​Correct The Record Wednesday October 29, 2014 Morning Roundup

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *​**Correct The Record Wednesday October 29, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Politico: “2016: It’s on” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/2016-its-on-112294.html>* “The committees that form the core of the Clinton machine – the super PACs Ready for Hillary, American Bridge and Priorities USA – combined with the idling Senate committee that houses her once-coveted (and still profitable) email list brought in $3.8 million in the third quarter alone. The groups spent $1.4 million in those three months reaching out to existing and potential supporters and donors.” *National Journal: “Kirsten Gillibrand: It's 'Vital' That a Woman Becomes President in 2016” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/kirsten-gillibrand-it-s-vital-that-a-woman-becomes-president-in-2016-20141028>* “Gillibrand has made it clear that as long as Clinton runs, she won't be–she told National Journal after the event that she'll support Clinton ‘110 percent.’” *Fox News column: Media Buzz: Howard Kurtz: “Media pounce on Hillary’s jobs gaffe, float Jeb’s trial balloon” <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/29/media-pounce-on-hillarys-jobs-gaffe-float-jebs-trial-balloon/>* “Never mind that Warren has said again and again she’s fine with Hillary and isn’t running in 2016, the pundits can’t stand a vacuum. Hillary cruising to the nomination is kind of a dull story line. So what she says, especially on economic issues, has to be measured against a hypothetical Warren candidacy.” *The Week: “This is how the GOP should respond to Hillary Clinton's trumpeting of a minimum wage hike” <http://theweek.com/article/index/270808/this-is-how-the-gop-should-respond-to-hillary-clintons-trumpeting-of-a-minimum-wage-hike>* “So why am I suggesting that any of this might be good for Clinton? Because if she is the Democratic nominee, as we all assume she will be, her GOP opponents will surely be tempted to repeatedly cite her words as proof of fuzzy, liberal thinking on economic policy. And she might kind of like that, actually.” *BuzzFeed: “Rand Paul Is Already Campaigning Against Hillary Clinton” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rand-paul-is-already-campaigning-against-hillary-clinton>* “Hillary Clinton has become the target of ire from Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul as he stumps for Republican candidates here [in Kansas] after Clinton said at a recent campaign stop that businesses and corporations do not create jobs.” *Wall Street Journal blog: Metropolis: “Bill Clinton Will Stump for Cuomo Thursday” <http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2014/10/28/bill-clinton-will-stump-for-cuomo-thursday/>* “Former President Bill Clinton, who has been stumping for Democrats across the country , is expected to campaign for Mr. Cuomo on Thursday at a rally in New York City, according to people familiar with the matter.” *USA Today: “Democrats, hoping to save Colorado, send Clinton” <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/28/clinton-colorado-udall-gardner-hickenlooper/18070515/>* “Democrats are pulling out all the stops, including back-to-back appearances by former president Bill Clinton, in their suddenly uphill battle to retain the state's governor's mansion and one of its two Senate seats.” *Las Vegas Review-Journal: “Bill Clinton rallies Dems in Vegas” <http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/bill-clinton-rallies-dems-vegas>* “On a mission to save Nevada Democrats, former President Bill Clinton on Tuesday urged supporters at a rally to vote or suffer the consequences: a GOP-led Congress that would favor the rich over workers, try to repeal Obamacare and shut down the government ‘over and over and over.’” *Washington Post column: Ruth Marcus: “Why Jeb Bush should run for president” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-why-jeb-bush-should-run-for-president/2014/10/28/e344bbb4-5ec3-11e4-91f7-5d89b5e8c251_story.html>* “As a general matter — sure, Barbara Bush is right. The more expansive our political roster, the better. But in the context of 2016 — well, this gets to my ‘run, Jeb, run’ argument. He and Clinton are two of the best-qualified candidates.” *Reuters: “Kerry wants Keystone pipeline decision 'sooner rather than later'” <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/us-canada-keystone-kerry-idUSKBN0IH1YP20141028>* “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday during a visit to Canada that he would like to make a decision soon on TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL crude oil pipeline.” *The Hill opinion: Lanny Davis: “To Republicans: Watch out for traps after midterms” <http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/222140-lanny-davis-to-gop-watch-out-for-traps-after-midterms>* “[Pres.] Clinton’s economic and social policies were progressive by any definition…” *Bloomberg: “Why is Hillary Clinton Not Cutting Television Ads?” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-10-29/why-is-hillary-clinton-not-cutting-television-ads>* “So, while Democrats at campaign rallies may love Clinton, she remains a nationally divisive figure, one that's perhaps too divisive for state-wide television.” *New York Times: “How Women Use Fashion to Assert Their Power” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/fashion/the-women-fashion-power-exhibition-at-the-design-museum-in-london.html>* “… it [the museum exhibition] is laid out over almost 6,500 square feet in three parts: There is an analytic ‘corridor of power’ that identifies 16 of the most influential dressers in history, starting with Hatshepsut, the Egyptian queen who used elements of male dress to establish authority after her husband’s death; culminating with Hillary Clinton…” *Articles:* *Politico: “2016: It’s on” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/2016-its-on-112294.html>* By Kenneth P. Vogel and Tarini Parti October 29, 2014, 5:05 a.m. EDT Prospective presidential candidates and their supporters are spending money like it’s 2016. Groups allied with 15 of the top presidential prospects have raised $89 million and spent $87 million this election cycle as they gear up for 2016, with a focus on building campaign infrastructure and making inroads in key primary states, according to a POLITICO analysis of reports filed this month with the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service. The groups connected to Hillary Clinton alone have brought in $25 million. POLITICO’s analysis included committees allied with prospective 2016 Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Deval Patrick, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and possible 2016 Republicans Paul Ryan, John Bolton, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum. The affiliated groups run the gamut from campaign committees to leadership PACs to technically independent super PACs to non-profits, and mostly have stated purposes separate from 2016, including helping allies in their 2014 races. They have ramped up activity this summer, raising $16 million between July 1 and the end of September, and spending $5.4 million collecting data on donors, voters and grassroots supporters. Not long ago, that level of campaign finance activity would have been expected during the campaign itself, but the break-neck pace before the 2014 midterms hints at just how expensive it will be to build a top-tier presidential campaign operation in 2016. Anyone hoping to be competitive likely will have to bring in between $100 million and $150 million next year before the first voters even go to the polls, said Michael Toner, a former FEC Commissioner who served as a top lawyer on the presidential campaigns of Republicans George W. Bush in 2000, Fred Thompson in 2008 and Tim Pawlenty in 2012. “That’s just the entry fee,” Toner said. “It’s what you’re likely going to need to raise to organize on the ground simultaneously in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and other early states, while also getting on the ballot in those states, which is extremely onerous and expensive.” Only one of the possible White House aspirants included in the analysis — Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — is actually on the ballot Tuesday, and he faces only token opposition. But major swaths of the spending reflected in his finance reports — like that of the other groups analyzed — could unquestionably help form the foundation of a presidential campaign apparatus. “The keys to being treated as a viable candidate are raising your national profile, building a network of donors and building a grassroots network, and it takes money to do all those things,” said GOP lawyer and fundraiser Charlie Spies. In 2008 and 2012, Spies helped Mitt Romney build political operations that elevated presidential campaign preparation into a political sub-industry unto itself. The 2014 activity reflected in recent finance reports – likely the last full round of disclosures before candidates begin declaring for the presidency – offers a glimpse at how various politicians might approach their White House bids. The strategies are as varied as the prospective candidates’ ideologies – from Florida Sen. Rubio’s flashy $400,000 in reported ad spending boosting 2014 candidates to the $1-million-plus think tank Louisiana Gov. Jindal’s allies created to promote his policy ideas to the populist barnstorming of Sens. Sanders of Vermont and Paul of Kentucky. In the third quarter, as they hopscotched the country rallying voters in targeted races (many of which just happened to be in key 2016 states), they racked up travel costs totaling $27,000 and $118,000, respectively, ranging from charter airfare ($11,000 for Sanders and $59,000 for Paul) to rental cars ($700 for Sanders and $3,000 for Paul). Paul’s PAC even purchased $337.03 in “apparel” at the Men’s Wearhouse in Omaha, Neb., around the time the senator, whose offbeat wardrobe has been the subject of curiosity, swung through town en route to adjacent Iowa to campaign for Senate candidate Ben Sasse. Yet none of this is close to the money and activity behind Clinton. If the former Secretary of State and New York senator wins the Democratic nomination, the committees supporting her could raise $1.7 billion or more – far eclipsing the record-breaking $1.2 billion raised by those supporting President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection, Toner predicted. In his estimation, Clinton’s campaign committee alone would have the potential to raise $1 billion, with an additional $500 million that could come into the Democratic Party committees, plus $200 million or more going to outside groups devoted to putting her in the White House. “She is the 10,000-pound gorilla,” Toner said. Her mere presence in the primary “would likely have a ripple effect on how much money other candidates are going to have to raise in 2015 just to be in the ballgame.” Allies of the putative Democratic frontrunner have already built a shadow campaign operation unlike anything in modern American political history. The committees that form the core of the Clinton machine – the super PACs Ready for Hillary, American Bridge and Priorities USA – combined with the idling Senate committee that houses her once-coveted (and still profitable) email list brought in $3.8 million in the third quarter alone. The groups spent $1.4 million in those three months reaching out to existing and potential supporters and donors. Priorities USA, which was created to support Obama’s reelection, after 2012 morphed into the advertising arm of the Clinton apparatus, quietly building analytical models for an on-air assault to nuke any rival who challenges the former secretary of state. Last month, it spent $41,000 for research from NCEC Services, Inc., which specializes in creating voter outreach strategies. It’s part of an effort “laying the groundwork to run the most data-driven, targeted independent expenditure in presidential campaign history,” boasted Priorities spokesman Peter Kauffmann. Ready for Hillary, which set out to mobilize grassroots support around a potential Clinton campaign, has the biggest overhead of any of the groups in this analysis. It has 35 staffers spread across 14 states and owns a bus that has been crisscrossing the country holding rallies. In the last three months, it paid nearly $650,000 in salary and human resource-related expenses and $227,000 in travel costs. It’s building a voter file it hopes to use to benefit a potential Clinton campaign, and it paid $45,000 for data from the Democratic parties that host the first two primary contests – Iowa and New Hampshire. The group’s spokesman Seth Bringman said that data “enables us to develop an even more robust database of supporters who can be activated the moment Hillary makes a decision.” The group has highlighted its small donor network — an area where Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign lagged behind Obama’s — but it has also worked to line up affluent Democrats to support Clinton. In the third quarter, it spent $160,000 on 10 different finance consultants, plus $596,000 on direct mail-related costs. Among the new donors from whom it received maximum $25,000 donations were private space travel entrepreneur Laetitia Garriott de Cayeux, ESPN executive Marie Donoghue (who oversees Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com) and CarMax co-founder Austin Ligon. O’Malley, the Maryland governor who is the Democrat most aggressively laying the groundwork for a potential challenge to Clinton, has been working assiduously to boost his national profile among donors and activists alike. His O’Say Can You See PAC paid $45,000 in the third quarter to a firm called Revolution Messaging that created slick movie-trailer-style videos touting O’Malley’s record. In one gauzy biographical short, a narrator praises the “assault on hopelessness” O’Malley launched when he ran for mayor of Baltimore by “walking its mean streets … assaulted by batteries and bottles hurled by drug dealers angered at having their business interrupted.” O’Malley’s PAC also spent $32,000 on a pair of finance consultants who specialize in part on high-dollar fundraising, with one receiving a $3,000 bonus at the end of last month. The arm of the PAC that can accept unlimited checks scored sizable contributions from Washington Capitals owner Ted Leonsis ($10,000), Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele, a wealthy businessman, ($25,000) and trial lawyer John P. Coale, a longtime O’Malley friend and the husband of Fox News host Greta van Susteren ($21,715 – mostly in-kind contributions for transportation). The possible rival Clinton’s backers fear most — Massachusetts Sen. Warren — has shown little appetite to challenge Clinton, but her political committees’ reports show why she could be formidable. She has the potential to raise huge sums from a wide small donor base. Her campaign committee and PAC in the third quarter raised more than $955,000 — about two thirds of which came from small donors. While a super PAC formed to coax her into the race raised only $58,000, it did make its first payment – $6,000 last month – to a fundraising firm called Bulldog Finance Group focusing partly on drumming up big-donor support. The GOP pre-presidential field is much wider open — and more competitive. Operatives for some of the prospective candidates were reluctant to detail their fundraising or infrastructure-building strategies for fear of tipping off competitors to their ideas. Sens. Paul, Cruz of Texas and Rubio of Florida, along with Rep. Ryan seem to be in almost a race of sorts to campaign for – and contribute to – as many GOP candidates as possible in the run-up to the midterms. They all rushed to embrace a new wrinkle in fundraising – setting up a joint committee connecting their campaign committees and leadership PACs that can accept bigger checks than either component committee alone. And many of them are competing for the attention of the same big donors. Huckabee – the Fox News host and former Arkansas governor who mounted a scrappy but under-funded campaign for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, has suggested he might run again in 2016 if he had support from rich super PAC backers. But his Huck PAC committee in the third quarter dropped $511,000 — three quarters of its total spending — on direct mail fundraising. While that’s a high burn rate for a PAC that raised less than $1 million in the less three months, direct mail is considered the most effective way to cultivate the older voters who seem to form the core of Huckabee’s fan base and donor network. Cruz’s three committees spent $119,000 on printing and postage costs often associated with direct mail and $60,000 on fundraising phone calls (another go-to technique for reaching older supporters). But Cruz’s groups also spent $81,000 on database management and digital consulting costs typically associated with targeting a younger audience. Likewise, a pair of PACs affiliated with former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, who has signaled interest in a run for the GOP presidential nomination, in the third quarter paid $100,000 to top GOP online fundraising firm Campaign Solutions and $15,000 to Nova List Company for lists to prospect. Bolton also scored big checks from Zionist philanthropist Cherna Moskowitz (who has given $300,000 to his super PAC) and beer baron Pete Coors ($25,000). Govs. Jindal and Perry of Texas have created leadership PACs to fund their political travels and donations, but their supporters also started non-profit groups registered under a section of the tax code – 501(c)4 – that allows them to accept unlimited and anonymous checks to promote their policy platforms and records. The Jindal-linked 501(c)4, America Next, has raised more than $1 million since it was founded late last year, according to Timmy Teepell, a former Jindal chief and staff who is a partner at OnMessage, Jindal’s consulting firm. America Next is run by Romney Iowa and New Hampshire alumna Jill Neunaber, who also runs Jindal’s leadership PAC, which has footed the bill for him to travel the country and donate to candidates, largely in Iowa and New Hampshire. Teepell described the nonprofit as “open source coding for policy proposals,” such as Jindal’s early support for over-the-counter contraception. It has recently been championed by Republicans in high-profile Senate races including Colorado’s Cory Gardner and North Carolina’s Thom Tillis — both of whom also happen to be OnMessage clients. Perry’s close confidants last year created Americans for Economic Freedom with $200,000 of left-over cash transferred from the coffers of a super PAC that supported his presidential bid in 2012. The nonprofit has run ads around the country praising Perry’s job creation record. Perry’s leadership PAC also spent more than $17,000 on fundraising and digital targeting, including $13,000 to Targeted Victory, the influential firm that ran Romney’s digital operation, and $4,300 apparently for tee-shirts featuring his mug-shot from a booking on public corruption charges that critics contend are politically motivated. The shirts were offered for sale by the PAC at an event featuring Perry in August in New Hampshire. Since July, it’s donated more than $60,000 to Republican candidates in New Hampshire and more than $30,000 to those in Iowa. Such donations are the ostensible purpose of the leadership PACs like those maintained by many would-be 2016 candidates. And while the total sums donated often pale into the comparison to the amounts spent on fundraising, travel and overhead, donations can help would-be White House aspirants collect chits in key states. Ryan’s committees have given the most in federal campaign contributions – $826,000 – through the end of last month, followed by Warren’s ($458,000), Cruz’s ($344,000), Bolton’s ($342,000), Rubio’s ($288,000), Ready for Hillary ($200,000) and Sanders’ ($179,000). A committee set up by former Florida Gov. Bush solely to raise money for GOP Senate candidates had passed through a total of more than $760,000 at the end of last month to Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Monica Wehby of Oregon. And, while Bush mostly lacks a campaign finance infrastructure to support his own presidential exploration, Toner asserted Bush could quickly fix that, and suggested he ultimately may be the only Republican who could keep up with Clinton in the money race. “He has a wide and deep donor network,” Toner said. Likewise, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie lacks an active political committee of his own, but he has used his work on behalf of the Republican Governors Association to further cultivate his already strong connections to major donors. He’s expected to be able to quickly parlay that into an independent political operation. It could be trickier for Vice President Joe Biden, who has been privately suggesting to donors that he’s going to run and that he would be a better candidate than Clinton. Never a stellar fundraiser in his own right, Biden resisted calls by his inner circle to establish a leadership PAC last year, and there’s no evidence that he or his inner circle have taken any steps towards establishing a campaign vehicle in waiting. Sources say former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who’s more openly considering a 2016 run, is expected to established some sort of political committee after the midterms to pay for a bare-bones staff and travels around the country to gauge interest in a potential campaign. But one operative who has worked with Webb on previous campaigns suggested he wouldn’t try to catch-up to Clinton or even O’Malley in the pre-campaign arms race, both because that’s not how he operates, and because it’s not practical. “Part of the appeal of Jim Webb is that any call to political service he has fulfilled has been because he sees a need for leadership and direction at a specific time, not as part of a lifelong plan,” said the operative. Plus, the operative added, the rapidly changing campaign finance landscape makes it difficult to predict what types of preparations will be most useful for 2016. “There has been a significant shift in the past four years alone on who is motivated to give and how, as well as the size and frequency of contributions,” said the operative. “I can only imagine that evolution will continue into 2016, especially after campaigns and voters see the outcome of the midterms and all the analysis is done.” *National Journal: “Kirsten Gillibrand: It's 'Vital' That a Woman Becomes President in 2016” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/kirsten-gillibrand-it-s-vital-that-a-woman-becomes-president-in-2016-20141028>* By Rebecca Nelson October 28, 2014 [Subtitle:] The junior senator from New York hopes it's Hillary Clinton, but she's positioning herself well if that doesn't happen. Speaking to an intimate audience of almost exclusively women on Tuesday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand asserted that it was critical not only for Democrats to nominate a woman in 2016, but also for that woman to become president. At a recording of the SiriusXM radio show "The Agenda" put on by the liberal women's group EMILY's List, where the New York Democrat appeared on a panel to discuss women's increasing influence in politics, Gillibrand didn't play coy about who the next woman president should be. "I am very hopeful that Secretary Clinton will decide to run," she said. "I think she's the strongest candidate the Democrats could field." Gillibrand painted herself as one of Clinton's biggest supporters, emphasizing that she would pledge her full support to a Clinton run. But she also made sure to highlight her own legislative efforts to help women. Combatting sexual assault in the military, universal pre-kindergarten, and paid leave are all central to creating a better country for women, she said. Less than ten minutes into the discussion, Democratic strategist Bill Burton, who was on the panel with the senator, made a veiled reference to the possibility of Gillibrand running. Smiling and angling toward the senator, Burton said he hopes his three-year-old son will see a woman president, "whether that's Hillary Clinton or somebody else." Gillibrand has made it clear that as long as Clinton runs, she won't be–she told National Journal after the event that she'll support Clinton "110 percent." But her efforts to engage women voters point to a savvy politician playing the long game. Aligning herself with powerful women's groups sets her up to be Clinton's heir apparent as the voice for women in the Democratic party. After Clinton likely takes her turn in 2016, Gillibrand will be well-prepared to assume that role. *Fox News column: Media Buzz: Howard Kurtz: “Media pounce on Hillary’s jobs gaffe, float Jeb’s trial balloon” <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/29/media-pounce-on-hillarys-jobs-gaffe-float-jebs-trial-balloon/>* By Howard Kurtz October 29, 2014 Hillary Clinton’s gaffe about jobs is resonating for several reasons—not least because the media have decided she’s no Elizabeth Warren. The media narrative du jour is that Hillary is out of step with the populist mood of the Democratic Party—as embodied by the Wall Street-bashing Massachusetts senator who many pundits are still hoping will challenge her. So they are guaranteed to pounce on any mistake that feeds Hillary’s image as an establishment figure who is struggling to be more like Liz. It’s hard to believe that the former first lady managed to echo Barack Obama’s “you didn’t build that” blunder, given how long that bedeviled the president. “Don’t let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs,” Hillary told a Boston rally. “You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.” Perhaps it was no coincidence that Warren was also there, stumping for struggling gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley. So the overwhelming Democratic front-runner wants it known that she doesn’t believe American businesses, whatever their faults, generate jobs? That led to followup stories like this one in Politico: “Hillary Clinton on Monday mopped up her botched statement from a rally in Massachusetts last week, making it clear she’d misspoken and hadn’t intended to deliver a fresh economic policy message.” At another campaign stop, Clinton said: “Trickle-down economics has failed. I short-handed this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades. Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.” The earlier comment—the one she now says was shorthand—was jarring coming from an establishment figure who is viewed, fairly or unfairly, as too cozy with the banking establishment. Hillary has also been collecting six-figure speaking fees from her appearances before corporate groups. But the media really love this story because of the contrast with Warren. The pundits have turned this freshman lawmaker into the purest distillation of the liberal id, the crusader who wants to whack Wall Street on behalf of the little people. Never mind that Warren has said again and again she’s fine with Hillary and isn’t running in 2016, the pundits can’t stand a vacuum. Hillary cruising to the nomination is kind of a dull story line. So what she says, especially on economic issues, has to be measured against a hypothetical Warren candidacy. In National Review, Victor Davis Hanson took a swipe at her “plutocrat populism,” saying she had bemoaned the crushing costs of higher education in a speech at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas: “One reason tuition and student indebtedness have soared — UNLV’s tuition is set to go up by 17 percent next year — is that universities pay exorbitant fees to multimillionaire speakers like Hillary Clinton. College foundations sprout up to raise money for perks that might not pass transparent university budgeting. Clinton — or her own foundation — reportedly charged a university foundation $225,000 for a talk lasting less than an hour. For that sum, she could have paid the tuition of over 320 cash-strapped UNLV students… “Why do so many self-interested plutocrats indulge in populist rhetoric that is completely at odds with the way they live?” But the New Republic says the GOP’s “obsession” with Obama’s you-didn’t-build-that mistake “revealed more damaging truths about the Republican Party than the gaffe itself revealed about Obama.” Rick Santorum is quoted as saying the Republican convention showcased all kinds of business owners but not a single factory worker. “None of the Republicans pushing the ‘corporations and businesses’ line actually thinks Hillary Clinton meant to say that investment isn’t a component of economic growth, just as they know from their perches in congressional offices and at donor-dependent non-profits that the entrepreneur isn’t the solitary engine of job creation. But it’s clear they all still believe that riling up business elites by selectively quoting Democrats is a key to political success.” Of course, Hillary may simply have made a verbal error having nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren. But after that “dead broke” book tour, she needs to avoid developing a reputation as gaffe-prone. Meanwhile, Hillary’s possible 2016 opponent showed a deft use of the press. I have no idea whether Jeb Bush will run, but he certainly sent a signal, via the New York Times, that he’s leaning that way. Was this some shadowy source that a reporter met in the Florida Everglades? Nope, it was the former governor’s son who spoke to Peter Baker. “‘No question,’ Jeb Jr. said in an interview, ‘people are getting fired up about it — donors and people who have been around the political process for a while, people he’s known in Tallahassee when he was governor. The family, we’re geared up either way.’” The piece says the two former presidents, George W. and George H.W., very much want Jeb to run. More important, Jeb’s wife, Columba, who is most wary of the political pressure-cooker, has given the nod, says Jeb Jr. To be sure, the Times has a to-be-sure paragraph: “None of that means Jeb Bush will run. He has said he will decide by the end of the year, and could simply be keeping the possibility open to enhance his influence on the political stage. To some who have spoken with him in recent months, he has not exhibited the same fire that his father and brother did at this stage.” But consider this: Jeb Bush’s other son, George P., told ABC’s “This Week” he thinks it is “more than likely” that his father will run. You don’t have to be a brilliant political analyst to believe that both sons aren’t shooting off their mouths without dad’s permission. Jeb is revving his engines. *The Week: “This is how the GOP should respond to Hillary Clinton's trumpeting of a minimum wage hike” <http://theweek.com/article/index/270808/this-is-how-the-gop-should-respond-to-hillary-clintons-trumpeting-of-a-minimum-wage-hike>* By James Pethokoukis October 29, 2014, 6:09 a.m. EDT [Subtitle:] Instead of blasting her as a leftist Obamacrat, maybe Republicans ought to rethink their own economic message Kudos to Hillary Clinton for this clever bit of political jujitsu: At a rally last week for Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley, the presumed 2016 Democratic favorite said it was a higher minimum wage, not private enterprise, that really creates American jobs. “Don't let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs. They always say that. I've been through this. My husband gave working families a raise in the 1990s. I voted to raise the minimum wage and guess what? Millions of jobs were created or paid better and more families were more secure. … And don't let anybody tell you that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried. That has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.” [Hillary Clinton] Predictably, Republicans freaked out en masse, from Fox News to the conservative blogosphere. The consensus opinion: Clinton finally revealed her true leftist colors, not to mention her profound economic ignorance. Forget all her talk about hubby Bill's third-way centrism. Hillary Clinton clearly isn't a Clinton Democrat ready to drag her party back to the center. She's just another wealth-redistributing Obamacrat. Clinton has since clarified her remarks to acknowledge that businesses and "empowered" families have a key role to play in a healthy U.S. economy. But it makes little political difference. Recall that President Obama also clarified his "You didn't build that" gaffe during the 2012 election season. The GOP still flogged the original remark to death, especially during the Republican National Convention, with both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan making reference to Obama's line long after its expiration date. So why am I suggesting that any of this might be good for Clinton? Because if she is the Democratic nominee, as we all assume she will be, her GOP opponents will surely be tempted to repeatedly cite her words as proof of fuzzy, liberal thinking on economic policy. And she might kind of like that, actually. Indeed, maybe the whole point of the original comment was to goad Republicans into attacking her. Think about it. What did Romney and Ryan get for all their focus on society's builders and makers? Well, the ticket lost 81-18 to Obama-Biden among voters seeking a president who "cares about people like me." Most American aren't CEOs or running tech startups. And most saw little in Romney-nomics that would directly benefit them or address their worries about stagnant take-home pay or financing college. A 2016 GOP campaign centered around "heroic entrepreneurs" rather than everyday middle-class concerns would probably fail badly again today. Voters care about economic growth, but they also think redistributionist policies — like raising the minimum wage and guaranteeing a minimum income — are better for economic growth than business tax cuts or reducing high-end personal tax rates. Attacking Clinton for trumpeting a minimum wage hike would probably backfire on the GOP — at least if all the party has is criticism. So how should Republicans react? Surely not by rabidly attacking Clinton — but also not by reflexively mimicking the Democratic agenda. Instead, there is an opportunity for a positive, conservative reform message. As far as the minimum wage goes, its impact on jobs is hardly settled science, despite Clinton's claim. A study out this week finds "the best evidence still points to job loss from minimum wages for very low-skilled workers — in particular, for teens." The U.S. economy generated 41 million private-sector jobs from 1980 through 2007 even as the minimum wage declinedby nearly a third in real terms. Clinton may have actually reversed the linkage between jobs and the minimum wage. Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit or some other wage subsidy would better target low-income workers while also less likely to cost jobs. Such a plan could be a key element of a new GOP middle-class agenda, along with tax breaks for parents, making college more affordable, and, yes, business tax cuts, since research suggests such reforms would raise worker wages. If a renewed effort to support the beleaguered American middle class is how the GOP responds to Hillary, then her clever trolling may turn out to be too clever by half. *BuzzFeed: “Rand Paul Is Already Campaigning Against Hillary Clinton” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rand-paul-is-already-campaigning-against-hillary-clinton>* By Rosie Gray October 28, 2014, 9:51 p.m. EDT [Subtitle:] “Hillary Clinton says, ‘Well, businesses don’t create jobs.’ Anybody believe that?” OVERLAND PARK, Kansas — A certain likely Democratic presidential candidate has appeared, rhetorically, on the campaign trail in Kansas. Hillary Clinton has become the target of ire from Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul as he stumps for Republican candidates here after Clinton said at a recent campaign stop that businesses and corporations do not create jobs. Stumping for Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts and Gov. Sam Brownback on Tuesday, Paul criticized Clinton for the remark at more than one campaign stop. He’s one of the most sought-after surrogates for Republicans in the midterms this year, and is a likely 2016 candidate himself. He told BuzzFeed News last week that he would be deciding about a potential presidential run in the spring. “The president says, you didn’t build that, it just sort of happened,” Paul said in Wichita in an airport hangar rally at midday. “The plane just sort of came into being because it was a public road and a public library.” “Hillary Clinton comes up and she says, ‘Businesses don’t create jobs.’ Anybody here think businesses don’t create jobs?” Paul said. “I’m here today to endorse Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback, because you know what? They know that businesses do create jobs, and I hope you know that too.” Later in the day, in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park, Paul offered the line again as he stood next to the podium, sort of in the style of Sen. Ted Cruz. “Hillary Clinton says, ‘Well, businesses don’t create jobs.’ Anybody believe that?” he said. The crowd roared. At an event for Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley last week, Clinton said, “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.” Clinton later walked back the remark, arguing that corporate tax breaks are not the source of economic growth. The former secretary of state has often been criticized from the left for being too corporate. Obama and Clinton “are on another page, they’re on another planet, reading another book,” Paul said. *Wall Street Journal blog: Metropolis: “Bill Clinton Will Stump for Cuomo Thursday” <http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2014/10/28/bill-clinton-will-stump-for-cuomo-thursday/>* By Erica Orden October 28, 2014, 1:59 p.m. EDT On Thursday, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo will get his second Clinton bump within the span of a week. Former President Bill Clinton, who has been stumping for Democrats across the country , is expected to campaign for Mr. Cuomo on Thursday at a rally in New York City, according to people familiar with the matter. A spokesman for Mr. Clinton declined to comment. Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat facing reelection next week, rallied last Thursday with Hillary Clinton at a campaign event in Midtown, where Mrs. Clinton endorsed the governor and where Mr. Cuomo played coy about endorsing Mrs. Clinton for “something really, really, really big.” Mr. Cuomo often touts his work in the Clinton administration, when he served as U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, on the campaign trail, even as in recent weeks he published a memoir that describes his resentment in 2002 over the Clintons’ reluctance to assist his failed first gubernatorial bid. But he has been eager to trumpet their support this time around, and the Clintons have appeared ready to lend it. While Mr. Clinton has recently stumped for more embattled Democrats, and in recent polls Mr. Cuomo maintains a roughly 20-point lead over his Republican opponent, Rob Astorino, the governor appears to be taking the advice Mrs. Clinton doled out during the rally last week. “They think, ‘OK, the election’s over. We know who’s going to be the next governor,’” she said. “You can’t take anything for granted in an election. I know that from firsthand experience.” *USA Today: “Democrats, hoping to save Colorado, send Clinton” <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/28/clinton-colorado-udall-gardner-hickenlooper/18070515/>* By Trevor Hughes October 28, 2014, 5:08 p.m. EDT LAKEWOOD, Colo. — Democrats are pulling out all the stops, including back-to-back appearances by former president Bill Clinton, in their suddenly uphill battle to retain the state's governor's mansion and one of its two Senate seats. President Obama won this state in both his presidential races, but now his unpopularity is weighing down Gov. John Hickenlooper and Sen. Mark Udall. Their challengers have repeatedly attacked them for being too close to a president who won this state twice but has seen his popularity plummet following a string of crises from the botched roll-out of his signature health care law to a renewed explosion of violence in Iraq. Udall this summer skipped a rally Obama held on his behalf in Denver, and Republicans attacked the president for playing pool with Hickenlooper during a border crisis. Recent polls show Udall losing to GOP challenger Rep. Cory Gardner, and Hickenlooper lagging slightly behind Republican Bob Beauprez after an early campaign in which both Democrats enjoyed broad name recognition and long-established fundraising systems. Outside groups have poured tens of millions of dollars into advertising that's been blanketing television, newspapers, radio and the Internet. Clinton, the dean of the country's Democrats, appeared at Denver-area rallies Monday night and Tuesday morning, calling on voters to reject Republicans and keep the Democrats in office. He said Gardner and Beauprez are running on platforms that amount to "pop the president one more time." "In a grown-up country... we join hands and work together. That's what Washington needs," Obama said Tuesday at a rally in suburban Denver. Clinton sounded themes he's used for years, and which have proven popular with voters: community, bipartisanship and shared prosperity, while attacking trickle-down economics. Udall's campaign argues that his extensive ground game will push him ahead of Gardner when the ballots are actually cast and counted, pointing out that polls in 2010 showed Democrat Michael Bennet losing his race right up until he won the state's junior senate seat. Bennet won by the equivalent of one vote in every Colorado precinct. "In Colorado, like nowhere else, every single vote matters," Udall said. "We're going to show those outside groups you can't buy an election here. We are surging. We have momentum. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Michelle Obama have also both visited Colorado in the closing weeks of the election. Last week, a USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll showed Gardner leading Udall by 46%-39%, a troubling finding for Democrats scrambling to hold control of the Senate. Five weeks ago, Udall held a 1- percentage-point lead in the same poll. The poll also showed momentum for Beauprez: While he trailed Hickenlooper by 2 percentage points in September, he now leads the governor by 2 percentage points — movement in his direction, although the race is still well within the survey's 4.4-percentage-point margin of error. The Udall-Gardner race is important because Colorado, Iowa and North Carolina have Democratic-held seats at the center of the battle over which party will control the Senate in January. Republicans, who are likely to keep control of the House, need to score a net gain of six seats to claim a majority in the Senate as well. Republicans have also called in their party's big guns to build on their momentum: former Florida governor Jeb Bush is coming to the GOP stronghold of Douglas County on Wednesday, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is set to appear with Beauprez Thursday in the traditionally Republican area of Colorado Springs. In a statement, Colorado GOP chairman Ryan Call said Clinton may have appeared with Udall on Tuesday but it's his ties with Obama that voters truly care about. "President Clinton can attempt to bail out senator Udall with lofty clichés and sound bites, but his record speaks louder than words. The fact remains that senator Udall has forgotten the priorities of Colorado and chosen to align his votes with the failed policies of President Obama," Call said. *Las Vegas Review-Journal: “Bill Clinton rallies Dems in Vegas” <http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/bill-clinton-rallies-dems-vegas>* By Laura Myers October 28, 2014, 8:55 p.m. On a mission to save Nevada Democrats, former President Bill Clinton on Tuesday urged supporters at a rally to vote or suffer the consequences: a GOP-led Congress that would favor the rich over workers, try to repeal Obamacare and shut down the government “over and over and over.” Clinton also said voters need to back Democratic candidates at the state and local levels because the policies they oversee affect Nevadans’ everyday lives and Republicans don’t support a minimum-wage hike or equal pay for women and want to roll back voter rights. He said just because there’s no presidential election at stake is no excuse for Democrats to stay away from the polls, which would open the door to GOP victories on Nov. 4. “A bunch of your life is shaped by people who aren’t on the ballot when we’re voting for presidents,” Clinton said, from governor to state treasurer to legislator. “This is a big deal.” Laying out the high stakes, Clinton said the election will determine where Nevada and the nation go from here after recovering from the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. “What’s really on the ballot is whether we go back to a trickle-down economy and whether only the rich get the benefits or whether we have shared opportunity and shared responsibility and the same rules apply to one another,” Clinton said. The Clinton rally was aimed at boosting lackluster Democratic voter turnout during early voting as the GOP builds a healthy lead that could sweep Republicans into the state’s five top offices and boot freshman U.S. Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev. The 4:30 p.m. rally at the Springs Preserve came a week before the Nov. 4 election. Democrats said about 700 people attended the open-air event. It was scheduled at the last minute after Republicans shocked Democrats by beating them every day in early voting so far and in every key race. That’s a reversal of recent trends in the battleground state, which President Barack Obama won twice. Statewide, Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 62,000 registered voters. But during early voting, Republicans have built a 17,166-ballot lead over Democrats as of Tuesday morning thanks to an aggressive registration drive and get-out-the-vote effort. The GOP is even ahead in Clark County by 2,094 ballots. The Democratic stronghold, where three quarters of the Nevada population lives, is normally where the party dominates, building an election firewall, while the GOP is far stronger in rural Nevada, with Washoe County serving as the swing county in the swing state. In Horsford’s district, Republicans had cast 2,094 more ballots than Democrats so far, although there are some 33,156 more registered Democrats than Republicans in the 4th Congressional District, which covers northern Clark County and all or part of six rural counties. Horsford’s GOP opponent is Assembly­man Cresent Hardy of Mesquite. The two-week early voting period ends Friday, a few days ahead of Election Day. Clinton, in his remarks, defended Obama’s Affordable Care Act. He said 230,000 more people in Nevada have health insurance under Obamacare. He said premiums are expected to rise 1 percent next year, a far cry from runaway costs in the past. “This thing is working, and we need to make it better,” Clinton said, adding that a GOP-led Congress “will go up there and vote another 50 times” to kill it. “They’ll just shut the government down, over and over and over again,” he added. “They want you to believe it (the election) is about Ebola and ISIS. If something happens in the paper, it’s the president’s fault and you ought to vote against Democrats.” “I don’t like it when these politicians play blame games,” Clinton added. Clinton said voters shouldn’t think they can’t make a difference. “It does matter,” he said of the midterm election. “It matters as much as the next presidential election.” Clinton’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is likely to run for president in 2016, and Nevada would be key to her hopes of winning the White House. Clinton’s appearance came after Democratic candidates urged the crowd to vote early and to each get 10 people they know to vote to make up for lost ground against the GOP. Horsford attended the rally as well as U.S. Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., attorney general candidate Ross Miller, secretary of state candidate Kate Marshall, lieutenant governor candidate Lucy Flores, and Erin Bilbray, the Democrat challenging U.S. Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., who is expected to win a third term in the 3rd Congressional District. This year, Democratic voters haven’t been excited by the midterm election when there’s no presidential or U.S. Senate contest at stake. Also, the governor’s race is a sleeper after the Democrats failed to recruit a top-tier candidate. As a result, the popular GOP Gov. Brian Sandoval has spent his time promoting Republican candidates, raising millions of dollars to help GOP contenders and, behind the scenes, rebuilding the GOP ground game into an electoral force. State Sen. Mark Hutchison, R-Las Vegas, who is Sandoval’s pick to become lieutenant governor, is expected to defeat his Democratic opponent, Flores, a Latina whose campaign never took off as she was outspent and outgunned. The other high-profile race on the ballot, between Miller and Republican Adam Laxalt, has suddenly become one to watch. Miller, the better-known and better-funded secretary of state, was considered the front-runner, but now Laxalt, an attorney who moved to Nevada a few years ago, could score an upset if GOP turnout continues to dominate. Miller could survive if he gains enough crossover support from Republicans, something his father and adviser, former Nevada Gov. Bob Miller, enjoyed as the state’s longest-serving governor from 1989 to 1999. Laxalt is the grandson of former U.S. Sen. and Gov. Paul Laxalt, who dominated Nevada politics in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s. *Washington Post column: Ruth Marcus: “Why Jeb Bush should run for president” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-why-jeb-bush-should-run-for-president/2014/10/28/e344bbb4-5ec3-11e4-91f7-5d89b5e8c251_story.html>* By Ruth Marcus October 28, 2014, 7:52 p.m. EDT Run, Jeb, run. I mean it, despite two powerful arguments against a presidential run by Jeb Bush — one specific to the former Florida governor, one more generic. Generic first, because it is the more compelling: The thought of a Republican president makes me shudder, largely because of the irreparable harm to the Supreme Court. Legislative and regulatory mistakes can be fixed, albeit at enormous cost and difficulty. (Think George W. Bush’s tax cuts.) Foreign policy blunders are harder to repair. (Think George W. Bush’s war in Iraq.) But the real risk is the judicial legacy a Republican president would leave behind. By the time the next president takes office, three of the justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy) will be in their 80s. With the exception of Scalia, a Republican replacement of any of them would likely tip the balance of the court firmly into the hands of its conservative justices, to the peril of the court and the country. The impact would be felt when George P. Bush — or Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky — is running for president. The Bush-specific objection is obvious from the previous sentence, and stated best by the prospective candidate’s own mother: America is not, or should not be, a dynastic nation. “If we can’t find more than two or three families to run for high office, that’s silly,” Barbara Bush told C-SPAN this year. “I refuse to accept that this great country isn’t raising other wonderful people.” The weakness of this argument is that it ignores the fact that Jeb Bush happens to be well-qualified to run for president. And it arises in the looming shadow of a presidential run by Hillary Clinton, another candidate whose qualifications extend far beyond her surname. As a general matter — sure, Barbara Bush is right. The more expansive our political roster, the better. But in the context of 2016 — well, this gets to my “run, Jeb, run” argument. He and Clinton are two of the best-qualified candidates. My argument for a Jeb Bush candidacy is also twofold: It would be good for Bush’s party and good for the country. Good for Republicans not just because it would give them a better shot at the White House but because the GOP has veered off the ideological rails. Even the notion that Bush is seriously considering running — his son told ABC’s Jonathan Karl that it is “more than likely” — is a comforting sign. Jeb Bush is not naive about the GOP’s loony tendencies and the distorted ideological landscape of its nominating process. For him to be weighing the race indicates that he believes those extremist instincts can be tamed. A Bush candidacy would deviate from party orthodoxy on numerous issues, most notably immigration and education reform; a Bush nomination would usefully yank the party toward the center. On immigration, Bush favors granting undocumented immigrants the opportunity for legalized status, although not necessarily a path to full citizenship. “Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony,” he said in April. “It’s an act of love, it’s an act of commitment to your family.” He has also been a champion of education reform efforts, including the new GOP heresy of backing national education standards known as Common Core. And speaking of heresy: In 2012, when none of the party’s presidential contenders would back a hypothetical budget deal of $1 in tax increases for $10 in spending cuts, Bush told the House Budget Committee he’d snap it up. “Put me in, coach,” he said, adding, “This will prove I’m not running for anything.” Make no mistake: Bush is a conservative. But he is a conservative who believes in the role and capacity of government and in the imperative of bipartisan cooperation. “Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time — they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support,” Bush told Bloomberg View in 2012. Contrast that with Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz: “I don’t think what Washington needs is more compromise.” And this is why a Bush candidacy would be good for the country as well. A saner Republican Party would produce saner, more productive politics. A more extreme nominee might be easier for Democrats to beat. But what if they don’t? I’d rather see the more reasonable Republican candidate, because I’d rather see the more reasonable Republican president. Run, Jeb, run. *Reuters: “Kerry wants Keystone pipeline decision 'sooner rather than later'” <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/us-canada-keystone-kerry-idUSKBN0IH1YP20141028>* [No Writer Mentioned] October 28, 2014, 3:43 p.m. EDT U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday during a visit to Canada that he would like to make a decision soon on TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL crude oil pipeline. TransCanada has waited more than six years for the Obama administration to make a decision on the line, which would take as much as 830,000 barrels per day of Alberta tar sands crude to refineries on Texas' Gulf Coast. The State Department is now awaiting the results of a court challenge on the line's routing through Nebraska and completing its own study on the need for the line before it makes a final recommendation to President Barack Obama on whether to grant the project a presidential permit. The permit would allow the line, which faces criticism from environmentalists, to cross from Canada into the United States. While Kerry said he would like a quick decision on the project, he gave no hint as to when that would come. "I certainly want to do it sooner rather than later but I can't tell you the precise date," Kerry told a joint news conference with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird. The delay has pushed up the cost of the line, which would run from Hardisty, Alberta, to near Houston. The company said last month that Keystone XL's original $5.4 billion estimate is likely half of what it will now cost to build the pipeline. *The Hill opinion: Lanny Davis: “To Republicans: Watch out for traps after midterms” <http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/222140-lanny-davis-to-gop-watch-out-for-traps-after-midterms>* By Lanny Davis October 28, 2014, 6:53 p.m. EDT Most pundits are predicting a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate next Tuesday. I am ready to go on record against the conventional wisdom: I predict Democrats will surprise the pundits on election night and hold the Senate, if only by a 50-50 margin, with Vice President Biden breaking the tie. My slight-underdog picks of the night: Mark Pryor and Michelle Nunn, because their message of decency and bipartisanship are perfectly aligned with what voters want not only in their states of Arkansas and Georgia, respectively, but across the nation. However, if Republicans win the Senate, I respectfully suggest they avoid premature celebration, for there are three traps looming for them if they misread the election results. First, they could misinterpret their victory as a mandate to implement a hard-right agenda. Remember the aftermath of Newt Gingrich’s House takeover in the 1994 midterms. The conservative revolutionaries attempted to pass draconian budget cuts, including in Medicare and Medicaid, caused two government shutdowns and attempted to impeach then-President Clinton on an entirely partisan basis — all contrary to public opinion. As a result, just four years later in the 1998 midterms, Democrats picked up five seats. This was the first time in 176 years (since 1822, under President James Monroe) that the non-presidential party had failed to gain seats in the midterm elections with a president in his second term. The second mistake could be that the Republicans who now control both houses of Congress will be unable to resist the Tea Party base to roll back Democratic programs on an entirely partisan basis. If they do so, they will be ignoring all the current polling data showing voters opposing such partisan power plays. And they will own the results. For example, if Republicans repeal ObamaCare on party-line votes, they will have to explain why people with pre-existing conditions will no longer have health insurance if they attempt to find new insurance after losing their jobs. Third, once the GOP is the majority party in both houses of Congress, Republicans will find it more difficult to suppress three powerful ideological groups within the party whose positions on key issues are way out of touch with most voters’, according to national polls. These are 1) Tea Party extremists, who favor dismantling much of the federal government, including Social Security and Medicare as we know it; 2) Christian right true-believers, who believe in criminalizing all abortions, including involving rape and incest; and 3) the New Isolationists, whose positions at times seem reminiscent of the America First movement of the late 1930s. As the majority party in both houses, the GOP will have lost its excuses not to enact legislation consistent with these extreme views, even though doing so will likely alienate many thoughtful Republican conservatives. Which leads me to my warning for my fellow Democrats: If we lose the Senate next Tuesday night, we have to resist the advice of those pundits and strategists who will misinterpret the results as proof the party needs to be more strident in demonizing those who disagree with us. Here it is important to remember the lessons of Bill Clinton’s two presidential campaigns and two terms as president. Clinton’s economic and social policies were progressive by any definition: increasing taxes on the wealthy, pro-choice, pro-environment regulation, pro-minimum wages, etc. But he also focused during his two presidential campaigns on unifying themes addressed to the middle class and individual responsibility. In doing so, he won states now deemed irretrievably “red” by many, such as West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Arizona, Arkansas and Montana. Barack Obama’s historic campaigns and brilliant grassroots organization carried on this broad electoral college base to the advantage of future Democratic presidential candidates. It appears that most Democrats are happy with watching the Republicans head over the cliff trying to prove who has the purest ideology of all and don’t wish to join them in such an exercise. Of course they want vigorous competition for the nomination. But unlike Republicans, they prefer candidates who can civilly debate fact-based solutions and can effectuate bipartisan compromises to break the gridlock in Washington. Such Democrats (this writer included) believe, as President Obama has said frequently, that elections matter. *Bloomberg: “Why is Hillary Clinton Not Cutting Television Ads?” <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-10-29/why-is-hillary-clinton-not-cutting-television-ads>* By Lisa Lerer October 28, 2014, 11:20 p.m. EDT [Subtitle:] The prospective 2016 presidential candidate is the Democrats star attraction. So why don't they want her in their television ads? Hundreds of thousands of ads have run millions of times during the 2014 campaign. Amid that flood of endorsements and attacks, slogans and statistics, it was easy to overlook the web ad put out on Tuesday by Kentucky Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes. The web-only spot features former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a rally in Louisville, delivering a impassioned argument for the Democratic challenger. It's a very standard spot that stands out for one very significant reason: It's the only ad that Clinton has cut for a candidate this election cycle. Though she's traveled the country for Democrats, headlining rallies from Colorado to North Carolina, Clinton has not lent any of her star power to any televised campaign ads. It's a strange discrepancy: While Clinton is one of—if not the most—requested surrogates for Democratic congressional campaigns, many seem far less seem eager to put her in their television ads. Even the spot for Grimes, a long-time family friend of the Clintons, was online-only—a far less expensive proposition for a campaign than actually buying time to place an ad on television. And it used footage captured two weeks ago at a rally Clinton held for Grimes in Louisville, rather than any new video. Old footage of Clinton was also heavily featured in a House Majority PAC spot, where the Democratic Super PAC slammed Virginia Republican Barbara Comstock for her work as a congressional staffer in the 1990s focused on investigating the Clinton administration. But mostly, Clinton has kept to fundraising appeals and energizing voters. She's hosted a series of high-dollar fundraisers, including one for female senate candidates at her home in Washington. Democrats need "all hands on deck," she wrote in an e-mail sent last month by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. While Hillary stays off TV, her husband has been burning up the airways. He's appeared in at least five ads for candidates. "Sean Maloney’s got a better jobs plan. He’s got a better budget plan. He’s got a better education plan. He’s got a better plan for the future," says the former president in a spot for the New York congressional candidate, a former Clinton administration staffer. In Maryland, he urges voters to back gubernatorial candidate Anthony Brown in a spot featuring a shot of Clinton walking besides the Democrat. And he also lent his support for Grimes, who's father was a former state Democratic party chairman. (As a teenager, Grimes famously handed Clinton a bouquet of flowers during his inauguration celebration.) "I chose Alison," Clinton says in a spot for, the Kentucky Democrat running for Senate. "I'm honored to approve this message," says Grimes. Hillary Clinton's spokespeople refused to comment on her ad appearances, or lack of them. But the answer may be found in her approval rating, which trails her husband's and has fallen since she left the State Department early last year. In the recent Bloomberg News/Des Moines Register poll almost half—49 percent—of likely Iowa voters in the upcoming midterm elections say they have an unfavorable view of Clinton, while 47 percent rate her favorably. Fifty-seven percent of likely voters have a positive opinion of her husband, former president Bill Clinton, and 39 percent view him negatively. So, while Democrats at campaign rallies may love Clinton, she remains a nationally divisive figure, one that's perhaps too divisive for state-wide television. She's in high-demand as a base motivator but faces a steeper climb with the general public—an issue that will certainly come back up in any Democratic presidential bid. Especially her own. *New York Times: “How Women Use Fashion to Assert Their Power” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/fashion/the-women-fashion-power-exhibition-at-the-design-museum-in-london.html>* By Vanessa Friedman October 28, 2014 Of all the candidates running in next Tuesday’s American midterm elections, only one, it seems to me, really has Halloween potential — which is to say, only one has succeeded in identifying herself closely enough with a specific sartorial semiology that a Pavlovian association is created in a viewer’s mind. See the garment, think the person. I am speaking, of course, of Wendy Davis, the Texas state senator and beleaguered gubernatorial candidate, as well as famed Mizuno sneaker wearer. A blond wig, a bright suit and those sneakers doth a costume create. Who needs masks when you have fashion? Clothes have the power to define a person and a position, and though they are often seen as handicapping women in positions of authority, acting as a distraction from their achievements and substance, they can also be a strategic communication tool. One that is, ironically, more accessible to women than to men, who are stuck in a never-ending generic suit loop, forced to rely on the distinguishing characteristics of hair and tie color. If in doubt, simply consider an exhibition that opened Wednesday in London at the Design Museum, entitled “Women Fashion Power.” It has little to do with fashion as trend-driven designer vision, makes no aesthetic judgments and shies away from “power dressing” in the 1980s-Joan Collins-"Working Girl"-big-shouldered sense of the word. Rather, it focuses on image and authority in the public eye. “It felt like it was the right time to look at the rise of women in contemporary power roles, and how they view and use fashion to facilitate their place in the world,” said the co-curator, Donna Loveday, describing the show as one of the most ambitious the museum has done. She and her fellow curator, the fashion historian and journalist Colin McDowell, began work on the exhibition 10 months ago. Designed by Zaha Hadid, the first woman to win the Pritzker Prize, it is laid out over almost 6,500 square feet in three parts: There is an analytic “corridor of power” that identifies 16 of the most influential dressers in history, starting with Hatshepsut, the Egyptian queen who used elements of male dress to establish authority after her husband’s death; culminating with Hillary Clinton; a 150-year timeline highlighting moments of public sartorial change (the “freedom from constraints” of the turn of the 20th century, the suffragist movement of the 1920s); and, most significant, a gallery of current power players who contributed a Q. and A. and favorite garments that reflect their words. And since, as Ms. Loveday pointed out, “I don’t think there has really been an exhibit in a museum on the subject before,” it makes me wonder if this marks a turning point in our own relationship with fashion. Just consider the fact that the show includes 25 high-profile women happy to go public with their thoughts on clothing. This includes the usual suspects: fashion professionals like Natalie Massenet, executive chairwoman of Net-a-Porter; the designer Vivienne Westwood; and the model Naomi Campbell. But it also includes Wei Sun Christianson, co-chief executive of Morgan Stanley Asia Pacific; Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris (who also opened the exhibition); Alfiya Kuanysheva, chief executive of the Kazakhstan finance group BATT; and Kirsty Wark, the British broadcaster. That, it seems to me, is an enormous and meaningful change in the conversation about achievement and gender. The idea that women whose power is undeniable and exists in traditionally male sectors like banking and politics might stand up and say, for the record and posterity, that clothes matter and require (and deserve) thought is, in my experience, unprecedented. Even just three years ago, Michelle Obama, featured in the corridor of power, was denying giving any real consideration to clothing, announcing on “Good Morning America”: “Look, women, wear what you love. That’s all I can say. That’s my motto.” (It just so happened that she loved wearing dresses from small American brands made by designers with notably diverse backgrounds, hence raising their profile on the international stage — but, hey, guess that was a coincidence.) Fashion, like money — if not more than money — has been the off-limits topic, the subject whispered about and obsessed over, but rarely acknowledged in any nonpejorative way. It’s the invisible elephant in the room; like disinformation, it’s the tool everyone uses — and has used, as the exhibition makes clear, since Joan of Arc threw on some male armor — but refuses to admit they use. “For a very long period, as women began entering the workplace and taking up roles traditionally occupied by men, the subject of dress was really put to one side, and treated as a frivolous distraction,” Ms. Loveday said. Indeed, in a Daily Beast article last year about Ms. Davis and her sneakers, the liberal pundit Sally Kohn wrote that noting what women wear “undercuts the leadership of women and quashes their voice.” It seems to me, however, and this exhibition shows, that the situation is the opposite: What women wear is an embodiment of their voice, and identifying it helps identify their agenda (as it does with men, for that matter). Granted, there were still women, and some very big names, that chose not to take part in the Q. and A. section of the Design Museum show. Ms. Loveday had Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton and Queen Elizabeth II on her wish list, and all begged off from participating in the interactive, though they are referenced in the show. But, Ms. Loveday said, the reason she was given for their demurrals was not “I don’t want to be seen talking about that subject,” but rather “time.” Before you say “Well, isn’t that the same thing and weren’t they just being polite,” consider the fact that a few years ago when I was trying to convene a panel of power women to do some image analysis for a different newspaper, the answer I heard over and over again from chief executives I approached was a straightforward: “Thanks for thinking of me, but I can’t be involved in any overt discussion of fashion. It would undermine my hard-won seriousness.” (I’m paraphrasing, but not that much.) I’m not saying the time excuse should be taken at face value or is anything but an excuse (though it could be true), but the sheer fact that the women involved bothered to make it, as opposed to taking umbrage at the very idea they might think about clothing is, in my book, a step forward. Besides, even without the active participation of such pivotal figures, it is meaningful to think that for six months visitors to the Design Museum will be able to read the property developer Morwenna Wilson’s words — “Jackets are very important to me because I am petite and a woman, yet one with responsibility and authority working in a male dominated industry, often with a team of people older than me” — and Ms. Christianson of Morgan Stanley attesting that “I decided that while I was working in a man’s world, I was not going to suppress my femininity in an attempt to blend in.” “It’s an incredibly positive message,” said Ms. Loveday, referring not just to Ms. Christianson’s words, but her willingness to contribute. I would have to agree. Even more pointedly, the fact that this is now a public subject of conversation, blessed by a major institution, suggests that perhaps during the coming British elections, which will take place in May but with campaigning beginning in January, image analysis may be discussed in formerly unheard-of ways — and vis-à-vis candidates of any gender. And given that after “Women Fashion Power” closes in London, it may travel to the United States, Asia and Europe, it could potentially play a part in the presidential election here,if Hillary Clinton is a candidate. And that in turn means that it is possible that this political cycle, instead of the usual disingenuous disavowals and fights about whether or not clothes are a legitimate part of spin and manipulation and the fight for higher office, we might actually be able to have a meaningful conversation about how exactly our candidates are attempting to communicate through cloth, and what exactly the subtext is. Trick or treat? *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · October 29 – IA: Sec. Clinton campaigns for Iowa Senate candidate Bruce Braley (Quad-City Times <http://qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/hilary-clinton-to-visit-davenport-on-wednesday/article_2b22a4a8-419e-5804-a2b8-08525879199d.html> ) · October 30 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton honored by The Executive Leadership Foundation (CNN <https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/526777216907354112>) · October 30 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton will speak on ‘The Power of Women’s Economic Participation’ at Georgetown (Georgetown <http://www.georgetown.edu/news/hillary-clinton-international-council-relaunch.html> ) · October 30 – College Park, MD: Sec. Clinton appears at a rally for Maryland gubernatorial candidate Anthony Brown (WaPo <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/hillary-clinton-to-rally-support-for-anthony-brown-at-the-university-of-maryland/2014/10/26/e853aa2e-5c94-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html> ) · November 1 – New Orleans, LA: Sec. Clinton campaigns for Sen. Mary Landrieu (AP <http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/ebd94b58eb1a4424bf7e89c467533964/LA--Senate-Louisiana-Hillary-Clinton/> ) · November 1 – KY: Sec. Clinton campaigns in Northern Kentucky and Lexington with Alison Lundergan Grimes (BuzzFeed <https://twitter.com/rubycramer/status/526828273956032512>) · November 2 – NH: Sec. Clinton appears at a GOTV rally for Gov. Hassan and Sen. Shaheen (AP <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/03fe478acd0344bab983323d3fb353e2/clinton-planning-lengthy-campaign-push-month> ) · December 1 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton keynotes a League of Conservation Voters dinner (Politico <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-green-groups-las-vegas-111430.html?hp=l11> ) · December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)