believed that Clinton
didn't need to do the grip and grin sort of campaigning that other
candidates did because she was a beloved member of the first family of
Democratic politics.

Unsurprisingly to everyone but those in the Clinton campaign, it didn't
work. Clinton came off as aloof and entitled -- two very bad character
traits for someone running for president. People had no sense of how or
why she wanted the job or how hard she was willing to work to get it.
(Sidebar: One of the reasons her tearing-up moment in New Hampshire in 2008
was so powerful was because it drove home for many voters that she did
actually care deeply about the race.)

Because all campaigns are in ways large and small reactions to the
campaigns that came before them, you can understand why the "go small"
approach makes sense to the Clintons this time around.

And yet, it's almost certainly an impossibility for Clinton and her
campaign to truly go small -- for reasons almost entirely out of her
control. Clinton is the biggest non-incumbent frontunner to be a party's
presidential nominee in the modern era of politics. She is one of the most
famous politicians in the country if not the world. She is part of one of
the most famous families in the country if not the world.

"Going small" is as hard for Clinton to do as it would be for Taylor
Swift. Let's say, for example, that T-Swift just wanted to play a few
intimate gigs for her most loyal fans with no publicity. No matter what
she did to keep it small, word would leak out that Taylor Swift was playing
at some hole in the wall club in fill-in-the-blank town. A mob scene --
fans, media, assorted gawkers -- would immediately assemble. Intimacy gone.

The same goes for Clinton. Because of who she is and where she stands in
the presidential race, she will be followed around by an ever-present
local, national and international media horde. Wherever she goes, there
will be crowds who just want to see her -- take a picture of her, shoot a
Vine of her, tweet about her, SnapChat about her. No matter how small
Clinton tries to make the campaign, it will always be big -- because of who
she is.

That is not to say that Clinton can't more effectively show voters than she
did in 2008 that she is running to help them, that her campaign is centered
on what they want rather than what she thinks they want. Clinton will do
everything she can to make that the central message of this race and,
because of that focus, she'll likely do a better job of conveying that
message than she did seven years ago.

But, the idea of Clinton going small is a fallacy. It cannot be done.

David Axelrod compli-sults Hillary Clinton [Aaron Blake, WaPo, April 10,
2015
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/10/david-axelrod-welcomes-hillary-clinton-to-2016-with-a-compli-sult/>]

*David Axelrod took to Twitter to give his take on the low-key campaign
rollout that has been reported ahead of Sec. Clinton’s announcement. *

OK, we're guessing that David Axelrod was trying to be nice to Hillary
Clinton with this tweet.

@davidaxelrod: Learning the lessons of 2008: HRC rollout plans stress
humility. No Clinton Inc., the "inevitable" juggernaut that left voters
behind.

Another reading would be that the former top Obama adviser is doing a
little seven-year-old victory dance celebrating Team Obama's
against-all-odds victory in the 2008 primary and ribbing Clinton for
running a poorly conceived campaign. It's classic compli-sult behavior.

But how against-all-odds was it really? We've dealt with this question
before, and our conclusion was that the Obama-ites and others suffer from a
little bit of revisionist history when it comes to just how "inevitable"
Clinton was back then.

To wit, our own Philip Bump posted this:

...her lead in 2016 is substantially larger than what she enjoyed eight
years ago. By way of example. Here's how the polling looked in the
Democratic primary in New Hampshire in 2008, via Real Clear Politics.

Clinton led, often by a wide margin. Her largest lead was just over 21
points. (The numbers above are the Real Clear Polling average,
incidentally, not raw poll numbers.)

Iowa was much closer. In fact, Clinton often trailed other candidates,
including former North Carolina senator John Edwards.

Her largest lead in Iowa was 7.2 points.

Now compare that to 2016 polling -- which is still early, but a poll taken
today is only about 50 days before the start of the polls above.

Hillary Clinton was the front-runner in 2008, ahead of Edwards and Obama,
until she wasn't. Clinton is the front-runner for 2016, as well, ahead of a
healthy dose of empty space and then Vice President Joe Biden and Sen.
Elizabeth "No, Really, I'm Not Running" Warren (D-Mass.). It's a whole
different race.

However, that can change.

For all talk about how Clinton was SO inevitable in 2008, we had a hard
time finding people who actually said this back then -- much less Team
Clinton itself.

From my post:

Going back to 2006 and 2007, we could find very little evidence of anybody
publicly calling Clinton the "inevitable" nominee. Here's what we found
when we searched in LexisNexis for "Hillary Clinton" and "inevitable":

The Boston Globe's Joan Vennochi, in March 2005: "So, case closed? No other
Democrats need apply? That is ridiculous."

Michael Reagan, in December 2006: "The common wisdom holds that it is all
but inevitable that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential
nominee in 2008, and that she'll be a formidable if not unbeatable
candidate."

Fox News's Brian Wilson, in February 2007: "There was a piece, I forget
where, saying that Republicans think that the nomination of Hillary is
inevitable. I don't think they believe that."

TNR's Jonathan Chait, in February 2007: "But is Clinton really the
front-runner for the nomination? Only if you look about one inch deep. So
before we cancel the primaries, it's worth exploring how this wisdom came
into circulation."

So basically there were maybe a few examples of people suggesting she might
be inevitable, and slightly more people ascribing that view to unnamed
other people (who might or might not have existed or been willing to speak
on the record).

And then came the New York Times's Adam Nagourney, in April 2007:

"For Senator Clinton, Democrat of New York, the situation is not so
seemingly dire, but any hope she had of Democrats embracing her candidacy
as inevitable has been dashed by the rise of Senator Barack Obama of
Illinois, the continued strength of John Edwards of North Carolina, and
obvious discomfort in some Democratic quarters of putting another Clinton
in the White House."

That's right, as of April 2007, just two months after Obama launched his
campaign, whatever inevitability bubble existed had pretty much burst. What
would follow was a whole bunch of hand-wringing about how some of those
people had declared the primary over way too early.

All despite the fact that there is very little evidence that those people
were anything amounting to a chorus.

So to whatever extent the inevitability idea existed, it was gone by, well,
right about this point in the race.

Now, it's fair to suggest that perhaps Team Clinton was a little too big
for its britches early in the 2008 campaign. But that's generally what
campaigns try to do at this point, through fundraising and other things.

And we're sure that's what it looked like from Axelrod's viewpoint.
Whatever the case, it's pretty clear he's still hanging on to it.

Bloomberg falls for fake Nancy Reagan report [Hadas Gold, POLITICO, April
10, 2015
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/04/bloomberg-falls-for-fake-nancy-reagan-report-205356.html>
]

*Bloomberg Politics published a report about Nancy Reagan based off fake
news site NationalReport.net*

Bloomberg Politics published a report about Nancy Reagan based off of fake
news site NationalReport.net

The piece, headlined "Nancy Reagan gives her endorsement to... Hillary
Clinton," quoted a supposed "Drudge Report" saying that the former first
lady told the History Channel series "First Ladies In Their Own Words" that
it's time for a female president.

The problem is: Reagan never said such a thing in the series. The report
seems to have come from NationalReport.net, a spoof news site that has
tricked many a politician and news organization in the past. The piece was
then posted to a website called DrudgeReport.com.co, which doesn't seem to
be connected to the actual Drudge Report.

The piece, which was published just before 5 p.m. on Friday, was deleted
within minutes.

We've reached out to a Bloomberg spokesperson for comment and will update
here accordingly.

National Coverage - GOP

National Stories

Jeb Bush's Emails: Why Are So Many Key Episodes MIA? [Pema Levy & Sam
Brodey, Mother Jones, April 10, 2015
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/jeb-bush-emails-key-episodes-mia>
]

*Bush’s own published email archives reveal little about key episodes that
occurred during his governorship. *

When the New York Times revealed that Hillary Clinton used a private email
address as secretary of state, GOP presidential candidate-in-waiting Jeb
Bush pounced. "Transparency matters," he tweeted, linking to the archive of
his own emails that he had made public a month earlier.

But Bush is hardly in a position to take potshots at Clinton over her
emails. Like Clinton, he conducted government business using a personal
email account (two of them, actually). He released only a portion of his
correspondence from his time as governor of Florida. And it took Bush more
than seven years to hand over his self-selected emails, as required under a
Florida public records law.

Moreover, Bush's email archive, which includes more than 250,000 messages,
has produced no piercing insights or major news stories about his
gubernatorial stint. There are an immense number of emails from
constituents weighing in on the issues of the day. But when it comes to the
major issues of his governorship, there are—curiously—very few, if any,
emails between Bush and his aides. This email archive is not easy to
search. It is comprised of 248 separate files and is hardly user-friendly.
But employing the most obvious search terms for key episodes that occurred
during his governorship, as well as combing messages covering certain time
periods, we mounted an extensive review of this gigantic collection of
correspondence and looked for emails about the most important moments of
Bush's eight years leading the Sunshine State. This search yielded little
correspondence revealing Bush's actions and decisions regarding pivotal
events. It turns out that what's most notable about Bush's email trove is
what's not in it.

THE 2000 ELECTIONS

When the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore came
down to Florida, Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris found
themselves at the center of the political universe. Bush's email archive
contains reams of messages that poured in from constituents during the
controversial recount process, but there are barely any notes between Bush
and his aides.

The day after the election—which ultimately took 36 days, several Florida
court rulings, and a final intervention by the US Supreme Court to
resolve—Bush officially recused himself from the election certification
process. But an investigation by theLos Angeles Times found that Jeb Bush's
office and top aides were in contact with his brother's legal team and
other top members of George W. Bush's staff during the recount. Jeb
officially handed the state's 25 electoral votes to his brother on November
26, while court battles over the recount were still underway, andindicated
he would sign legislation to preempt the courts and give the election to
his brother. But if Bush and his top aides were discussing these important
decisions or communicating with George W. Bush's team, it does not show up
in Jeb's email archive. The archive does include Jeb Bush's responses to a
few constituents. When one emailed to ask Bush to certify the election, he
responded: "I am doing what i can within the laws of our state."

ELIÁN GONZÁLEZ

On Thanksgiving Day 1999, five-year-old Elián González was rescued off the
coast of Florida after fleeing Cuba in a small boat with his mother and
other refugees. Elián's mother had drowned during the trip, setting off a
months-long international custody battle between the child's relatives in
Miami and his father in Cuba. In emails to constituents throughout the
saga, Bush supported allowing state courts to adjudicate the issue; he
opposed the Clinton administration's decision not to grant Elián asylum and
denounced the federal raid in April 2000 that removed Elián from the
custody of his Miami relatives. Yet internal deliberations about this
high-profile matter between Bush and his staff are scarce in the email
archive.

One email thread does show Bush looking for a way to intervene after the
commissioner of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service announced
that Elián should be returned to his father. On January 6, 2000, he
forwarded a constituent email to his general counsel, Carol Licko, asking,
"Carol, I think we should ask that ATTY General Reno overturn the INS
decision and allow a custody proceeding take place in state court. We
should do this manana. what do you think?" And that's about it for Bush
emails on this dramatic subject.

Several media outlets have scoured Bush's email archive for clues about his
actions during this episode. Beside his back-and-forths with constituents,
they've turned up almost nothing.

VOTER PURGE, PART I

When Bush became governor in January 1999, the state was working on a
project to purge felons from its voter rolls. Before Bush took office, the
state had hired a company named Database Technologies Inc. (DBT) to
cross-check criminal records against the state's 8.6 million registered
voters. The list of about 100,000 supposed felons that DBT generated was
deeply flawed; it included thousands of misdemeanor offenders and
Floridians with no criminal records. It disproportionately singled out
minorities, particularly African Americans.

At the urging of Florida officials after Bush took office in January 1999,
DBT conducted an overly broad search for potential felons. "[W]e want to
capture more names that possibly aren't matches and let [county election]
supervisors make a final determination rather than exclude certain matches
altogether," a lawyer at the Florida Division of Elections told the DBT
project manager in March 1999, according to a 2001 investigation by the Los
Angeles Times. The Times concluded that the flawed list could have affected
the outcome of the 2000 election—which came down to just 537 votes—by
disenfranchising more black voters, who largely vote Democratic.

A search of key terms, relevant officials names, and variations of key
phrases such as "felon list" came up largely empty, except for news
articles that were circulated around about the scandal.

VOTER PURGE, PART II

In May 2004, another presidential election year, Jeb Bush's administration
once again sought to purge its voter rolls of convicted felons. Owing to
the previous controversy with DBT, the state Legislature decided that the
Department of Elections should create its own list. Once again, the process
was flawed. When the list became public in July 2004, a major error became
readily apparent: Of the 48,000 people on the new purge list, 22,000 were
African Americans but only 61 were Hispanic. African Americans vote heavily
Democratic while Hispanics, at that time in Florida, largely voted
Republican. This prompted speculation that Jeb Bush's administration was at
best incompetent and at worst, playing politics with its purge list. Facing
widespread criticism, it agreed not to use the list.

The Bush email archive holds little material on this major controversy, and
we found no messages discussing how to deal with the issue or discover what
went wrong. Only a few emails stood out on the voter purge issue. On August
19, 2003, Bush received an email from a county elections supervisor, Kay
Clem, on voter purge efforts. "Talked to [Secretary of State] Glenda Hood
about purging voter rolls today. She said she had just returned from a
meeting with you and your staff," Clem wrote. A few hours later, Bush
forwarded Clem's email to his chief of staff and Hood, writing, "we need to
discuss." As the scandal was swirling in July of 2004, Bush noted to the
CEO of Accenture, the outside consulting firm that developed the formula
used for the purge, "we have issues regarding the felons voting list work
that you company have done." There's not much else.

TERRI SCHIAVO

In 2003, Bush confronted one of the most contentious battles of his
governorship: whether to allow Terri Schiavo to die after 13 years in a
persistent vegetative state. Her husband, Michael, was fighting to take her
off life support, while her parents were battling to keep her alive.
Following a court order in September 2003, Schiavo's feeding tube was
removed. Bush and the Republican Legislature in Florida responded by
quickly enacting what was called "Terri's Law," which allowed the governor
to overrule the courts with an executive order to reinsert her feeding
tube. The Florida Supreme Court unanimously ruled Terri's Law
unconstitutional in September 2004. Schiavo died on March 31, 2005, after
all the legal options pursued by her parents, Bush, and Republicans in
Washington and Florida had run out. An autopsy later confirmed that Schiavo
had been completely brain dead with no chance of rehabilitation.

Bush's email archive contains thousands of Schiavo-related messages from
people around the country, but this collection reveals little about Bush's
decision making as a key player in one of the culture wars' biggest
battles. There are a few emails of note, however. When Bush officially
entered the legal battle in the fall of 2003, his administration hired
attorney Ken Connor as the outside counsel on the case. The archive shows
nothing about the decision to hire Connor, but Bush's aides did circulate
"Ken Connor talking points" and his biography for Bush to use in media
interviews. There are also emails from Bush's legal team throughout the
years-long saga providing updates on the case.

After the Florida Supreme Court ruled against Terri's Law, the emails do
show Bush and his aides looking for other legal avenues. On October 21,
2004, Bush forwarded to his general counsel an email from a constituent,
who pleaded for Bush to take action. "We cannot open a criminal
investigation? Are we sure that the statute of limitations applies?" Bush
asked. No, his top lawyer replied: "for anything that happened to cause her
current condition, S/L [statute of limitations] ran a long time ago." The
general counsel also noted that even accusations of recent abuse against
Michael Schiavo weren't enough to warrant state intervention in the case:
"am looking into criminal penalties for abuse or exploitation as a
vulnerable adult (within past 5 years or so), but law requires that it be
referred to local law enforcement and local state attorney, neither of
which have shown a disposition to do anything. have not found anything yet
that bumps up to state law enforcement level, but still looking but we
can't yet be out there announcing anything."

Despite this advice, Bush did use accusations of abuse to launch an
unsuccessful, last-ditch effort to keep Terri Schiavo alive. The Schiavo
case raised a host of vexing legal, policy, and political questions over
nearly two years of Bush's term. But the email trail is rather thin.

MANATEES

The gentle manatee—the cuddly, blubbery sea cow—is beloved in Florida,
where the creatures lull and graze in warm, shallow waterways. For decades,
both Florida and the federal government listed manatees as endangered
species. Jeb Bush, who has called the manatee his favorite mammal, pledged
to protect the species when he took office. But manatees, often struck by
boaters in Florida, continued to die by watercraft. Floridians were sharply
divided over whether Bush was doing too much or not enough to help the
manatees.

To avoid what the New York Times said could become a campaign issue, the
governor in 2001 requested that the US Fish and Wildlife Service delay
federal mandates for manatee protection and hand the issue to the state.
The agency agreed, a move that raised eyebrows in Florida among those who
felt the governor's brother was doing him a political favor. A federal
judge ultimately overturned the decision.

Bush's archive show manatees were a popular topic among constituents. But
it contains no email exchanges between Bush and advisers on the question of
federal involvement to protect manatees.

CYNTHIA HENDERSON

When he took office in January 1999, Bush appointed Cynthia Henderson—a
Florida attorney and former Playboy bunny—to oversee the state agency in
charge of business regulation. By December of that year, she faced
investigations by the state's chief inspector general and state Ethics
Commission for a host of allegations, including giving plum government jobs
to friends. She was also accused of attending the Kentucky Derby on the
dime of a restaurant business she regulated. The allegations against this
appointee became a major headache for Bush.

In September 2000, Bush finally removed Henderson from her post,
transferring her to the state's Department of Management Services; he
denied that the ethics charges had anything to do with the shakeup.

Bush's email archive includes no correspondence between Bush and his aides
regarding the politically explosive allegations levied against Henderson.
But Bush did respond to constituents who were concerned with Henderson's
alleged behavior. "If i felt that Cynthia was unethical or incompetent, I
would ask her to leave. I don't believe that it is the case," he wrote to
one constituent.

Jeb Bush backed background checks at gun shows [Benjy Sarlin, MSNBC, April
10, 2015
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-backed-background-checks-gun-shows>]

*Jeb Bush has previously supported instituting background checks. *

NASHVILLE, Tennessee – After months defending his conservative bona fides
on immigration and education, the National Rifle Association’s annual
meeting must have come as a relief to Republican Jeb Bush. He has plenty to
brag about to Second Amendment groups: He earned an A+ rating from the NRA
as Florida governor and signed the “stand your ground” law that gained
national attention after the Trayvon Martin shooting.

“I’ve been in the trenches with you and when I was governor, we were
passing laws and creating protections for gun owners that set the bar for
other states to follow,” Bush said in his speech on Friday. “I will match
my record against anyone else’s when it comes to the support and defense of
the Second Amendment.”

But on one issue that has since become a top cause for gun control
advocates (and the enemy of groups like the NRA), Bush’s policy choices may
be out of step: background checks for gun purchases.

In 1998, then-candidate Bush backed a Florida law instituting background
checks for firearms bought at gun shows, a type of purchase that is not
covered under federal law. The issue was part of a broader fight with
Democratic opponent Buddy MacKay, who backed a constitutional amendment to
allow individual counties to institute their own background check and
waiting period laws. MacKay ran ads at the time arguing Bush “sides with
the gun lobby and opposes criminal background checks,” perThe Miami Herald,
a charge Bush rebutted to the local press by pointing to his support for a
statewide law.

“A simple rule would simply say that anybody that buys a gun at a gun show
should get an instant background check,” Bush said in a debate. “And so you
would take out the criminals.”

MacKay lost, but the amendment authorizing counties to expand background
checks passed via referendum in the same election with 72% of the vote.

At the time, background checks for private sales were less controversial in
the GOP – even NRA leader Wayne LaPierre testified that he could support
them in 1999.

Background checks became a partisan lightning rod after the mass shooting
at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut took the lives of 20
children and six adults, and President Obama urged Congress to pass a
federal law closing the gun show loophole. LaPierre and the NRA lobbied
hard against the proposal along with Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco
Rubio – all likely 2016 candidates. The gun control measure ultimately
failed.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told msnbc as he shopped for a birthday
gun for his wife at the NRA exhibition hall that he opposes the expanded
background checks as well.

RELATED: Jeb Bush: All about that base

“I just have a real fear any time the government wants to get involved in
the process of knowing who I am and why I have a firearm,” he said.
“There’s too much history that gives me pause.”

A spokeswoman for Bush, Kristy Campbell, did not directly answer a question
on whether Bush still supports background checks at gun shows, but attested
to his overall gun rights record.

“[As] demonstrated by his A+ rating from the NRA, Governor Bush’s strong
record on protecting and supporting second amendment rights is clear,”
Campbell told msnbc in an e-mail.

As LaPierre’s past support for closing the gun show loophole indicates,
Bush’s position is a case of the political ground moving beneath his feet
since he left office in early 2007, rather than a lurch to the left. But
this is a phenomenon that could be a recurring issue for a presidential
hopeful whose political rise, unlike almost every one of his expected
rivals, took place entirely in the pre-Obama era of the party.

In South Florida, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are forcing locals to pick sides
[Ed O’Keefe, WaPo, April 10, 2015
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-south-florida-jeb-bush-and-marco-rubio-are-forcing-locals-to-pick-sides/2015/04/09/331951a6-d3e3-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html>
]

*With both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio mounting presidential bids, Florida
natives are forced to pick sides.*

MIAMI — Marco Rubio was raised in West Miami and still lives just a few
blocks south of “Calle Ocho,” the famed boulevard where Cuban Americans
often gather to protest the Castro brothers. The Florida senator’s parents
immigrated here from Cuba in the 1950s — a familiar history for many
locals. His presidential bid will be announced Monday at the iconic Freedom
Tower, which long served as an immigrant reception center.

About 12 minutes east is Coral Gables, where Jeb Bush lives. He came to
South Florida in the 1980s to launch a real estate business and move his
Mexican-born wife closer to her mother and sister. The couple raised three
children, and Bush used his leadership of the local Republican Party to
launch a political career that resulted in two terms as governor.

Never before in modern political history have two presidential candidates
claimed the same hometown at the same time. But now Miami — better known
for its beaches, its sports teams and as a hub of Latin American commerce
and culture — is poised to become a major center of national Republican
presidential politics.

Geographically and otherwise, Rubio and Bush represent different parts of
Miami. The senator is a product of the city’s powerful and tight-knit Cuban
American community, which Rubio supporters believe will get behind his bid.
Bush, the transplant, has moved a few times across the city, but now lives
in a traditional upper-class enclave.

The rise of Bush and Rubio, whose political careers are inextricably
linked, is a testament to the growing importance of Florida in presidential
elections. Their bilingual and bicultural backgrounds will bring an urban
feel to a race packed with rivals from rural states. Local Republicans say
that both have what the GOP needs to win the White House.

“We’re in a presidential love triangle,” said Jessica Fernandez, president
of the Miami Young Republicans. “Who doesn’t want to be in a presidential
love triangle?”

Some here are backing Bush out of personal allegiance to him or his family.
They see Bush, 62, as a seasoned manager and like that he embraced his
wife’s Latino heritage. Others identify with Rubio’s life story and admire
how the 43-year-old senator has risen through the ranks so quickly.

“A South Florida Republican is in large part a Republican that’s really
significantly influenced in one way or another by the Bush experience,”
said Jorge Arrizurieta, a longtime Bush friend and donor. “To those who’ve
been active Republicans, they’ve been inevitably exposed in one way or
another to a Bush campaign of some sort.”

The coming decision “marks a coming of age for South Florida — not only the
politics, but the culture, the Pan-Americanism, the melting pot of sorts,”
said Armando Ibarra, another member of the Miami Young Republicans. “I like
both of the candidates; Jeb was a great governor, Marco Rubio was a great
senator. Personally, I just really believe in the transformational
qualities of a Marco Rubio candidacy.”

There is the possibility of a real Bush-vs.-Rubio battle in Florida next
year. If both men run for president and perform well in early primary
states, they would face off in Florida’s winner-take-all primary in
mid-March. They might be joined by other potential candidates who also live
in the state. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has a home near Destin
in the state’s Panhandle, and Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon and
conservative activist, lives in West Palm Beach. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)
might also enjoy support here because of his Cuban American heritage.

But the focus is on Bush and Rubio. Anticipating a brawl, the Tampa Bay
Times has already dubbed its 2016 coverage “Jebio” — a combination of “Jeb”
and “Rubio.” Early polling gives Bush an edge over Rubio in a primary.

“It’s a massive decision that I can’t even begin to think about,” said
Nelson Diaz, chairman of the Miami-Dade County Republican Party, a position
once held by Bush. “I can’t imagine how difficult a decision it would be
for some people.”

Diaz met Rubio in 1996, when the future senator was running Bob Dole’s
presidential campaign in South Florida. At the time, some other guy named
Rubio was running for local office. So as a joke, Diaz took the man’s pink
“Rubio” sign, cut it in half, took a “Bob Dole for President” sign, cut it
in half and taped them together: The new sign read “Rubio for President.”
Sadly, he didn’t keep it.

Jorge Luis Lopez, a Miami-area lobbyist, was one of the 200 Floridians who
traveled with Bush to New Hampshire in 2000 to hand out oranges and
campaign for his brother, George W. Bush. But Lopez is closer in age to
Rubio and appreciates that the senator is drawing new, younger people into
the process.

“The bulk of the people we’re talking to, they’re a different group,” he
said. “They’re aware of politics, but not engaged, and this is an
interesting opportunity for them to get engaged.”

[In drive to be 45th president, Jeb Bush faces legacies of 43rd and 41st.]

As he prepares for his announcement, Rubio has been selling a chance to win
tickets to his campaign kickoff for $3.05 — a tribute to Miami’s 305 area
code. At the start, Rubio is expected to divide his campaign operations
between South Florida and Washington, where most of his top aides and their
families reside, aides said.

Later this month, Jeb Bush will host his top fundraisers at a two-day
conclave at the swanky 1 Hotel in South Beach. Once Bush announces, he’s
expected to open a campaign headquarters here. Top aides, including
campaign manager-in-waiting David Kochel, are relocating to Miami in
anticipation of a run.

In West Miami, Rubio’s house is at the end of a cul-de-sac, where his
large, gray Ford pickup truck sits in the driveway. He briefly put the home
up for sale last year for nearly $696,000.

Rubio is a frequent customer at the CVS pharmacy a few blocks away, where
signs in each aisle are printed in English and Spanish. “He comes all the
time — weekends, during the week, with the kids, the wife,” a shift manager
said recently.

The pharmacy is on Calle Ocho (or “SW 8th St.” on street signs) amid
locally owned print shops, medical clinics and tax accountants whose signs
urge customers to “Preparé los taxes aquí.” When his top aides are in town,
they like eating at La Palma Cafeteria, one of several family-owned Cuban
restaurants in the neighborhood.

Much of Rubio’s free time is absorbed by a devotion to football and the
Miami Dolphins. He’s been a devout fan since the age of 6, when he started
developing an encyclopedic understanding of the game. Colleagues gifted him
two years of Dolphins season tickets when he left the Florida House in
2008. He still attends games with his children.

[From 2011: Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts]

Bush’s home is on a tree-lined street, just a few blocks from buildings
housing the regional offices of HBO, Bacardi and Del Monte produce. Bush
and his wife, Columba, are fans of a nearby restaurant, Talavera, which
serves meals inspired by Mexican street markets and some of Mexico City’s
top restaurants.

Until recently, Bush shared an office with his son, Jeb Bush Jr., at the
luxurious Biltmore Hotel, where they based their investment company. The
father and son often play golf together on the hotel’s course on Sunday
mornings.

He drives a Ford Fusion hybrid and recently told a crowd in Iowa last month
that he shops at a Publix supermarket near his home for “Iowa beef.” During
a recent visit to the store, workers behind the deli counter conversed with
customers in English and Spanish. In the back aisle, meat and poultry are
labeled in both languages — but there is no sign that the beef comes from
Iowa.

A few blocks away is the Church of the Little Flower, one of the region’s
oldest Catholic parishes. The Bushes are members.

On Sundays, Bush “is like clockwork, he comes in about five minutes
beforehand, he gets his seat in a certain spot in our church and does what
everybody else does,” said the pastor, the Rev. Michael W. Davis.

Rubio also has ties to the church. It was where he married his wife,
Jeanette, in 1998. The couple and their four young children regularly
attend Christ Fellowship, a local evangelical church. But they attend
services at Little Flower around the holidays, Davis said.

Ninoska Pérez Castellón, a talk-show host on the local “Radio Mambi,”
remembers meeting Bush in the 1980s when she used to lead marches
protesting the Castro regime. Despite not being Cuban or originally from
Miami, “he really felt like these were his people,” she said.

Rubio has been a frequent guest on Pérez’s weekday show, and she said her
audience feels a personal bond with him.

“One time he came by and was late,” she recalled. “He showed up and said,
‘I’m sorry I’m late, but you know how it is. The kids . . . and the washing
machine broke.” Within minutes, “we had 22 calls from people who repair
washers calling, saying that they wanted to repair his washer,” she said.

Secret Money Group Tied to Marco Rubio Super PAC Has Been Researching
Presidential Primary Voters [Scott Bland, National Journal, April 10, 2015
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/secret-money-group-tied-to-marco-rubio-super-pac-has-been-researching-presidential-primary-voters-20150410?ref=t.co&mrefid=walkingheader>]

*A secret-money group linked to Marco Rubio's new super PAC has existed for
over a year, during which time it commissioned extensive research on
early-state primary voters.*

April 10, 2015 A secret-money group linked to Marco Rubio's new super PAC
has existed for over a year, during which time it commissioned extensive
research on early-state primary voters.

The nonprofit—whose existence has never been revealed and whose name
matches the recently announced pro-Rubio super PAC—commissioned a minutely
detailed, 270-page political research book on early-state primary voters
last year, and the report was prepared by a firm on Rubio's own political
payroll.

The research contains a trove of information on voter demographics and
policy positions in states that, at the time of its publication, were
expected to host the first five nominating contests of the 2016 Republican
presidential primaries: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and
Florida.

Political data this detailed is often expensive to produce, and closely
guarded. But nonprofits and other outside groups are not allowed to
coordinate with campaigns, and by posting the research publicly, the group
has made its findings available free of charge to Rubio or anyone else who
might want to use it.

The report was prepared for a nonprofit, called Conservative Solutions
Project Inc., which was incorporated in Delaware in January 2014, according
to state records. Just this week, Rubio allies publicized a super PAC that
will support Rubio for president next year. It is called Conservative
Solutions PAC. While the super PAC will have to disclose its donors and
expenses regularly, nonprofits do not have to disclose donors.

"Absolutely, the two groups are related," Conservative Solutions PAC
spokesman Jeff Sadosky told National Journal Friday. "But they are separate
and distinct entities. One is focused on supporting Marco Rubio's potential
presidential campaign, and one is focused on issue education."

Sadosky said the nonprofit was established by Warren Tompkins, who is also
heading the super PAC, as well as fellow Republican operatives Joel
McElhannon and Pat Shortridge. The research was published publicly, Sadosky
said, to "make sure everyone's advocating and communicating, as effectively
as possible, the conservative ideals Conservative Solutions Project wants
to push forward."

According to the report cover, the research book was drafted by 0ptimus
Consulting, a Republican data analytics firm that started working for
Rubio's leadership PAC in 2013. Rubio's PAC paid 0ptimus $200,000 in 2013
and 2014 for data and analytics consulting, according to federal campaign
finance disclosures. The report was published in December 2014 and is
available on Conservative Solutions Project's website. It is also on the
0ptimus website, where a description says it was produced "in conjunction
with the Conservative Solutions PAC," though the report itself is branded
with the nonprofit's name.

Elements of the book seem tailor-made to aid a Rubio presidential campaign
in particular (if, as expected, he announces Monday that he will run for
the 2016 Republican nomination). In addition to exhaustive breakdowns of
voter attributes and historical data in the five states, the research
includes detailed findings about voters' views on issues like immigration
reform—which Rubio championed in the Senate in 2013—as well a muscular,
Rubio-style foreign policy.

The report goes into particular detail on how voters in Iowa, the first
caucus state, view immigration reform. Rubio's sponsorship of bipartisan
immigration reform legislation in the Senate two years ago damaged his
standing with some conservatives. The research showed Iowans overall, but
not Iowa Republicans, supporting immigration reform.

In Florida, the research found that Republican primary voters were
supportive of the idea "the future success or failure of the party"
depended on performance with Hispanic voters—an argument echoed by Rubio
advisers like pollster Whit Ayres, who recently argued that Rubio could be
"transformational" in expanding the GOP's appeal. The report showed
Republican primary voters accepted the premise at about the same rate as
the general population.

Forming nonprofit outside groups, which don't have to disclose donations,
is a growing trend in presidential politics. The nonprofits, which often
have similar names to affiliated super PACs, cannot spend all their money
on political purposes, but they can work hand-in-hand with super PACs and
other outside groups on things from policy research to airing their own
"issue ads" on TV. Last month, the Washington Post reported an ally of
former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush established a nonprofit, Right to Rise Policy
Solutions, to back a potential Bush campaign—along with Bush's Right to
Rise PAC and Right to Rise Super PAC.

"The reality is there are now ways to fund activity that's very helpful to
candidates and do so on a secret basis so no one knows who's funding it, no
one knows it's happening until much later, and types of money can be used
that could not otherwise be used in an election," said Campaign Legal
Center President Trevor Potter, a former chair of the Federal Election
Commission and Republican election attorney.

Alex Conant, a spokesman for Rubio, and Scott Tranter, a partner with
0ptimus, did not respond to questions about the nonprofit and its links to
Rubio's political operation.

"In sum, the three sections of this report provide unique data, original
insights, and wide-ranging analysis of the American electorate that should
provide a valuable educational resource of interest to many," the report's
introduction reads.

The only known donor to Conservative Solutions Project is a political
group: Super PAC for America, an organization once led by Michael Reagan
and Dick Morris that raised and spent millions of dollars in the 2010 and
2012 elections but spent down its remaining money last year. The super
PAC's campaign finance reports include a $10,000 donation to Conservative
Solutions Project in June 2014.

In late 2014, commenters on online forums made note of robocalls from a Las
Vegas-based number asking respondents to complete a survey for
"Conservative Solutions Project." A Nevada politics blogger wrote that in
addition to the policy question, the call also asked for opinions about
potential presidential candidates, including Rubio. The Conservative
Solutions Project report does not include any findings about individual
politicians.

Hedge-Fund Magnate Robert Mercer Emerges as a Generous Backer of Cruz [Eric
Lichtblau & Alexandra Stevenson, NYT, April 10, 2015
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/us/politics/hedge-fund-magnaterobert-mercer-emerges-as-a-generous-backer-of-ted-cruz.html?ref=us>
]

*Hedge-fund titan Robert Mercer has emerged as a top donor and supporter of
Ted Cruz.*

WASHINGTON — The two men share a passion for unbridled markets, concerns
about the Internal Revenue Service and a skeptical view of climate change.

Now the two — Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, and Robert Mercer, a
Wall Street hedge-fund magnate — share another bond that could link them
through November 2016: Both want to see Mr. Cruz elected president.

Mr. Mercer, a reclusive Long Islander who started at I.B.M. and made his
fortune using computer patterns to outsmart the stock market, emerged this
week as a key early bankroller of Mr. Cruz’s surprisingly fast campaign
start. He is believed to be the main donor behind a network of four “super
PACs” supporting Mr. Cruz that reported raising $31 million just a few
weeks into his campaign.

The emergence of rich and relatively low-profile donors like Mr. Mercer
could single-handedly jump-start a presidential campaign, said Trevor
Potter, a campaign finance lawyer who served as a Republican member of the
Federal Election Commission.

“It just takes a random billionaire to change a race and maybe change the
country,” Mr. Potter said. “That’s what’s so radically different now.”

Mr. Mercer does not have the name recognition of fellow Republican
financiers like the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson, but he has spent more
than $15 million since 2012 in support of conservative political campaigns
and causes, donating to a number of candidates who had never even met him.
Both moderate Republican candidates and Democrats in states like Iowa, New
York and Oregon have found themselves in the cross hairs of expensive
attack ads that he financed.

Mr. Mercer “is a very low-profile guy, but he’s becoming a bigger and
bigger player,” said Bradley A. Smith, a campaign finance expert who was a
Republican appointee on the Federal Election Commission. Mr. Mercer’s
financial support for Mr. Cruz “sends the message to other donors that Cruz
is a serious guy,” Mr. Smith said, “and that brings in other donors.”

Rep. Peter DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon, remembers with some bitterness Mr.
Mercer’s opposition to his re-election campaign in 2014 when he spent about
$650,000 on attack ads and other efforts in support of a conservative
challenger.

“I don’t think the guy had ever even been to Oregon,” Mr. DeFazio said. He
said he believed Mr. Mercer targeted him in part because of legislation Mr.
DeFazio sponsored that threatened higher taxes for hedge funds like Mr.
Mercer’s fund, Renaissance Technologies.

“He’s a patron for ultra-right-wing causes,” Mr. DeFazio said, “and in a
Republican presidential race, being an ultra-right-wing millionaire from
Wall Street isn’t going to hurt you.”

He is also an example of how wealthy donors have been empowered by the
Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the landmark Citizens United case, which
paved the way for super PACs. Unlike candidates, super PACs can accept
unlimited amounts of money from individuals and corporations to support a
candidate so long as they do not officially “coordinate” with the campaign.
Many moneyed Wall Street veterans enjoy playing the political game, hosting
fund-raisers and speaking publicly about the horse they are backing. Mr.
Mercer is not one of them. A computer scientist by training, he is more at
ease crunching numbers than pressing the flesh. Mr. Mercer declined to
comment.

He prefers to stay quiet about most things. After receiving a lifetime
achievement award from the Association for Computational Linguistics at an
event last year, Mr. Mercer told the audience he was daunted by the
prospect of speaking there for an hour, “which, by the way, is more than I
typically talk in a month so it’s quite a challenge.”

Intensely private, he has been described as “an icy cold poker player”
whose boss once jokingly called him “an automaton,” according to a
description in “More Money Than God,” a book about the hedge fund industry
by Sebastian Mallaby.

Before joining Renaissance Technologies, Mr. Mercer, 68, worked at I.B.M.’s
research center, where he specialized in computerized translation of
languages.

While little of his private life has been made public, some details have
emerged in recent court cases. In 2013, a group of former workers at his
house sued him for not paying overtime. They also accused him of deducting
money from their semi-annual bonuses as a form of punishment for, among
other things, failing to replace shampoos, close doors and change razor
blades. “The matter has been resolved amicably,” Troy L. Kessler, a lawyer
for the employees, said.

In 2009, Mr. Mercer sued RailDreams, a toy train manufacturer, and its
president, Richard Taylor, for overcharging him $2 million for a contract
to build and install a model train and railway set at his home.

Mr. Mercer has said nothing publicly about his financial backing for Mr.
Cruz’s campaign or how he came to support him. But his daughter, Rebekah
Mercer, who started a bakery in Manhattan called Ruby et Violette, has been
more vocal. This week she held a fund-raiser for Mr. Cruz at her Manhattan
apartment.

When James H. Simons, the billionaire founder of the Renaissance hedge
fund, hired Mr. Mercer in 1993, the company was more university campus than
Wall Street firm. Mr. Simons, a mathematician and former code-breaker for
the National Security Agency, brought in astronomers and physicists to
analyze reams of data, using computer programs to search for patterns that
could be used to inform trading decisions. Mr. Simons has been a major
political backer of Democrats, donating $8.3 million in 2014.

The hedge fund’s strategy has been tremendously successful. The firm’s
flagship Medallion fund, which manages money only for employees today, has
earned average annual returns of 35 percent for two decades. Over all, the
firm manages $25 billion, much of it employees’ money.

Renaissance was also able to increase returns by borrowing large sums of
money, but the practice eventually caught the attention of Washington and
government agencies. Last year the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations accused Renaissance of using complex financial structures
that allowed it to underestimate how much it owed the Internal Revenue
Service by $6 billion.

Taxpayers “had to shoulder the tax burden these hedge funds shrugged off
with the aid of the banks,” Senator Carl Levin of Michigan said at a
hearing last summer.

The I.R.S. has been investigating Renaissance for at least six years. A
spokesman for the firm said its tax practices were legal and appropriate.

Mr. Cruz’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment about Mr.
Mercer’s support for his candidacy or his hedge fund’s $6 billion tax issue.

But the candidate, like his new Wall Street backer, has his own concerns
about the I.R.S., which might have gotten Mr. Mercer’s attention. Last
month, he called for the agency to be abolished altogether.

As Scott Walker addresses NRA, concealed carry shifts surface [Matthew
DeFour, Wisconsin State Journal, April 10, 2015
<http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/as-scott-walker-addresses-nra-concealed-carry-shifts-surface/article_731881c1-9667-51e4-9f2a-e1f68967e123.html>
]

*Gov. Scott Walker was for permitting concealed carry of handguns before he
was against it -- until he was for it again.*

Gov. Scott Walker was for permitting concealed carry of handguns before he
was against it -- until he was for it again.

Walker's shifting position on the law he championed, but also voted against
in 2002 as he ran for Milwaukee County executive, surfaced Friday as he was
set to address a National Rifle Association convention in Nashville.

The likely 2016 presidential contender has come under fire for shifting his
position on various issues, including immigration, right-to-work, abortion,
ethanol subsidies and the Common Core education standards.

"Add concealed carry to the list of issues Walker has changed his position
on just to benefit himself," said Jason Pitt, a spokesman for the
Democratic National Committee. "If we’ve learned anything from Scott Walker
over the past few months it’s that his constant pandering on issues has
defined him as one of the least trustworthy candidates among the 2016 GOP
field."

A spokeswoman for Walker's political nonprofit did not immediately respond
to a request for comment.

In 1999, Walker cosponsored a concealed carry law as a member of the state
Assembly. But in 2002, he voted against a similar bill that passed the
Assembly. It died in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Democratic Gov. Jim
Doyle, who was elected that same year, vetoed subsequent iterations of the
bill.

Walker signed the law in 2011 after it won bipartisan support in the
Republican-controlled Assembly and Senate.

His support for concealed carry has been a constant theme in his speeches
to Republican activists across the country, starting at the Iowa Freedom
Summit in late January.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference he told NRA News Network
that he supports eliminating a 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases.

"We've been the leader when it comes to freedom over the last four years,"
Walker told NRA News in highlighting the concealed carry law.

Walker is scheduled to speak at about 1:30 p.m. CDT. Also on the program
are nine other potential presidential candidates, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who
is running for president, and Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, a
Democrat who has been building a national profile in conservative circles
as a stalwart second amendment supporter.

Liberal group One Wisconsin Now highlighted Walker's stands on concealed
carry Friday.

"At that time he thought that concealed carry did not play well in
Milwaukee County, so he voted against it for that short-term gain," Scot
Ross, OWN's executive director, said of Walker's earlier opposition.

The Best Reason to Take Rand Paul Seriously Has Nothing to Do With His
Politics [Jim Rutenberg, NYT Magazine, April 10, 2015
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/magazine/the-best-reason-to-take-rand-paul-seriously-has-nothing-to-do-with-his-politics.html>
]

*It’s the boring details of the organization that Paul is building that
provide the best reason to take him seriously. If Paul’s views are
unusually idealistic, the ground game that his team is planning is pure
realpolitik. His staff is focused on the delegate math and party rules that
could determine the next Republican nominee — a game-theory style of
presidential politics at which the Paul team is particularly adept.*

Although Rand Paul — who declared his bid for the presidency on Tuesday —
has spent several years now inching toward the Republican mainstream, there
is still a tendency among the political classes to view him as a sideshow
candidate. The crankiness of his announcement-week interviews certainly
suggests that he’s still getting a handle on retail politics. And though
his policy views — calls for more rational sentencing guidelines, a less
intrusive national-security apparatus and a restrained foreign policy —
give him potential appeal with young, minority and libertarian-leaning
voters, they also make him an outlier in the field of declared or likely
Republican contenders.

Paul’s (relative) unorthodoxy makes him that rare candidate whose policy
views draw gobs of media attention: He’s teaming up with Democrats to scale
back mandatory-minimum drug sentencing and likens the war on drugs to Jim
Crow? (The same Rand Paul who once said he opposed parts of the Civil
Rights Act?) He’s in the same party as Senator John McCain, and yet he
opposed arming the Syrian rebels?

But in fact, it’s the boring details of the organization that Paul is
building that provide the best reason to take him seriously. If Paul’s
views are unusually idealistic, the ground game that his team is planning
is pure realpolitik. His staff is focused on the delegate math and party
rules that could determine the next Republican nominee — a game-theory
style of presidential politics at which the Paul team is particularly adept.

The process by which presidential candidates are nominated is, at its most
basic level, a race toward a magic number of party delegates — in the
Republican Party’s case, 1,235 required to win — amassed state by state
and, in some cases, congressional district by congressional district.
Getting them depends not only on the speechifying, door-to-door
vote-hunting and million-dollar ad buys we associate with campaigning, but
also on a bewildering array of procedural minutia: obscure national bylaws
that overlay a mind-bending patchwork of local rules that can vary
drastically from state to state, some of which award delegates not based on
votes received in primary elections but on back-room wrangling at local
party conventions and meetings that take place weeks or even months after
votes are cast.

You would think that mastering these arcana would be a priority for
campaigns, given their importance. But even the best-funded,
most-inevitable-seeming candidates mess them up all the time — and
long-shot candidacies have been made, or at least sustained, by getting
them right. Barack Obama’s Democratic primary victory in 2008 came in large
part because his strategists understood the way delegates were being doled
out state by state — even to the losing candidate, based on his or her
share of the vote — better than Hillary Rodham Clinton’s team did.

In 2012, Rick Santorum employed a novel strategy of focusing his resources
only on states where he stood to gain the most delegates. He left other
states uncontested and later tried to steal delegates from Mitt Romney in
states where delegates were awarded at the state and local conventions and
caucuses. It wasn’t enough to take him to the general election, but it
propelled a remarkable run as the primaries’ pre-eminent spoiler — he kept
Romney fighting for the nomination until April — by a candidate whom few
took seriously at first.

Santorum is expected to make another run in 2016 — but unfortunately for
him, two of the main strategists who worked for him in 2012 are now working
for Paul. One of them, Mike Biundo, was Santorum’s campaign manager and
co-piloted his cross-country hopscotching strategy. The other strategist,
Paul’s national political director, John Yob, was part of Santorum’s
later-stage delegate-hunting efforts. (Santorum’s chief strategist, John
Brabender, told me this week that if Santorum runs, he will be just fine
without Biundo and Yob and will build a “more sophisticated” operation than
the one he had four years ago). With Santorum, Biundo and Yob learned the
rules and the ins and outs of the electoral map in a way few others had.
Only one campaign knew them still better: Ron Paul’s.

The elder Paul’s team first showed that it knew its way around the primary
rules in 2008, when it took McCain’s campaign by surprise by showing up in
force at state conventions to push the election of Paul-friendly convention
delegates long after McCain thought he had vanquished all of his Republican
rivals. “We weren’t ready for the intensity and organization they put
together,” Ryan Price, a McCain national deputy political director who
helped run his delegate strategy that year, told me.

The McCain team — on which Yob served as a political director — was able to
keep the damage from Paul’s efforts to a minimum. Mitt Romney had less luck
in 2012, when the Paulites used the knowledge they had gained from 2008 to
win a plurality of delegates in several states long after their primaries
and caucuses — none of which Paul actually won — were over. “They were very
sophisticated about the chess match,” says Katie Packer Gage, Romney’s 2012
deputy campaign manager. “They definitely caused a lot of headaches.” As I
wrote last month, Paul’s success prompted party leaders to enact new rules
to discourage candidates from repeating his insurrection, which Rand Paul’s
team is scrutinizing now in hopes of figuring out how to work around them.

Ron Paul, of course, never came close to winning the nomination. But if his
son can mount a bigger, more credible campaign than that of his father, as
he is expected to do, he could use the same apparatus and approach to
expertly navigate the rules and cause more than just headaches. “If they
can bring all of that with them, then it would be very, very beneficial,”
Gage told me. But she added a caveat: “I just wouldn’t make the assumption
that his team is going to have it just because his dad’s team had it.”

The family legacy is mixed for Rand Paul. His team does have several
veterans of the Ron Paul campaigns, starting with the candidate himself;
Ron Paul’s Iowa vice chairman, A. J. Spiker; and Ron Paul’s former campaign
manager — and grandson-in-law — Jesse Benton (though Benton is heading to a
Paul-supporting “super PAC” and, once that happens, will have to cease
direct contact with the official campaign under federal elections law). But
as Paul seeks to build a broader base than his father had, he is alienating
some of the hard-core, grass-roots Ron Paul loyalists — the same people who
were so galvanized by his father’s candidacy that they mastered the
minutiae of their state party rules and infiltrated local Republican
committees on his behalf.

And all of the Paul team’s savvy at counting delegates and working state
rules will only take him so far if another candidate — a Jeb Bush, say, or
a Scott Walker — builds early momentum and wins a series of primaries out
of the gate. A truly inevitable candidate does not need to worry about the
small stuff or try to game the rules. Great victories bring great caches of
delegates.

But in a close-fought, state-by-state contest between two or more
competitive candidates, the campaign that best understands the intricacies
of delegate allotment will have a real edge — and at this point, that
campaign is almost certainly Paul’s. Like Obama in 2008, Paul is a
first-term senator who, aware of his underdog status, is spending the
campaign’s early days planning for all the scenarios it can envision.

When I asked Yob — a second-generation Michigan Republican who knows better
than to show any kinship with Obama — about the parallels, he laughed off
the question. “We are simultaneously building early-state organizations
that are the strongest in the field while also preparing for the
possibility of a nominating process that extends to the caucuses and state
conventions, where convention delegates will ultimately be selected,” he
told me. “It is safe to say, I like our chances in caucus systems and
conventions across the country.”

Correction: April 10, 2015

An earlier version of this article misidentified the position Ryan Price
held when he worked on John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. He was the
national deputy political director, not deputy campaign manager.

National Blogs

Jeb Bush hires two new foreign policy advisers [Ed O’Keefe, WaPo, April 10,
2015
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/10/jeb-bush-hires-two-new-foreign-policy-advisers/>
]

*Bush has tapped Robert S. Karem and John Noonan to join his growing policy
shop, according to aides familiar with the hires.*

As Jeb Bush inches closer to running for president, he's hired two new
advisers to help develop his foreign policy agenda.

Bush has tapped Robert S. Karem and John Noonan to join his growing policy
shop, according to aides familiar with the hires.

Most recently, Karem was a top policy adviser to House Majority Leader
Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor
(R-Va.). He also worked for former vice president Dick Cheney as a
researcher on his memoir and as a member of his national security staff.

Noonan is leaving his role as spokesman for the House Armed Services
Committee, and once advised Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign on
defense policy.

Aides said that Karem and Noonan are expected to help Bush track world
affairs on a daily basis and work with him on his foreign policy agenda.
They'll work alongside Justin Muzinich, who will serve as Bush's policy
chief should he launch a formal campaign, as expected. Muzinich is a former
New York-based investment firm manager.

One of the most sensitive tasks Karem and Noonan are expected to tackle is
facilitating conversations with Bush's 21-member advisory team of veteran
GOP foreign policy experts.

The team, which he unveiled in February, reflects a broad cross-section of
GOP thinking, including two former secretaries of state, George Shultz and
James Baker; two former CIA directors, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden;
former attorney general Michael Mukasey and Paul Wolfowitz, a former deputy
defense secretary and lead architect of the Iraq war.

There are no current plans for the group to ever formally meet in person
with Bush -- such a gathering might be too awkward given the members'
intensely differing views. And given his early fundraising prowess, his
standing in early public opinion polls and his family history, it's no
surprise that jockeying to advise Bush has been intense, according to some
people familiar with the process.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that an early casualty of the
jockeying was Elbridge Colby, a fellow at the Center for a New American
Security, who was being considered as one of Bush's foreign policy aides.

But Colby said in an e-mail to The Post that he was never formally offered
the job.

Bush aides strongly disputed the reports of infighting and said that Bush
welcomes the group's differing views on the world, and that he's been
interacting with the experts frequently via e-mail as he develops a broader
understanding of foreign affairs.

How Rand Paul Can Get Better at Interviews [Alan Rappeport, NYT First
Draft, April 10, 2015
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/10/how-rand-paul-can-get-better-at-interviews/>
]

*Sen. Rand Paul has given several interviews recently over which his
temperament has been called into question. *

Senator Rand Paul’s penchant for prickly interviews has ruffled feathers
during his first week as a presidential candidate, leaving some wondering
if this is a deliberate strategy or just a hot temper.

After a contentious back and forth with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie this week,
and the “shush” of a female CNBC anchor in February, Mr. Paul said on
Thursday that he is an “equal opportunity” curmudgeon when it comes to
losing his patience with the media.

Seeming to prove that point, Mr. Paul walked away during an interview on
Friday with a male reporter from The Guardian when pressed for specifics on
the issue of criminal justice.

As Mr. Paul is likely to do many more interviews as he seeks the Republican
nomination, First Draft checked in with a media coach to see how the
Kentucky senator can improve.

“The advice I would give to him is to always remember the interview is not
with the reporter,” said Brad Phillips, president of Phillips Media
Relations. “The reporter is the conduit to the audience you want to reach
out to.”

Mr. Phillips said candidates and politicians can be successful with an
aggressive approach toward the media until it begins to erode their
likability. Taking a “happy warrior” approach, smiling more and giving off
a warmer vibe, Mr. Phillips said, would behoove Mr. Paul as voters start to
pay more attention.

“If somebody who gives the perception as being peevish were to get the
nomination, the historical trend makes clear that person would be running
at a disadvantage,” he said.

Trying to cool perceptions about Mr. Paul’s temper, his team said on Friday
that they did not turn off the lights on his interview with The Guardian.
And to prove that Mr. Paul has nothing against female journalists, his
aides made sure to say he was rushing to do an interview with Dana Bash of
CNN.

Ted Cruz: 'Jihad' Was Waged Against Religious Freedom Bills [Daniel
Strauss, TPM, April 10, 2015
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-religious-freedom-bills-jihad>
]

*Sen. Ted Cruz argued that opponents of a pair of controversial religious
freedom laws had been waging a jihad against those proposals.*

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) argued that opponents of a pair of controversial
religious freedom laws had been waging a jihad against those proposals.

"We look at the jihad that is being waged right now in Indiana and Arkansas
going after people of faith who respect the biblical teaching that marriage
is the union of one man and one woman," Cruz said during a panel moderated
by conservative radio host Steve Deace on Thursday. "We need to bring
people together to the religious liberty values that built this country."

Cruz's comments come after Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) was forced to
clarify a controversial religious freedom law aimed at allowing businesses
to refuse to serve same-sex individuals based on religious objections.
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchison (R), sent similar legislation back to his
state's legislature in response to national criticism as well.

Cruz, and most of the likely 2016 Republican presidential candidates, have
expressed strong support for both laws. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R)
recently threw his support behind similar legislation that in certain ways
is broader than the Indiana or Arkansas bills.

Cruz added that "it wasn't long ago when this was an area of bipartisan
agreement."

Marco Rubio Assails Obama but Not Clinton at N.R.A. Forum [Nick Corasaniti,
NYT First Draft, April 10, 2015
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/10/marco-rubio-assails-obama-but-not-clinton-at-n-r-a-forum/>
]

*Marco Rubio did not mention Hillary Clinton in his speech at the NRA
convention. *

N.R.A. Rating: A

Guns owned: One

Bull’s-Eye: Mr. Rubio criticized President Obama for what he saw as a
lackluster response to the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris. “Mr.
President, if condemning that puts us on a high horse, I suggest we saddle
up,” Mr. Rubio said, as the crowd rose to its feet.

Misfire: The crowd gave a hesitant response to Mr. Rubio’s mention of
legislation he introduced that would keep local officials in Washington
from enacting gun laws, which has not received much attention.

“Cold Dead Hands” Moment: None, really.

Other Ammo: Mr. Rubio criticized Mr. Obama for his response to the Paris
attacks, the president’s “line in the sand” comments on Syria and what he
perceived to be a “weak” American foreign policy.

Cross Hairs: He focused entirely on Mr. Obama and did not mention Hillary
Rodham Clinton.

Pump Action: Mr. Rubio drew laughter for jokes about Mr. Obama’s golf game
and his State of the Union water bottle moment.

Big National News

National Stories

White House: Iran deal requires phased sanctions removal [Jim Kuhnhenn,
WaPo, April 10, 2015
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/white-house-iran-deal-requires-phased-sanctions-removal/2015/04/10/4adc083c-dfab-11e4-b6d7-b9bc8acf16f7_story.html>
]

*President Obama’s Foreign Policy advisor, Ben Rhodes, has pushed back on
the notion that demands for the immediate suspension of sanctions has
imperiled the potential deal.*

PANAMA CITY — The White House pushed back Friday against declarations from
Iran’s leaders that any nuclear deal must include an immediate lifting of
sanctions, indicating President Barack Obama will walk away from
negotiations unless sanctions are removed over time.

Obama foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes portrayed the tough stance by
Supreme Leader Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Hassan
Rouhani as a reflection of internal pressures from Iran hardliners and said
the development doesn’t mean a final agreement is unattainable. But Rhodes
pointed out the framework agreement that Iran and the six powers reached
last week to curb Tehran’s nuclear activities allows for sanctions to be
removed over time, not at once.

“It’s very clear and understood that sanctions relief will be phased,”
Rhodes told reporters traveling with Obama in Panama for the Summit of the
Americas. “The fact of the matter is, we have framework. The president has
said if the details don’t bear out, we won’t have a deal.”

In his first comments on the framework, Khamenei told a gathering of
religious poets on Thursday that he “is neither for nor against” it. But he
said the punitive “sanctions should be lifted completely, on the very day
of the deal.” He said because the agreement was only the framework and not
the accord itself, “nothing has been done yet.”

The deadline for a final deal is June 30.

Rouhani, a relative moderate, sent the same message during a ceremony
Thursday marking Iran’s nuclear technology day, which celebrates the
country’s atomic achievements.

“We will not sign any agreement unless all economic sanctions are totally
lifted on the first day of the implementation of the deal,” Rouhani said.

Rhodes said Khamenei and Rouhani had to deal with internal politics, but
that their statements should not be taken as a test of what the final deal
will look like.

“They have their own hardliners who are skeptical of this deal,” Rhodes
said. “The test of whether or not that framework can be memorialized is not
a comment on any given day by an Iranian leader, the test will be if by the
end of June we have a document.”

The framework says sanctions put in place over Iran’s nuclear program will
be suspended once international monitors verify that Tehran is abiding by
the limitations spelled out in the agreement. Rhodes said the International
Atomic Energy Agency will have to inspect military sites.

An essential part of the deal, he said, is “having the IAEA ability to
inspect suspicious sites, no matter where they are.”

The West has long feared Iran’s nuclear program could allow it to build an
atomic bomb and that Tehran has used uranium enrichment — the key point of
contention in the negotiations — to pursue nuclear weapons. Iran denies the
charge, saying its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, such as
power generation and cancer treatment.

New Sea Drilling Rule Planned, 5 Years After BP Oil Spill [Coral Davenport,
NYT, April 10, 2015
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/us/new-sea-drilling-rule-planned-5-years-after-bp-oil-spill.html>
]

*The Obama administration is planning to impose a major new regulation on
offshore oil and gas drilling to try to prevent the kind of explosions that
caused the catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, administration
officials said Friday.*

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is planning to impose a major new
regulation on offshore oil and gas drilling to try to prevent the kind of
explosions that caused the catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico,
administration officials said Friday.

The announcement of the Interior Department regulation, which could be made
as soon as Monday, is timed to coincide with the five-year anniversary of
the disaster, which killed 11 men and sent millions of barrels of oil
spewing into the gulf. The regulation is being introduced as the Obama
administration is taking steps to open up vast new areas of federal waters
off the southeast Atlantic Coast to drilling, a decision that has
infuriated environmentalists.

The rule is expected to tighten safety requirements on blowout preventers,
the industry-standard devices that are the last line of protection to stop
explosions in undersea oil and gas wells. The explosion of the Deepwater
Horizon oil rig on April 20, 2010, was caused in part when the buckling of
a section of drill pipe led to the malfunction of a supposedly fail-safe
blowout preventer on a BP well called Macondo.

It will be the third and biggest new drilling-equipment regulation put
forth by the Obama administration in response to the disaster. In 2010, the
Interior Department announced new regulations on drilling well casings, and
in 2012, it announced new regulations on the cementing of wells.

The latest regulation, a result of several years of study, will be imposed
on all future offshore drilling equipment and will be used by the
administration to make the case that it can prevent a BP-like disaster as
oil exploration expands in the Atlantic. The Interior Department is also
reviewing a proposal from Royal Dutch Shell to drill in the Arctic’s
Chukchi Sea, off the coast of Alaska.

“We’re coming on five years, and we’ve been working tirelessly in the
regulation division since it happened,” said Allyson Anderson, associate
director of strategic engagement in the Interior Department’s Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement. “We’ve doubled down on building a
culture of safety,”

But environmentalists remained highly skeptical.

“Making sure the design, operation and maintenance of the blowout preventer
is the best it can possibly be is imperative, no question,” said Bob Deans,
a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council and co-author of the
book “In Deep Water,” an investigation of the cause of the spill. “Industry
and government have taken measures over the past five years to reduce some
of the risk in what is an inherently dangerous operation at sea. That’s a
far cry from saying it’s safe. And the last thing we need is to expose
Atlantic or Arctic waters to a BP-style blowout.”

Environmentalists also noted that a panel appointed by President Obama to
investigate the spill concluded that the chief cause of the disaster, which
left the Gulf Coast soaked in black tar, was not the blowout preventer but
a broad systemic failure of oversight by the companies involved in drilling
the well and the government regulators assigned to police them.

Five years after the spill, the number of accidents and injuries per
oil-producing well has increased, according to Interior Department
statistics. Between 2009 and 2014, the overall number of oil- and
gas-producing wells dropped about 20 percent, and accidents and incidents
associated with drilling in the Gulf of Mexico dropped 14 percent. But
during that period, accidents and injuries per producing well increased by
about 7 percent.

A report last year by the Chemical Safety Board concluded that the blowout
preventer’s blind shear ram, an emergency hydraulic device with two cutting
blades, punctured the pipe and sent oil and gas gushing to the surface. The
study found that the drill pipe had buckled under the tremendous pressure
of the oil and gas rising from the well from the initial blowout.

That report warned that another disastrous offshore oil well blowout could
happen despite regulatory improvements in the four years since the BP well
explosion.

“The new regulation is important,” said William K. Reilly, a co-chairman of
the presidential panel that investigated the spill, and the administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency under the first President George
Bush. “The signal from the department that it is attending to each of the
systems is more important. The blowout preventer is the last-ditch
preventer. It was activated too late in Macondo. If you get to the point
where it’s all you’ve got, it better be good. But the system process we
identified — attention to management, process design, adherence to the
system — those are really vital long before you ever get to the point where
you have an emergency.”

Mr. Reilly blamed Congress for some of the continued systemic problems,
saying that lawmakers should have appropriated funds to increase programs
for safety training and inspection.

Administration officials say that since the spill, the Interior Department
has initiated the most aggressive and comprehensive offshore oil and gas
regulation and oversight in history. The agency has nearly doubled the
number of safety inspectors in the Gulf of Mexico, from 55 at the time of
the spill to 92 today. After the accident, the Interior Department was
restructured, separating the agency charged with overseeing safety from the
one charged with overseeing the collection of revenue.

The agency has also put in place a requirement that any company performing
deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico must have access to containment
dome technology — essentially, a dome that can be put over an exploded well
to contain gushing oil. At least two ports in the Gulf of Mexico now store
containment domes that can be used in emergencies.

While the oil industry typically opposes regulations, it has followed some
of the recommendations made by the presidential panel. The big oil
companies created and funded the Center for Offshore Safety, an institute
intended to promote and disseminate best practices in drilling.

“The industry’s overall safety record was strong before Macondo, and the
co-chairs of President Obama’s national spill commission were absolutely
right when they said that offshore drilling is now even safer,” said Jack
N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for
the oil industry. “We will continue to build on these achievements because
our goal is zero accidents and zero spills.”

General Electric to sell bulk of its finance unit [Andrew Ross Sorkin &
Michael J. de la Merced, NYT Dealbook, April 10, 2015
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/business/dealbook/general-electric-to-sell-bulk-of-its-finance-unit.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news>
]

*General Electric plans to sell off most of its finance arm within two
years, redefining the multinational conglomerate as it seeks to complete a
transformation begun amid the tumult of the financial crisis.*

General Electric plans to sell off most of its finance arm within two
years, redefining the multinational conglomerate as it seeks to complete a
transformation begun amid the tumult of the financial crisis.

In addition to the huge planned sales of assets outlined by the company on
Friday, General Electric will take other major steps, including bringing
back about $36 billion in cash that currently resides overseas.

Rapidly shrinking the finance arm, GE Capital — once the most powerful
driver of the company’s earnings until it rocked the parent company after
the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008 — will erase one of the most prominent
legacies of G.E.’s former chief executive, Jack Welch.

But it could also release the company from one of its biggest burdens:
strict regulatory requirements that come with GE Capital’s being regarded
as a financial institution that is too big to fail.

General Electric’s plan is that by 2018, its core industrial businesses —
ranging from jet turbines to heavy energy equipment to sophisticated
medical devices — will account for more than 90 percent of its earnings, up
from 58 percent last year.

To Jeffrey R. Immelt, the company’s chairman and chief executive, corporate
legacy has not deterred him from a plan to shrink a huge and sometimes
unwieldy collection of businesses. The conglomerate has already sold
divisions like its small appliances unit that became too small to affect
its sales, which stood at $148 billion last year.

“We’re not sentimentalists,” he said in an interview.

The conglomerate’s ambitious plan will begin with the sale of most of GE
Capital’s real estate assets for $23 billion to the Blackstone Group and
Wells Fargo, as well as other buyers.

All that will remain by the end of the sales process are any financing
businesses closely tied to the conglomerate’s core industrial businesses.
G.E. estimates that those remaining assets will be valued at about $90
billion, a fraction of the $363 billion of GE Capital assets held as of
year-end.

Friday’s announcement represents the final stage of what Mr. Immelt has
called a “simplification” campaign aimed at making one of the country’s
biggest corporations smaller and safer.

The plan will come with a substantial initial cost, with the company
planning to take an accounting hit of $16 billion in its first fiscal
quarter this year, most of which will be a noncash charge.

Moreover, the company will also pay about $6 billion in taxes on earnings
it brings back from overseas.

Many American corporations continue to hold significant sums of money
overseas — Apple for example, holds roughly $158 billion in foreign
subsidiaries — in hopes of a change to the United States tax laws.

But G.E., which has been criticized in the past for its tax avoidance
strategies, said it had chosen to move quickly.

“We decided not to wait for tax reform,” said Keith S. Sherin, the chairman
and chief executive of GE Capital.

The severe downsizing of the finance unit is a sea change for General
Electric. For much of its 123-year history, the company had a finance
division, though the business traditionally served as a support for its
parent’s manufacturing arms. Under Mr. Welch, however, GE Capital swelled
in size, scope and willingness to take on risk, becoming one of the most
prominent lenders in the country.

Yet that immenseness badly wounded General Electric in the wake of Lehman’s
demise, when the market upheaval left the conglomerate hard-pressed to
borrow debt for its day-to-day operations.

Since the financial crisis, the conglomerate has taken steps to shrink its
finance operation, selling off smaller pieces over the years. In one of its
most notable moves, it spun off its private label credit card arm — now
known as Synchrony Financial — in a $2.9 billion initial public offering
last year.

Still, Mr. Immelt said, the company focused on moving carefully, its board
careful “not to burn stuff out” at fire sale prices.

But the success of Synchrony — its stock has risen 30 percent since it
began trading — helped prod Mr. Immelt and his team, including advisers at
JPMorgan Chase and Centerview Partners, to consider moving more quickly.

At the same time, Mr. Immelt said in the interview, G.E.’s mainstay
industrial operations were performing well.

Now is a “perfect time to be a seller,” he said. Moreover, he added of
potential asset buyers, “people are lining up at the starting line.”

First up came a potential sale of GE Capital’s real estate assets. As
G.E.’s management team and advisers weighed potential partners, one name
quickly came to mind: Blackstone and its huge real estate arm.

“We thought there was only one buyer who can do this: Jon Gray at
Blackstone,” Mr. Sherin of GE Capital said. “We told him, ‘If you can hit
this bid on an exclusive basis, it’s yours.’ ”

Despite not putting the real estate assets up for a competitive auction,
which may have fetched a higher price, Mr. Sherin declared himself happy
with the result. Moving this way assured G.E. of both a speedy and certain
transaction.

“Both parties think they got a fair price,” he said.

General Electric said it would remain an acquirer of businesses as well,
though its deals will be aimed at bolstering industrial operations. Last
year, it paid $13.5 billion for the energy operations of the French
industrial company Alstom.

Selling the bulk of GE Capital could bring significant benefits for G.E.
shareholders, by the company’s reckoning. It estimates that it could return
more than $90 billion to investors by 2018, through special dividends,
stock buybacks and other financial moves. About $35 billion of that alone
will come from the GE Capital asset sales.

Perhaps one of the most notable potential consequences of the drastic move
is that G.E. will be able to shed its designation as a “systemically
important financial institution.” Such status comes with high requirements
to keep capital on hand, potentially limiting its financial returns.

So significant is the label that MetLife, the big insurer, has sued
regulators to try to remove the designation.

“We’re probably the most heavily regulated company in the world,” Mr.
Immelt said. But he added, “Regulation doesn’t scare us.”

The conglomerate has already begun discussions with government regulators,
though is hoping to formally apply for the removal of the so-called Sifi
designation by next year.

Tackling America’s Police Abuse Epidemic [Michael Hirsh, Politico, April
10, 2015
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/north-charleston-shooting-americas-police-abuse-epidemic-116838_Page2.html#.VShD7-GK_7U>
]

*Outrage continues over the shooting of Walter Scott and the larger
implications the incident has on the status of racial and criminal justice.*

It was so automatic—so chillingly casual. That was the most frightening
thing, say some criminal-justice experts, about Michael Slager’s actions in
North Charleston, S.C., last week. It’s all there on the videotape: The
victim, Walter Scott, starts to run, slowly. Without a pause, Officer
Slager raises his gun and begins to fire at Scott’s back. One shot. Two.
Three. Four. Five. Six. Seven. Slager pauses briefly, then squeezes off the
eighth shot. Scott crumples to the ground. Slager radios: “Shots fired and
the subject is down. He took my Taser.” Then Slager walks deliberately over
to the mortally wounded man lying on his face, cuffs Scott’s hands behind
him but does not administer any aid. Equally casually, Slager drops what
appears to be his Taser next to Scott’s body.

The North Charleston video, which was replayed constantly on TV and video
this week, put sharp new pressure on the federal government to increase its
scrutiny of what many experts believe is endemic police abuse across the
country, especially in black communities—an unseen decades-old abuse that
is only now being rendered visible by a new generation of
citizen-documentarians, average people equipped with cell-phone cameras.

“The secret is out now. We’ve pulled back the curtain,” says Bowling Green
University Professor Philip Stinson, author of Police Integrity Lost: A
Study of Law Enforcement Officers Arrested, a recent survey that found
that, apparently thanks to decades of inbred collaboration between local
police departments, prosecutors and court systems—all of which tend to
benefit mutually from arrest fees, ticket fines and so forth—almost no
police are ever convicted of wrongly killing anyone or other abuses. By
canvassing news databases, Stinson found only 59 arrests of on-duty police
on charges of aggravated assault with a gun recorded in the entire country
in the seven years from 2005 to 2011. Just 13 of those resulted in
convictions.

“What’s so striking is the casualness of it,” says David Harris, a criminal
law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and a leading authority on
racial profiling, of the North Charleston incident. “For the officer it’s
literally a walk in the park. It’s ‘Of course I’m gonna shoot him.’ He
doesn’t pause, he doesn’t make any hesitation. What it says to me is that
in the culture of that police department this is no problem. And everybody
knows that without that video, that officer would be out driving around in
a patrol car right now. The ongoing assumption, without that piece of film,
would be ‘He threatened me and I had to defend myself.’”

The cases seem to keep multiplying: Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland, Las
Vegas, Albuquerque, and more. Vanita Gupta, acting head of the Justice
Department’s civil rights division, told POLITICO on Thursday that the DOJ
does not yet plan an investigation into whether there is a pattern of
police violence or abuse in North Charleston—as it did in Ferguson—but she
says a “perfect storm” of incidents and outrage has made the relationship
between law enforcement and communities “front and center in the country in
the way they haven’t been until recent times.”

Despite more than doubling the number of its investigations into police
departments over the past five fiscal years—to more than 20 nationwide
now—the Department of Justice has failed to keep up with these police
abuses and address them as a national problem, critics say. Typically
summoned only in sporadic cases surrounded by public furor—like the
shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson—almost every DOJ probe has found a
systemic problem of police and court abuse of minority communities, says
Alec Karakatsanis, co-founder of Equal Justice Under Law, a nonprofit civil
rights law firm.

But, he asks, what about the rest of the cities in the United States?
“Where has the DOJ been in uncovering this? Where have the lawyers been?
Where has the legal profession been? Under Obama, the DOJ has spent $80
million per year prosecuting medical marijuana cases, and not very much on
crime by police.”

Indeed, out of the DOJ’s nearly $26 billion budget, the Civil Rights
Division was allotted just $147 million in fiscal 2015; and of that, just
$12.2 million was allotted to staff working on “effective and
democratically accountable policing.” The Office on Violence against Women
got $414 million. Drug enforcement got $2 billion. The prison system
received $6.9 billion.

Only last month President Obama was in Selma, Ala., praising racial
progress since the Bloody Sunday marches to Montgomery. But Sam Brooke of
the Southern Poverty Law Center says that his organization found problems
analogous to Ferguson’s in nearby Montgomery, where police set up harassing
traffic stops in black neighborhoods. Such programs, he suggests, helped
Montgomery consistently report municipal traffic ticket revenues three to
four times that of other cities in Alabama.

Gupta, who worked on a number of police abuse cases as an attorney at the
American Civil Liberties Union before taking over as acting head of the
DOJ’s civil rights division six months ago, says it’s simply not true that
the Justice Department has been out of step. “The number of investigations
into police departments under this attorney general is vastly higher than
what it has been in previous years,” she explains. “I think he has done
more for criminal justice reform in recent years than I could have possibly
hoped for … from really reinvigorating the civil rights division to the
Smart on Crime initiative, his leadership has been quite transformative.”

Much of that work, she says, predates Ferguson.

Of its 20 investigations, the Justice Department has entered into 15
agreements with law enforcement agencies, including nine consent decrees,
to correct abuses. Cities as varied as New Orleans, Seattle, Detroit and
Albuquerque, as well as smaller municipalities like East Haven,
Connecticut, and Warren, Ohio, have all agreed to consent decrees to
address glaring police abuses. And under a new program started in 2011, its
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services has offered technical
assistance to bring police departments closer to their communities in towns
and cities as far afield as Spokane, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore,
Fayetteville, N.C., and Salinas, Calif., says the Justice Department’s Mary
Brandenberger.

Still, among the Justice Department’s critics today is Gupta’s former boss,
ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, who says that despite the promises
made early on by an African-American president and his African-American
attorney general, far too little has changed. “The Department of Justice of
Eric Holder came later to criminal justice reform than I would have liked,”
Romero says. And even when it did, announcing the Clemency Project in
January 2014, it’s moved very slowly in reviewing files of federal
prisoners—hardly more than 20 have been released. “We’re all kind of
scratching our heads saying what’s taking them so long,” says Romero. On
the contrary, the Justice Department has actually stood against early
release of prisoners who have been found serving longer sentences than are
warranted in other cases, he adds.

Others say Justice Department is doing the best it can with a problem that
is still fundamentally a local and state issue. “They cannot be everywhere
at once, and the DOJ comes in only if there is a pattern of practice or
constitutional violation,” says the University of Pittsburgh’s Harris.
“Given what they have in resources I think they do a spectacular job of
finding the cases that matter the most.”

The systemic police abuse and violence, driven largely by a lack of
accountability, often comes in the form of draconian policies of arrests
and summons in minority communities, which are used as hapless cash cows
for the police and justice system. It may have been no accident that Walter
Scott was initially stopped by Officer Slager for an alleged broken brake
light on his car, or that after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson,
Mo., a federal investigation found that blacks there were being arrested,
ticketed and fined into poverty.

According to a 2012 class-action lawsuit filed in Alabama, one private
probation company used by 110 cities is used to extract revenue cost-free
to the city—often from the poor who can’t afford good legal defense. Then,
when they can’t pay, they’re charged huge fees. Danny Evans, the attorney
who filed the lawsuit, says, “What happened in Ferguson is the blueprint
for what’s going on in Alabama, and you have the same problem in Georgia,
Florida and other states. These cities think they can turn their courts
into revenue generators.”

A Justice Department probe into police abuses in Newark, N.J. found that 93
percent of all police stops of citizens were unjustified, says
Karakatsanis. “If that’s correct, that’s 80,000 crimes. All of those stops
are assaults committed by police.”

Police abuse is a problem that’s often politically complicated for the
Justice Department to highlight, Karakatsanis says, because of its inherent
conflict of interest in working with state and local law enforcement. As he
says, “To view DOJ as a beacon of accountability is not correct. They
depend on these cops to make arrests. All these local cops are part of
DOJ-led federal task forces.”

Reliable data on police abuse is almost impossible to come by, and here too
the federal government has failed to step up. In response to public outrage
after the 1991 Rodney King beating, Congress passed a 1994 law that
mandated an annual report on police violence. At the Justice Department’s
request, the International Association of Police Chiefs (IAPC) conducted a
pilot study. But according to John Firman, director of development of the
IAPC, after a year the Justice Department shut it down after only 600 out
of about 18,000 police departments in the country reported back. The law
had no means of forcing cooperation, Firman added.

A Department of Justice spokesperson said that to comply with the 1994 law,
the NIJ and Bureau of Justice Statistics later developed something called
the Police Public Contact Survey, which is “designed to understand the
nature and characteristics of citizen contacts with the police.” But that
does nothing to ascertain when police use force incorrectly, says Stinson,
who adds that he developed his own national database on police arrests and
convictions using Google News’ search engine.

Now all of Washington may soon be forced to awaken to the issue, says the
ACLU’s Romero. “We’ve never seen a moment of criminal justice like this,”
he says. “We’ve been working on criminal justice for decades. The Miranda
decision was our case. Police brutality was always a part of our
experience. Now each of these incidents is a moment: Trayvon Martin.
Michael Brown, South Carolina. The whole country just stops.”

The “Black Lives Matter” protests that swept the nation last fall and
winter underscored the resonance of these issues in many communities. And,
in Washington, D.C., a new left-right coalition is already emerging over
skyrocketing financial and social costs of swelling prison and jail systems.

As Romero says, “I think it’s a moment where mainstream America is finally
reckoning with the carnage of our criminal justice policy.”                
👁 1 💬 0
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
e4e2855068db5af557d962f2c8008c676cd64ea604465d86b906e36f5133473b
Dataset
podesta-emails
Document Type
Comments 0

Loading comments…